China Has an Invalid Government

See how easy that was, in this country we actually get to say what we think? Are you old enough to remember the iron curtain? Do you know anyone who survived those regimes, or did you ever travel to a country where your very survival depended on having a diplomatic passport? I'm guessing you simply don't know how oppressive some governments are, you may think you do, but you need to be there to understand what other nations have to endure.

Count your blessings that you live in a democracy. And be patient regarding the citizens who live in nightmarish places. People want their children and families to stay safe, you should study up on dissidents in China and how they have been treated. It may help you understand how huge of an impediment the Chinese Government is, as well as Putin's Russia. But I can't think of anything you can do except label it as illegitimate, but perhaps you have a wiz-bang solution that would restore freedom to the oppressed. If you do, make it your mission. But make sure to do extensive research before you implement your wiz-bang solution.

One more thing to think about, many members know a great deal about these issues, it's up close and personal for some of us. So please remember that this is not an all-night philosophy party for under-grads, and as long as you are thinking out-loud, that's fine. One other thing, if you believe you can state it and make it true, well that's fine also.

GWB was actually elected by the Supreme Court.

glitterbag wrote:

...If you feel strongly that you need to label other country's govts., as valid or invalid.....by all means, so label...

When I see the citizens of a country brutally suppressed, beaten, murdered for disagreeing with their government, when they have no say as to their laws which are imposed on them by force, when they have to keep silent for fear of government retribution.....yup, I'll say that that isn't a valid government.

Do u deem the 3rd Reich to have been a valid government ?

Brandon9000 wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

...If you feel strongly that you need to label other country's govts., as valid or invalid.....by all means, so label...

When I see the citizens of a country brutally suppressed, beaten, murdered for disagreeing with their government, when they have no say as to their laws which are imposed on them by force, when they have to keep silent for fear of government retribution.....yup, I'll say that that isn't a valid government.

You can say that it is a pineapple if you choose. But that will not make it a pineapple.

The government of China is every bit as valid a government as any other valid government on this planet.

It most assuredly is not a democracy in the sense we think a democracy operates...

Do u deem the 3rd Reich to have been a valid government ?

Absolutely...with no question.

The ascension of Hitler and his government to power appears to have been done with total legitimacy...and the stamp of approval of a majority of German voters.

It sucked, big time. The Germans who voted it into being ought to be ashamed of themselves.

But it was a valid government.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

...If you feel strongly that you need to label other country's govts., as valid or invalid.....by all means, so label...

When I see the citizens of a country brutally suppressed, beaten, murdered for disagreeing with their government, when they have no say as to their laws which are imposed on them by force, when they have to keep silent for fear of government retribution.....yup, I'll say that that isn't a valid government.

You can say that it is a pineapple if you choose. But that will not make it a pineapple.

The government of China is every bit as valid a government as any other valid government on this planet.

I guess that's one of those "agree to disagree" things. I think that all valid governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, not the end of a gun. This is just a case of some thugs who have people prisoner.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It most assuredly is not a democracy in the sense we think a democracy operates...

Are you saying that it might be a democracy in some way and that we just can't see it?

I thought that democracy meant a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.

I thought that democracy meant a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I thought that democracy meant a form of government
in which people choose leaders by voting.

We don't. (And actually democracy isn't defined by that.)

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do u deem the 3rd Reich to have been a valid government ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Absolutely...with no question.

The ascension of Hitler and his government to power appears to have been done with total legitimacy...and the stamp of approval of a majority of German voters.

It sucked, big time. The Germans who voted it into being ought to be ashamed of themselves.

But it was a valid government.

OK. I just wanted to see if u discriminated
among totalitarianisms.

The ascension of Hitler and his government to power appears to have been done with total legitimacy...and the stamp of approval of a majority of German voters.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The ascension of Hitler and his government to power appears to have been done with total legitimacy...and the stamp of approval of a majority of German voters.

Not really. The mandates of the Communist Party were cancelled after the election. The NSADAP (and thus Hitler) only could act as they did, because all parties besides the Social Democrats agreed to the Enabling Act of 1933.

If you want to suggest that Hitler's rise to power was illegitimate...make your case.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you want to suggest that Hitler's rise to power was illegitimate...make your case.

It was at least "questionable".

The Communists got nearly 13% of the votes and thus 81 seats in the Reichstag. They didn't get these mandates due to the Reichstag Fire Decree. That is at least very questionable. (But nullo actore nullus iudex)
The "Ermächtigungsgesetz" needed a 2/3 majority in the Reichstag. That was only to be if the Communists weren't there.

But his rise to power was totally within the law...totally legal and legitimate.

The ascension of Hitler and his government to power appears to have been done with total legitimacy...and the stamp of approval of a majority of German voters.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But his rise to power was totally within the law...totally legal and legitimate.

And I totally agree.

I was originally responding to this one of your posts ...

Frank Apisa wrote:

The ascension of Hitler and his government to power appears to have been done with total legitimacy...and the stamp of approval of a majority of German voters.

And there was a stamp of approval of a majority of German voters for that rise.

Are you now going to suggest that a majority did not give its approval?

Frank Apisa wrote:

And there was a stamp of approval of a majority of German voters for that rise.

Are you now going to suggest that a majority did not give its approval?

Yes.
In my humble opinion, 43.9% of voters isn't the majority of votes. (88.74% voter turnout isn't bad - but some hundred thousands of Germans weren't allowed to vote.)