It's fascinating to watch some posters here edge ever closer to some sort of declaration that dictators have an inherent and inalienable right to oppress people.
There's also a blind eye turned to the fairly consistent assertion that--if in fact a nation does have rights--it's only the case if the nation's citizens have a meaningful voice:
It accords with our principles to acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation substantially declared...
Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1792. ME 8:437
Did the Baath Party ever receive a real mandate from the people? (Remember, a ballot with a single name on it is probably not part of a fair election.)
And from Rousseau's 18th century meanderings:
Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power...
Saddam wasn't much into sharing though, was he?
Does the regime of a tyrannical dictator, having never received a popular mandate to govern and without any inclination to allow the citizens a say in their own destiny, really have any right to lord over a nation?
Current Events » in reply to The Left discovers "national sovereignity."
re: The Left discovers "national sovereignity."
The whole thread (43 posts)
- The Left discovers "national sovereignity."
- re: The Left discovers "national sovereignity."
- re: national sovereignity.
- re: The Left discovers "national sovereignity."
- Gee, Tom...
- The Right can go to hell.
- I didn't seem to hear much about it when the Communists were subverting governments all over the world.Then the liberal battle cry was "The rights of the people". (n/t)
- re: The Left discovers "national sovereignity."
