|
hermitt - I think Locke and Hobbes might argue that every state exists as a permissive democracy; the masses are either ruled by their own consent, or they "vote" by revolution. There is certainly no "divine right" being asserted by Kim or Saddam. They rule through the consent of the governed, such consent being granted by the failure to take up arms in protest.
sycamore - the ignorance of the governed makes a compelling case. They certainly do not know the extent of the evil being perpetrated. They cannot, however, fail to know that there are secret police who brutalize political opponents, or that dissenters and their families are raped and killed. It is in Saddam's interest that the fear promolgated by these actions be widespread, therefore I find it hard to believe that he would cover up these incidents. German citizens may not have known about the concentration camps, but they knew about the ghettos, and they know about the brownshirts. Surely they were morally culpable for allowing those evils to be perpetrated.
Undertoad - just revolutions as in morally justified, not as in "simply revolutions". Sorry for the lack of clarity. I tend to obfuscate my ignorance through syntactical bluster. Or, ya know, like, whatever. G2G. bye
-sm
|