[CS-FSLUG] NI: THINKING PAPER

[David Aikema]

On 8/10/05, dmc <edoc7 at verizon.net> wrote:
> > What does it mean to "uphold a nation" - does it mean to agree with
> > all decisions made by its current political leadership?  I'd certainly
> > hope not (eg. the rise of Hitler in Germany - he was appointed to
> > power by President Hindenberg)
> 
> It means that in a time of war one either supports his/her country
> or leaves and joins another country.
> 
> The Hitler example is improper because he seized power illegitimately

When Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg, the
Nazis were the largest single party in the German Reichstag (although
not a majority).  Hitler did come into office with a criminal record
(tax evasion, and had served jail time for an attempted takeover in
Munich in 1924 amongst other things).

I'll agree that the Enabling Act, which formally gave Hitler powers of
dictatorship, was illegitimate as the Communists were first physically
removed from the Reichstag prior to the vote, but at the same time the
constitution for the German Weimar Republic did allow for substantial
use of "rule by decree".  While I agree from the time of the Enabling
Act and beyond, the Nazi government was illegitimate, up until that
time Hitler had ascended to the postiion of Chancellor in what appears
to have been in a legitimate fashion, and in such a position he might
have been able to still establish control using the provisions for
rule by decree contained in the constitution of the German Weimar
Republic.

> The USA has never in modern history engaged in any war for imperialistic
> purposes 

Not all would agree with such a statement.

> (had we been imperialistic we'd directly control Europe,
> Japan, and other sections of the world).

If you can control events in there through other means (economic
dominance for example), then there's the whole notion of informal
imperialism.  An informal empire is a whole lot cheaper than a formal
one.

There was for example the Soviet suggestion that the 1947 Marshall
plan was imperialistic, as it required "economic cooperation" from all
countries that aid was offered to.  (I'm not really over taken in by
this particular argument though)

> It means that one does not commit functional acts of sedition or
> treason.

So, why is the United States now independent of Britain?

> that national leadership often has more information than the average
> ignorant peasant about matters of national security.

A very good point to make.

Consider that support for this argument comes also from people like
Richard Clarke - counter-terrorism advisor to several successive US
presidents including GWB.  It's very hard to argue that he didn't have
a good grasp of what was going on.

> It means that God places or permits people into leadership and
> unless asked to act in ways directly disobedient to the Word of
> God we are commanded by God to submit to their authority.
> 
> "Render unto Caesar ..."

I'll agree that criminal acts are crossing the line, but I see no
inherent problem with even some very strong criticism of a leader's
action (although only if such criticism can be justified through a
look at the evidence - as you argued later).  In fact, as power is
conceptually drawn from the people in republics and democracies,
theres an argument out that might label this part of a citizen's
responsibility.  I think that some of the attacks on the legitimacy of
the George W. Bush have gone too far though.

David