Perhaps I should modify to say that: "The concept of dictatorship entails ruling without express consent of the people." A dictator who happens to be supported by the majority of the populace but does not hold elections, i.e. does not seek their express consent is still a dictator. But if he then decides to hold elections, and gets elected regularly, he is at that point in time no longer a dictator. For example, it seems to me that George Bush Jr. was arguably a dictator during his first term in office because he had either not obtained the support of the majority of the voters or at least it was not clear that he did. But in the second term he got elected, so shall we say that at that point "The people voted for dictatorship" or that at that point he ceased to be a dictator ? It seems to me that the latter makes sense. "Clearly it is not logically possible to _simultaneously_ consent and to not consent to 'X', and so 'X' cannot be done _simultaneously_ with and also without the consent of the same individual or body. " *I'd say that is pretty clear. "This does not mean it is not logically possible for the same individual or body to consent to an ongoing 'X' at some point and to withdraw their consent at a later point." *That is of course possible, and I already pointed out that at that point the electee would indeed become a dicator. O. Kusturica --- On Mon, 12/6/10, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Monday, December 6, 2010, 2:23 PM --- On Mon, 6/12/10, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It seems to me that the people who voted for "dictatorship" would in effect > be voting for authoritarian government.> As some would say we can have a liberal or benign 'dictator'/unelected government and can have an elected government that is "authoritarian", it might be best to rephrase this:- the people who voted for 'dictatorship' would be voting to elect a government that they could not then elect to remove by vote. This, I suggest, may be foolish of the people but it does not constitute a logical paradox any more than the act of suicide, or making a gift. > The concept of dictatorship entails ruling without the consent of the people,> Again I would suggest a rephrase: a benign dictator might decide that his rule would be with the "consent of the people" [i.e./e.g. the majority], so dictatorship does not entail [necessitate] that rule be without the consent of the people. What it does 'entail' is that the dictator cannot be removed by electoral vote. > which means that the people cannot logically give consent to being ruled >without their consent. As the premise is false, this does not follow from the "concept of dictatorship". Is it true anyway that "the people cannot logically give consent to being ruled without their consent"? If it appears so, it is only because the proposition "the people cannot logically give consent to being ruled without their consent" is unclear: it is unclear, for example, as to whether the first consent is "simultaneous" to "without consent". Clearly it is not logically possible to _simultaneously_ consent and to not consent to 'X', and so 'X' cannot be done _simultaneously_ with and also without the consent of the same individual or body. This does not mean it is not logically possible for the same individual or body to consent to an ongoing 'X' at some point and to withdraw their consent at a later point. Therefore,"giving consent to being ruled without...consent" must mean "giving consent at some point to be ruled thereafter without further consent." To avoid the apparent paradox that what is done "without further consent" has been previously consented to, we need to distinguish the two consents - one is as it were a 'meta-consent' to a "without further consent". This does not give rise to a logical paradox anymore than making a gift: for me to make a valid gift to you I must own the relevant property and consent to make the gift, but having made the gift I no longer own the property and can no longer consent to make a gift of it: the exercise of the power to make a gift of 'x', destroys the power to make a gift of 'x'. Would say more, but must go now. Donal ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html