 |
| |
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
A Tyranny (for exmaple in the form of an absolute monarchy) can be legitimate. The notion that legitimacy stems from "the will of the people" is a modern invention, and even then, the "will of the people" was never meant to be unanimous.
Legitimacy is created over time. Merely by existing a regime begins to build legitimacy, which is certainly built at first on fear, fear os social exclusion, fear of reprisal.
Again, you can't discount the fact Government does NOT come into existance out of this air-government builds up form a pre-government existance in which man still lives in social bands. So the grounds of legitimacy are built there, in the social mores of pre-government. Once the concept of government comes into being, then people can argue about the concept that grants legitimacy. |
So what gives? Can you really think that a dictatorship of the majority is legitimate? If we look back at the idea of democracy, it just can't. The idea behind democracy was never the rule of the majority. Following your logic, America imposing its rule on Iraq is democratic. After all, a majority is ruling over a minority. See? Before even talking about legitimacy, one has to acknowledge that a people is a people - that's the first golden rule.
If you think that governments and their legitimacy arise from pre-social bands, fine. But questioning its legitimacy is part of this process too, and that's what we're at in the contemporary world. Basically, you seem to be saying that legitimacy criteria have always been different - and then you try to conclude from this, well, I don't really know, except perhaps that we must take into account a so-called previous legitimacy. In turn, that would mean that the prime criterium of legitimacy, according to you, is tradition. Obviously, a group of humans under the rule of a tyran is not the same as a 'people', who recognizes himself as such. Modern thinking always boild down to something like this. A State is just not a State, unless the power it holds has been willingly delegated, instead of stolen out of fear.
If you think that there's no difference between both, well, the fascist party is waiting for you. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
For me, the issue isn't one of morality, it is of logical consistency, and libertarian principles are more consistent than communism in my opinion. |
Ben, communism is not a political system, it is an economic system. At any rate, a logically consistent argument (i.e. valid argument) is not necessarily a sound argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
I disagree. Where things are open to interpretation, all you need is a means of preventing people from forcing their arbitrary interpretations upon each other, a consensus is probably the worse thing that could happen in that case. |
If so, you are not going to end up with any system at all. No two persons are going to agree on all (political) issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
And the proper term would be amoral, since libertarianism seems to imply room for individual morality, in an emotive or prescriptive sense. |
No, it's immoral because this system enshrines and worships the "right" to private property. Libertarians hold such a right to be absolute, everything else, such as public good, must give way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So what gives? Can you really think that a dictatorship of the majority is legitimate? If we look back at the idea of democracy, it just can't. The idea behind democracy was never the rule of the majority. Following your logic, America imposing its rule on Iraq is democratic. After all, a majority is ruling over a minority. See? Before even talking about legitimacy, one has to acknowledge that a people is a people - that's the first golden rule. |
Of course the idea of democracy was rule of the mayority-that is what the dammed word means! As for your golden rule-the notion of national sovereignty is itself only a few centuries old, not universal. How then can it be a golden rule?
quote:
Obviously, a group of humans under the rule of a tyran is not the same as a 'people', who recognizes himself as such. Modern thinking always boild down to something like this. A State is just not a State, unless the power it holds has been willingly delegated, instead of stolen out of fear. |
False, a state is only a demarcation of territory ruled by a single political structure. The requisite for statehoood is a legitimate monopoly on violence within an area of land.
quote:
If you think that there's no difference between both, well, the fascist party is waiting for you. |
This sort of oversimplification is not helpful or valid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Of course the idea of democracy was rule of the mayority-that is what the dammed word means!
|
It's the rule of the majority over a WILLING minority. Or else it's a tyranny. According to you, anytime a majority rules over a minority, there is a democracy? 
quote:
As for your golden rule-the notion of national sovereignty is itself only a few centuries old, not universal. How then can it be a golden rule? |
Ahem... nationalism has existed since the dawn of humanity. Haven't you heard of the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Assyrians, the Nervians, the Huns?
