Re: [OpenHeroQuest] Re: From HQrules list

From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_Ivr6AWwF3L_KDwdg9L0XCZ-3Bcni2pCkbgqFHUD-5pZhBd3vfXGXPkNDzpqHYtHaqhkufn>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:32:04 +0100

Nils :

> >>Claiming that
> >>there is tacit consent is a cowardly way of sneaking
> >>out of the responsibility to oppose totalitarian rulers,
> >>regardless of their -ism.
> >
> >
> > It may have been better expressed in reverse :
> > there is no political power withouth the consent, implicit or explicit,
> > of the people.
> Rubbish. Equating forced submission to overwhelming violent
> force with tacit consent is a fallacy, and an insult to the
> oppressed.

Certainly, but I have never made any such equation.

> 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.

War is, implicitly, an absence of political power.

More broadly, I find it rather curious that you appear to be arguing *against* the suggestion that political power is derived from the will of the "people".

> >>>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.
> >
> > Theocracy. Vatican.
> >
> > Venice during the Renaissance.
> >
> > et cetera ad nauseam ...
> And now tell us why democracy wouldn't work/have worked as
> well or better.

Because the constituents don't/didn't believe in the basic tenets of democracy (as currently defined).

Consent and belief are bedfellows.


Powered by hypermail