[Discuss] An observation

[Ethan Lee Vita]

On 6/8/07, Samuel Knowlton <sam at iamsam.org> wrote:
>
> >> As ridiculous as it is, it is essentially true. You are using
> annotation
> >> in your definition of consent. They may not willingly consent, but by
> >> doing nothing, they do consent de facto.
>
> It is ridiculous because the cited political theory -- popular sovereignty
> (again, a late 17th century idea) -- is centered on the notion of "consent
> of the governed."
>
> Whether or not serfs, who had no means to successfully oppose noble rule
> for
> the majority of the middle ages, tacitly "consent" to their status on
> account of choosing that over certain death has no bearing on whether
> popular sovereignty was present in the middle ages -- a question that has
> nothing to do with anything I'm talking about and that is absurd besides.
> It
> would be harder to find a time in history where popular sovereignty is
> less
> present.
>
> Popular sovereignty is an active philosophy that requires active choice
> and
> participation. The question of what, exactly, entails consent to
> government
> is academic, irrelevant, and beyond the scope of both my original post and
> the entire point of this thread. It is mis-applied to this topic and
> serves
> no other purpose but to disguise an IC justification for present game
> mechanics  in the trappings of historical theory.


I was never arguing for popular sovereignty and you are correct that it
didn't exist until the 1600's (though I'd probably mid, not late 17th
century myself...) But the fact remains, that they did consent through doing
nothing. Though, in their position and the success rate of peasant
rebellion, I would have probably unwillingly consented too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070608/ff936325/attachment.htm