Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (6239)	11/16/2000 1:34:10 AM
From: quasar_1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Consent of the Governed... It's not at all clear to me that there is any particular reason why anarchy would reign. An armed insurrection against the US government would be a repudiation of the political authority of the elected government, would embody political disorder and confusion, and would abrogate the common democratic standard of majority rule through law. This is the textbook definition of anarchy. What makes what you envision different from the American Revolution? The American Revolution involved an emigration of a people to a new world. These immigrants defined themselves as a free people with common political institutions and a consent to freely elected democratic government. The political institutions as defined in the Constitution were not tolerant of armed revolt against the state. Political and individual disputes were settled by the rule of law backed by Constitutional authority—the authority we as citizens consent to freely. In essence, armed physical revolt against the majority freely elected government by its citizens dissolves the very fabric of the democracy. It negates the contract of the Constitution. Thanks for your question. Q