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

To: zonder who wrote (19607)	3/12/2003 2:13:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

And you point is...? Uh.. the point was, that your "international law" is nothing more than mutually binding agreements that certain nations CHOOSE to abide by.. including the recognition of foreign governments. Taiwan has two nations recognizing its government.. Shouldn't international law compel the rest of the world to do the same, or to force de-recognition?? And considering that some 30 states, almost 1/5 of the world, has stated that they support the disarming, and ouster, of Saddam... No. I am telling you what a 10-year old could, Then let's cut the crap here Zonder.. Governments recognize others as legitimate because THEY WANT TO. There is NO international law that states that legitimacy must be given after meeting "such and such" conditions.. Thus, it follows logically that withdrawing legitimacy from a government is within any government's perogative. This is the "form", based upon arbitrary decisions, not the "substance" which defines the criteria that most rational people use to determine what constitutes a substantive legitimacy.. And that's what I am talking about.. and always have been. We can grant legitimacy to a state, but abhor the current government and refuse to recognize it. Likewise, we can grant legitimacy to a government without a state (Palestine, governments in exile.. etc). That means I can rationally state that Saddam's government is illegitimate. Why?? Because I can.. I make the rules as to what constitutes legitimacy and illegitimacy of a particular government, JUST AS INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENTS DO THE SAME BETWEEN ONE ANOTHER (I recognize you, if you recognize me).. You want to play "semantics" and expect someone to find a Webster's definition for legitimate, and you'll it defined in several ways, one of which is HOW I DEFINE IT: 3. in accordance with reason or logic "a logical conclusion" Synonyms: logical Because the whole basis and theory of civilized government is founded on some kind of rational logic, whereas uncivilized government is based upon natural selection.. And since, as civilized people, we have declared so many other uncivilized activities (such as murder, rape, theft, and imperialism to be illegitimate, why do you feel that civilized people must abide by an uncivilized definition of "legitimate" only acknowleged as existing by political natural selection?? To continue treating despotic regimes as "legitimate" is to base international law on two separate, and fundamentally opposed, defintions of what the word actually means. Hawk