>>Every type of government's ability to rule is based on force. In a democracy it is presumably force supported by the majority but you will never get universal consent, and sometimes you don't even get a majority (you might get a plurality, or you might get a strong special interest imposing its vision over a less active or powerful majority). Even when you get 99% you impose the decision by force over the other 1%.
In any country with an active revolution, civil war, or insurgency the force will have to be a more open part of the equation, it will be applied more often, on a larger scale, and in more obvious ways, but that doesn't mean democratic governments are based on force.<<
Tim -
Sorry, but this just strikes me as a grossly distorted world view. The fact that you believe it's true explains a lot of your other beliefs. As if the people on the losing side of any election only go along with the results because they fear arrest or something if they don't. Isn't it just that everybody agrees that we're going to hold an election, and that whoever gets the most vote wins? (The 2000 election was an exception, due to the vagaries of the archaic Electoral College.) So when the election's over, the losers just start planning for the next one, rather than planning a revolution.
Look at a place like Sweden, a neutral country with a vestigial army. Is it really force that keeps that country from sliding into anarchy or revolution? There are lots of other examples.
It's becoming clear that we don't have much of a basis for discussion, being as we can't even agree on the definition of a free Democracy.
- Allen |