A human is a social animal, probably by nature. Hence the need to identify himself to a collectivity. At the time of paleolithic roving bands, or of city states, that wasn't hard. It's only with the appearance of empires - those you confuse with legitimate States - that it became a true problem.
quote:
False, a state is only a demarcation of territory ruled by a single political structure. The requisite for statehoood is a legitimate monopoly on violence within an area of land.
|
 We're talking about a legitimate state here. Are you following? There's a word to make that nifty difference you keep banging on, and that's "empire".
The requisite for a legitimate state would be that the monopoly of violence has been delegated by the citizens, not taken by force. We call it 'private organization' vs. a 'public' one.
quote:
This sort of oversimplification is not helpful or valid. |
You seem to be defending the idea that might makes right. While this alone may not apply to make you a fascist, that's a good start. 
It's sad to see how Nietzsche's fanatics like you and Imran can be so ignorant when it comes to political philosophy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
To repeat much of waht imran said
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It's the rule of the majority over a WILLING minority. Or else it's a tyranny. According to you, anytime a majority rules over a minority, there is a democracy? |
Yes. In fact, we are also only mentioning the mayority of CITIZENS. In the first democracy, Athens, the mayority had no rights whatsoever, but since a mayority of citizens got to rule, it was a democracy. IN fact, Even Apartheid South Africa was a a democracy. The fact is democracy =/ liberal universal human rights. Democracy as an idea is 2500 years old and vaslty outdates liberal rights theory.
quote:
Ahem... nationalism has existed since the dawn of humanity. Haven't you heard of the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the Assyrians, the Nervians, the Huns? |
Yes, I have. What you describe is tribalism-which is different from Nationalism.
quote:
A human is a social animal, probably by nature. Hence the need to identify himself to a collectivity. At the time of paleolithic roving bands, or of city states, that wasn't hard. It's only with the appearance of empires - those you confuse with legitimate States - that it became a true problem. |
An Empire is simply a term for a state. The Roman ampire fell apart form the outside, not in. IN fact, people wanted to join the Roman empire, be part of it. Oh, and there is a fundamental difference between a band and a Polis. In fact, any grouping which is so large as to deny you the ability to know everyone is different from one in whcih you can get to know everyone.
quote:
We're talking about a legitimate state here. Are you following? There's a word to make that nifty difference you keep banging on, and that's "empire". |
Empires are as leigitmate as non-empires.
quote:
The requisite for a legitimate state would be that the monopoly of violence has been delegated by the citizens, not taken by force. We call it 'private organization' vs. a 'public' one. |
Wrong. In no state do the citizens "delegate" that power. As Agie said, those today have no inherent right to give away the right of the future people to say no, yet people born into the system have no right to denounce it, unless they get together and overthrow the monopoly of violence.
quote:
You seem to be defending the idea that might makes right. While this alone may not apply to make you a fascist, that's a good start. |
Sorry, but the start of law is always might makes right. There is no law in anarchy, when no one person is powerful enough to make that decision. That you don;t accept that in your liberterian world does not make it false.
quote:
It's sad to see how Nietzsche's fanatics like you and Imran can be so ignorant when it comes to political philosophy. |
 I am sorry, but you got this backwards. Imran and I are the ones who know what the basis of Politics are, and thus are better able to discuss it than someone thinking his theories make the world. Sorry, but the world makes theories.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well yes. That's what true democracy is. One of the definitions of democracy is 'Majority Rule'.
|
Not at all. Majority rule is a result of suffrage and representation, which were caused by the fact that immense states tried to be democratic. In essence, democracy is the rule by consensus. Hence the etymology, 'power of the people'.
