SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rollcast... who wrote (9013)2/18/2003 1:20:40 PM
From: Kenya AA  Respond to of 25898
 
I am defining "sovereign" (the adjective) as legitimately self governing and independent. Apply that definition to the examples

Yes, self-governing and independent, meaning that there is a centralized power that exercises lawmaking and law-enforcing authority within a certain territory. Indisputably, all of your examples (Iraq, NK, Kenya, Chile and SA) were/are self-governing and independent. Since “legitimacy” is not part of any textbook definition of sovereign, it’s obviously the criteria your definition is hinging on. No prob. Legitimacy is achieved when people freely accept and obey those who wield power over them. BTW, the reason it’s not part of the definition is because it’s subjective (e.g. Pinochet seized power via a military coup and a little help from the CIA) and often fleeting. That said, Saddam, Kim, Moi, and the various regimes during apartheid in SA all came to power in ways prescribed by their respective constitutions or other established rules, so their regimes are “legally” legitimate. The policies espoused by those regimes may be abhorrent (e.g. the USA prior to the abolition of slavery), but they do not automatically negate legitimacy.

Perhaps you can arrange to lecture me personally some time on your definition of sovereign?

Just look it up in the dictionary and stop trying to hit on me.

Until then GFY.

Better call your vet. Time for your DHL and rabies booster.