Re: From HQrules list

From: Nils Weinander <nils_at_2y02aWGdhsAPT2C-oVe96biSR3MxG_laVhLZYK686DI7l634iindaDF0821iM2pj1xZDsix>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:14:37 +0100

Julian:

>>
>>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.

Certainly looks as if you have.

>>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".

In a democracy it is, in a totalitarian state it isn't. A regime which has taken power with force certainly wields political power, no matter how warlike.

>>>>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).

1. How do you know that.
2. Hard to believe in something you have no idea it exists.

Anyway, you haven't proved in any way that democracy wouldn't work/have worked as well or better.

---

Nils Weinander
We sail on a ship made of dreams