It's sad indeed that people have come to believe that democracy=suffrage. That fallacy would be similar to saying that a monachy is a system where the leader gets to screw all the women he wants. That may be a contingent truth, but it has nothing to do with the essence of the system.
quote:
quote:
We're talking about a legitimate state here. |
Yeah, so was he. The only thing that makes a state 'legitimate' is that is if it has control over its own borders.
|
Tell me, by what rule should I obey force? What does make force legitimate? Go study international law if you please, and its absurd rules, but don't soil philosophy with your non-sense. According to you, Stalin was legitimate, but Toussaint L'Ouverture wasn't?
quote:
quote:
The requisite for a legitimate state would be that the monopoly of violence has been delegated by the citizens, not taken by force. |
It is nice that you are making **** up, but this is incredibly false. I'm sorry, but NO ONE considers Saudi Arabia to be an illegitimate state. Legitimate state is simply where you have one that exercises power over the boundaries of the state.
|
An organization that doesn't defend public interest is private, it's not public, it's not fully legitimate. Of course, there are varying degrees to it, as I don't think that Saudi rulers completely ignore the will of the people, and neither has any ruler in history AFAIK.
That's why it can be said for realpolitik reasons that Saudi Arabia is a legitimate state, but such kind of simplifications just don't have their place in a serious argument.
quote:
Liberal political theory may say that in order for a government to have legitimacy it must be by the will of the people but that ain't true, and has been shown historically to not be the case.
|
History absolutely doesn't have anything to do with legitimacy. NOTHING AT ALL. The aim of liberal political theory is to assert true statements, not apply a circular definition of legitimacy (if legitimate is "what there is" - what's the need of the word legitimate then?).
quote:
Do you have any idea what Fascism is?
|
For starters, nazism, the German penchant of fascism, believed that the stronger had the right to subdue the weaker. Thus the purification camps where Jews, retards and homosexuals were exterminated, and the idea that the people of Eastern Europe were made to be slaves of the Aryan race. The ideological aim of WW2 was to use the superior strength of the German race to achieve these goals. In fact, according to you and GePap, the Nazi conquest of Poland was legitimate and democratic because a majority ruled over a minority.
quote:
Actually it is quite the opposite. You have no idea what you are talking about. |
I did try to explain you the difference between political theory and political philosophy in the other thread. Sadly, your ignorance would make you a D student at best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Majority rule is a result of suffrage and representation, which were caused by the fact that immense states tried to be democratic. In essence, democracy is the rule by consensus. Hence the etymology, 'power of the people'. |
Actually, rule of the people. I don't see where that precludes majority rule as democracy? Was ancient Athens not a democracy (even though that's where the word comes from?)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy
Look at Definition 4.
quote:
What does make force legitimate? |
The fact that the person wielding the force has the power to rule and make decisions for the populace.
quote:
According to you, Stalin was legitimate, but Toussaint L'Ouverture wasn't? |
DUH! Only a complete moron would assert that Stalin's government wasn't a legitmate government. I bet the millions of Russians could tell you that it was, because they felt the whip of Stalin for that many years.
quote:
An organization that doesn't defend public interest is private, it's not public, it's not fully legitimate. |
Bullshit. An organization that controls the state is legitimate state authority no matter what interest it defends.
quote:
History absolutely doesn't have anything to do with legitimacy. NOTHING AT ALL. |
Are you really that dense? History has plenty to do with legitimacy. History has created the borders, history has created the governments. Without history no country in the world has any legitimacy.
quote:
if legitimate is "what there is" - what's the need of the word legitimate then? |
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legitimate
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.
Seems that it means "what there is" (1, 2, & 5) to me.
quote:
For starters, nazism, the German penchant of fascism, believed that the stronger had the right to subdue the weaker. |
Actually Fascism is a system which believes in centrality of the nation under an all-powerful government. Naziism, which is a corruption of fascism may have thought the stronger had the right to subdue the weaker, but they didn't really believe it because then they would have said the French and Russians had the right to subdue the Germans after WW1. The racism in German fascism wasn't shared in every brand of fascism.
quote:
I did try to explain you the difference between political theory and political philosophy in the other thread. |
Aside from the fact that there really is no difference?
quote:
Sadly, your ignorance would make you a D student at best. |
I graduated with a Bachelor of the Arts in Political Science, with honors. What do you have?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
It is not circular is you realize there is a starting point. There is a time before law, before legitimacy. IN fact, law and legitimacy grow hand in hand. This all happened several thousands of years ago. Since then were are only working within a system already. Unless you think language springs from nowhere ready-made. |
Errr... there has always been laws, from the point individuals live together. Your answer doesn't solve the problem though; what made the first law legitimate?
