02-21-2006, 08:40 AM
The Dominion of BigRedCatFeb 19 2006, 07:37 PM Jonquiere-TadoussacFeb 20 2006, 02:20 AM Quote: Personal sovereignty is lent to the state via social contract. [/quote]
This is highly debatable. The social contract theory has a lot of holes, and besides, there are many forms of it. I do not believe that this is a viable reason to infringe on personal sovereignty. [/quote]
Aside from force, how else do govenments derive authority but by the consent of the governed? [/quote]
Apathy. How many people actually make an effort to change their governments? No, this doesn't really derive consent, but most of that which is considered acceptance is apathy. Why do you think so many young people don't vote.
I also wouldn't rule out the use of force even in a liberal democracy. In any developed country, if you try to change the government (even an unjust one) through methods outside the current system, you become a traitor. They use force to hold down rebellions, even though countries such as France and the US became liberal democracies through rebellions.
Again, I admit this is tangental to the issue at hand, and I apologise if anyone feels I've wasted their time with this. I just feel that the social contract is an invalid and nonexistant model, created by philosophers as an abstract device, but having no bearing on the way societies are really organised.
This is highly debatable. The social contract theory has a lot of holes, and besides, there are many forms of it. I do not believe that this is a viable reason to infringe on personal sovereignty. [/quote]
Aside from force, how else do govenments derive authority but by the consent of the governed? [/quote]
Apathy. How many people actually make an effort to change their governments? No, this doesn't really derive consent, but most of that which is considered acceptance is apathy. Why do you think so many young people don't vote.
I also wouldn't rule out the use of force even in a liberal democracy. In any developed country, if you try to change the government (even an unjust one) through methods outside the current system, you become a traitor. They use force to hold down rebellions, even though countries such as France and the US became liberal democracies through rebellions.
Again, I admit this is tangental to the issue at hand, and I apologise if anyone feels I've wasted their time with this. I just feel that the social contract is an invalid and nonexistant model, created by philosophers as an abstract device, but having no bearing on the way societies are really organised.