Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 04:33:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3714 times
|
| |
|
|
> This should read "wasn't legitimate" rather than was. That is, the UN hardly
> ever says anything bad about a government's legitimacy, compared to the number
> of coups. So the UN seems to see coups as (at least defacto) an OK way to change
> governments. Or so it would seem. Just about every government out there, even
> ones that almost anyone would agree were imposed without any choice by the
> citizenry, seems to have a seat there, after all.
This is an interesting point.
But then, I'm begining to really question democracy as the most effective way of
ruling a people. Sometimes coups occur because the masses make the wrong
decision (ie, Musharraf taking over Pakistan to keep it from the Fundies [1]) -
in which case, the coup is for the greater good.
But still.. UN, and international law in general, seems to sway between the need
for a strong, planet-wide centralized meta-government and the fear of the loss
of national sovereignity.
It would be interesting if the UN had the power (or rather, the job) to declare
gov'ts legitimate or not.
-Lenny
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