Even Hobbes believed that the Leviathan can only be chosen by consent. From there, consent has always played some part when philosophers tried to define the legitimacy of a social contract.
According to you, the word 'legitimate' itself has originated from the idea of a state? That's probably true; through time, someone who had imposed his sovereignty had his people believe that something can only be legitimate (a moral statement) when it originates from a state (and thus was created the gods-sanctioned monarchy).
When Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and the likes question the exact meaning of the word legitimacy, you obviously cannot oppose them that the meaning is already 'fixed'. They are trying to define the validity of a moral statement, for Christ's sake!
You still have not answered one my question. Why is it that sometimes the rule of the majority isn't democratic? If you say it always is (which I hope you won't), I suggest you write an essay about the legitimacy of the invasion of Denmark by Germany, or the occupation of Korea by Japan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
Spiffor - quote:
Huh? We all desire to be sodomized? Must tell that to Ben Kenobi and Park Avenue More seriously, this sentence was not aimed at being bulletproof, but at showing a point: all of us (implied: intelligent polytubbies that are not completely bigoted) agree that sodomy should be legal. I never meant the absolute unanimity of the world felt so. Quite the contrary actually, if you look at the backward countries. |
You said there are some things we all agree should be illegal and some things we don't agree on, the former is a universal desire. Like I said, no one wants to be murdered (don't add caveats to create incentives to be murdered), so we all can agree that murder should be illegal. Even murderers don't want to be murdered...
quote:
Which is different with everyone agreeing it's the right thing to do. |
Yes, but you still require unaminity out the outset. Therefore I understood you quite well...
quote:
So, the only difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is the extent to which the State intrudes in personal freedoms. So basically, the libertarians would enjoy living in a democratic system, if they were ensured a satisfying set of freedoms would be left untouched for eternity. |
Yup, restrict what the majority can do. But democracies don't have those restrictions even when they start out with them via a written constitution. Written documents can be ignored, "re-interpreted", or amended.
quote:
Of course I prefer my own to that of the majority's. And I prefer my own to yours, miles away |
So we're back to my question, why criticize me for favoring my morality over the majority's when you do the same thing?
quote:
I dislike forcing people to my beliefs. Hence, for my system to be more moral than majority rule, it'd have to be approved by the majority |
Which is majority rule, so how can it be more moral than majority rule? What about those who don't want your system? You're imposing your system on them...
quote:
Does it mean the victim of any other offense, that doesn't leave them dead, has the moral authority of retribution? |
Yes, just as they had the right of self-defense. If I try to murder you and I fail because you killed me in self-defense, then why should I be rewarded if I succeed and you fail in your defense? That's what happens if I'm not put to death for murdering you, I'm rewarded for being successful in killing you.
quote:
Say, if I am a victim of theft, should I be the one who decides the punishment for the thief? |
In the absence of a state, yes. But with a state in existence we transfer your moral authority to the state.
quote:
What prevents me from deciding to quarter the little punk who stole my watch? |
The moral concept of action and reaction (an eye for an eye comes to mind). If I accidently drive into your fence, morality dictates appropriate compensation and in obedience of morality we seek that appropriate compensation.
quote:
Well, that wasn't my intention when entering this thread, but if you really wish...
