On Monday 01 September 2014 07:01 PM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > No, I cannot, and neither can I cite the relevant section of Indian law > that gave the Pakistani Army the rights to be in Kashmir. A State is > "Sovereign", it gets its authority from itself, not from its neighbours.
We can agree to disagree here. For me, a state gets its power from
constitution, which is a contract between the citizen and the state.
"You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your
rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they
follow the rules: laws and constitution."
> To quote Elizabeth I: Must is not a word to be used to princes!
So who is the prince here? I thought India was a democracy.
>
> I did not know this too. I thought states are restricted by
> constitution, a contract between the citizen or state.
>
>
> That is seen these days as a rather extreme view, for example by the Tea
> Party in the US, or Hobbes in the 1600's. I agree with you that a
> Constitution is what the people have granted the Government of a State,
> and the Constitution defines the State (which is why, as in France, each
> time the Constitution was overhauled, the State changed name ("The Fifth
> Republic").
I did not know it was an extreme view. I would be happy to hear from
other members if they also think it is an extreme view.
I agree it is a minority view or ideal view but I don't think it is extreme.
> (BTW, may I recommend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29
> ). You should be able to get an online copy.
thanks, I will read it sometime.
> However, in effect, how are we going to enforce this contract?
We have power to change the government, at least in theory.
> Another, tangential issue: My grandfather may have consented to the
> Constitution of India, but no one has ever asked me :-) What about _my_
> consent?
You have given the right to change it if you don't agree to it. Not
directly, but through a representative system. We have made many changes
to the constitution since it was adopted.
> Or are you saying
> might is right? Then why are we even having the debate? These crackers
> had the might to break and take personal photos.
>
>
> I am NOT saying Might is Right. I am saying that once we have a State,
> the difference comes down to: In what conditions, and with what
> controls, can the State do something it forbids its Citizens to do?
> This question goes to the heart of what type of Government we want. I
> shifted to Singapore because it has a different answer to this question
> (different, not better), which I was happier with.
But what you say amounts to that. If you don't think constitution has no
value, the state decides for its own. It just means might is right.
> Me asking you for 10% of your profits, or else, is forbidden. The State
> asking you for 10% is allowed. What is Right cannot be discussed,
> because the State defines what is Right.
The difference is, state is a representative of the the society. The
motto of Boston tea party was, "no taxation without representation".
So you are allowed to change how much percent of taxes are taken from you.
> I am not sure why you think I am saying the crackers had the right, or
> might, to take these photos.
Because you said state derived its rights from their might. So if state
can, why not the crackers too?
> It gives a perspective into the scale of loss and sometimes helps to
> such perspectives allow us to channel our angers at the bigger issues.
>
>
> Yes, I agree with you completely. I am not clear why the NSA has to be
> dragged in. As I said, your sorrrow does not lessen because the NSA did
> stuff that was legal or otherwise.
>
Because we are talking about privacy, and whole-scale surveillance is a
bigger violation of privacy and threat to democracy itself.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
