>>Claiming that >>there is tacit consent is a cowardly way of sneaking >>out of the responsibility to oppose totalitarian rulers, >>regardless of their -ism.
Rubbish. Equating forced submission to overwhelming violent force with tacit consent is a fallacy, and an insult to the oppressed.
You can make a case that a totalitarian (fascist, communist, whatever-ist) regime has the tacit consent of the people of their own country and it _may_ be true (usually not though), but when said regime crosses the border and occupies the neighbour, the people their don't give their consent, openly or tacitly.
>>>Democracy isn't necessarily the best system >>>for one and all. >> >>The challenge then is for you to name one case where a >>non-democratic government is better.
And now tell us why democracy wouldn't work/have worked as well or better.
Powered by hypermail