DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**GaryBulguihb** · 08-29-2012, 10:31 PM

You're confusing an entangling set of hypothetical circumstances with the underlying principle of consent of the governed.

There is no reason why some compromise regarding the shared propery of the resevoir can't be reached as many sovereign countries have treaties with other countries, e.g., military bases like Fort Sumter.

Not all that hypothetical. Think of that staple of western movie plots: the range war, generally fought over grazing or water rights. You could even make a good argument that the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict has a hefty dose of resource possession mixed in, and there's a situation where compromise is in pretty short supply on both sides. That said I take your point. The problem is that life isn't as simple as being one overiding principle being paramount with all others being subordinate to it. Generally it's a conflicting mass of competing claims, rights, demands , principles and so on - it's a juggling act.

Slavery does not invaldate the principal of consent of the governed. Slaves were involved in EVERY scenario presented. True enough, it doesn't invalidate the principal of consent of the governed. What it does mean is that those who invoke said principle for themselves whilst refusing to grant it to others are pretty hypocritical, and since they don't really believe in it ( else they wouldn't own slaves ) aren't in a position to complain when they themselves are on the rough end of the equation.

08-29-2012, 10:31 PM	#26
GaryBulguihb Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 402 Senior Member	You're confusing an entangling set of hypothetical circumstances with the underlying principle of consent of the governed. There is no reason why some compromise regarding the shared propery of the resevoir can't be reached as many sovereign countries have treaties with other countries, e.g., military bases like Fort Sumter. Not all that hypothetical. Think of that staple of western movie plots: the range war, generally fought over grazing or water rights. You could even make a good argument that the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict has a hefty dose of resource possession mixed in, and there's a situation where compromise is in pretty short supply on both sides. That said I take your point. The problem is that life isn't as simple as being one overiding principle being paramount with all others being subordinate to it. Generally it's a conflicting mass of competing claims, rights, demands , principles and so on - it's a juggling act. Slavery does not invaldate the principal of consent of the governed. Slaves were involved in EVERY scenario presented. True enough, it doesn't invalidate the principal of consent of the governed. What it does mean is that those who invoke said principle for themselves whilst refusing to grant it to others are pretty hypocritical, and since they don't really believe in it ( else they wouldn't own slaves ) aren't in a position to complain when they themselves are on the rough end of the equation.
	Quote