I don't hold freedom for being an absolute good, something where we should be maximalist. Freedom is good, until the strong exploits the weak. In this regard I live by the word of Lacordaire: "Between the strong and the weak, it is freedom which oppresses and law which liberates". |
Be specific about what constitutes "exploitation".
quote:
Your own system is full of limitations of the freedom to be a criminal, your own system acknwoledges there is no freedom to kill, to rape, to cannibalize etc. Which is good. |
Not true, freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action...murder and rape are constraints on choice or action, therefore they fail to meet the requirements of freedom.
quote:
However, your system strongly lacks such protection in economic matters, and this is by far my main beef with it. A libertarian boss can exploit his workforce however he wants, because "they signed the contract" - the Libs seem to refuse to acknowledge that in their system, many workers have no choice but work for exploitative bosses or die of starvation... |
If you don't want to work for someone, don't work for them. That isn't exploitation and it isn't the fault of employers that you need to eat, therefore they aren't exploiting you... Nature "exploits" us...
quote:
That's like saying a victim of rape has a choice between being raped or killed by the knife of the rapist. |
So if I refuse to pay what you want to be paid, I'm like a rapist? C'mon!
quote:
Besides, the absolute lack of welfare, and (in the floydist version of libertarianism, I don't know if you share this aspect with him) of public education, just forces the poor to accept whatever crap they find for their mere survival, without a chance to ensure a future for them or their children. |
Welfare creates dependency and seeks to replace fathers with the state thereby driving up out of wedlock birthrates...and we can see what a disaster that has been on poverty rates. But my needs do not create for me a right to take what belongs to others. As for education, one wonders how mankind got by before government schools, but is it just a coincidence that the cost of education has skyrocketed as the state subsidises education more and more? If the state wasn't taking so much of our money, people could more readily afford private educations for their children and the big hearted people like yourself could subsidise the educations of the poorest people and still have plenty left over before reaching what the state takes.
quote:
I happen to agree with Libertarians on most issues regarding personal freedoms, because personal freedoms very rarely imply a relation between the strong and the weak. |
Yes, I constantly hear liberals and conservatives say they are "libertarian" on this or that issue, but freedom is not a commodity that can be consumed by nibbling here or there. Either you believe in freedom or you don't. Even Hitler "believed" in freedom on some issues...
quote:
But I disagree with Libertarians on all economic matters I can think of. The basic flaw of libertarianism is the belief that people have agreed to be exploited. |
You call it exploitation, I don't. Someone wants to give me money in exchange for my time/labor? Great! That's how I can transform time into things I want like cars and TV's made by other people's labor.
quote:
You speak about caveats, and this is a big one: people only agree to cope up with bad working conditions (and now doubt the working conditions would be worse in libertarianism than what we have today, since there would be no regulation), because they are pressed by their survival to do so. That's a caveat if I ever saw one - and it isn't a mental disorder, it is the norm for everybody that is expandable. |
So that's a caveat, what does it have to do with universal desires? All you've shown is that working in horrible conditions is not a universal desire. Consider where all those poor 3rd worlders would be without "sweat shops". I suggest you look at how ancient people's lived before decrying the advancements libertarian style economics brought the world.
quote:
Yes, libertarianism will starve and exploit the poor in a fashion similar to 19th century Europe, or modern-day very backward countries. |
19th century Europe was run by monarchs and caste systems like they had in England. Libertarianism took hold in the USA and helped create the greatest country the world has ever seen.
quote:
That's because the bosses will be free to do whatever they want with their expandable employees, who'll have no choice but to cope with that, or to die of starvation. |
Where has this ever happened without the state lurking in the background?
quote:
And Libertarians will say "See? The employees agree! They are free to leave the company!" |
And start there own businesses, or seek other employers who have an incentive to create better conditions in order to attract better employees, or lobby their current employer. It's no coincidence that the worker revolts here in the US resulted from the creation of corporations and political machines like New York's Taminy Hall and Chicago, not the prior more libertarian decades. These abuses people generally think of as you have accompanied the rise of political power and the decline of libertarianism. So don't blame the results of the increasing concentration of power on libertarianism.
quote:
This is horribly immoral in my book. And this is why, should the Libs ever pose a threat to take power, I'd consider libertarians my political enemies (on par with fascists) rather than my political opponents: because their system would destroy the very fabric of our society, because their system would disband everything that separates our civilization from the Jungle's law. |
The irony is that while you complain about tyrants, you share their worldview, you want to dictate how others live their lives too. Any benevolence you have doesn't change that reality...
