Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: "Majority" rule Message-ID: <1145@dciem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 16:29:47 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1145 Posted: Wed Oct 17 16:29:47 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 18:50:26 EDT References: <2739@ucbcad.UUCP> Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 30 ================== I think there is a basic point that needs to be made here -- we need to have a government that has certain powers (to tax the people, to raise an army, etc). In a situation where there is no government, or a weak one, there is a vacuum of power, and you need only look at Lebanon, El Salvador, etc to see what happens when nobody has a predominance of power. You get a situation where everybody is struggling to get power over everybody else, and the one who wins will be the strongest, nastiest, and most oppressive. One of the points of having a government is to make sure that there is enough power concentrated in one body that other groups who want to gain power over people will be prevented from succeeding. ================== A point that needs no further support, but it is so important and rarely mentioned that it seemed worthwhile reporting it. It is, in fact, one of the main public rationales for the existence of the Canadian Armed Forces ... if we didn't occupy our North militarily, the US would occupy the vacuum, and then we would have no Canada. They wouldn't do it from a wish to take over Canada, but to see that the Russians didn't occupy the area. No-one would be willing to believe that everyone could be trusted to leave the area alone, because it is so sensitive in this era of ICBMs. (Of course, there are lots of other reasons for having a Canadian Armed Forces, but that's one of them.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt