> >>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
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