quote:
Wouldn't "free practice of religion" give an allowance to do whatever you want if you disguise under religious belief? Say my religion requires me to kill libertarians, would it be ok to practice my religion freely? |
I've already addressed your misconceptions about the meaning of freedom. The absence of coercion or constraint is required for freedom to exist, murder is a constraint.
quote:
I happen to disagree on the ban on polygamy (or at least on the reasons leading to it). But since there should be no absolute freedom af action (no freedom of murder, rape etc.), there should be no absolute freedom of religious action or political action or whatever, for the same reason there should be no absolute freedom of "generic" action. |
Where in the definition of freedom have you found the word "absolute"? I'd like to know because I constantly hear that word tossed in as if there are multiple meanings for freedom including "absolute" freedom and "partial" or "occasional" freedom. What does the absence of the word "absolute" in the definition tell you?
It tells me to look closely at the definition to see what parameters may be there to advise us on whether or not murder qualifies as an act of freedom.
Imran - quote:
In a definition of religion, nowhere does it say 'chose to be a certain religion', does that mean you can't chose to be part of a religion? Piss poor argument from you. |
Religion is an idea, it wouldn't explain how one goes about joining a religion. Do you see the word "bound" in that definition? Why not? For the reason I just gave you. But we do see the word "bound" in the definition of slavery. Why? Because slavery is not just an idea, it's also an action - and a slave is "bound" into slavery by another.
quote:
If you read the Golden Rule, that's literally what results. |
Is that really what you got from the GR? Then I suggest you do a bit more reading to see what context Jesus provided.
quote:
What are the limits? Obvious it isn't do unto others what you would have others do unto you, because you've just said that some things are out of bounds. Therefore your governance ISN'T based on the Golden Rule, but one something else, which binds the Golden Rule to certain specific instances. |
No Imran, I understand that the GR exists in a context and that context further explains for the incredibly dense and contrarians how it is to be interpreted. Sorry, I shouldn't have given you that much credit, you're studying to be a pharisee.
quote:
Actually the common practice to get around it is designate the land for public use when taking it. |
No, the common practice nowadays is to regulate what can or can't be done with the land thereby nullifying the owners ability to use the land as he chooses. Actual takings are much more rare than the employment of regulations, just consider "wetlands" regulations and how they stymie development or how "historical landmark" regulations are used to prevent people from improving or removing old structures on their property.
No, here is what appears in Webster's New Collegiate:
War - a state of hostility, conflict, or antogonism; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.
It doesn't require that a state be a participant in a war nor does there have to be any organisation.
quote:
Are they charged with 'murder' or 'crimes against humanity'? |
Murder is a crime, Saddam is guilty of murder on a massive scale. When the number of crimes are too numerous to briefly describe they are called "crimes against humanity". You watch Fox, haven't you heard about Saddam's "rape rooms"? Rape is a crime... But obviously legal for certain people in the Iraqi government - another crime against humanity.
quote:
The state CAN commit crimes if it violates international law which is above state law. And the US doesn't have to sign onto international law (in fact in most cases you don't SIGN anything... a lot of times its custom), the other states will designate what the international law is from their actions over the period of years of history and it will be judged binding on any state. |
The US has refused to sign onto a variety of international laws when Congress saw it against our interest.
quote:
To use your favorite Nazi example, the Nuremburg trials were the assertion of a new international law on a country which had rejected it. Though it kind of helped in the implimentation that the Germans had been utterly destroyed in the war. |
Germany as a nation-state had ceased to exist by that time and the US didn't need any international law to defend itself or prosecute the Nazis. Tell me Imran, how do international laws get made? By countries party to the agreement. What if France, Germany and Russia agree to a law that says the US must cut car emissions in half, is the US bound by that law? Of course not...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2004 20:55
Attachment: 
|
