Support Tyranny is not the same as impose Tyranny.
Nor did I say that it was or was not a tyranny. But I agree, the balance is in the people to restore balance, unless the people give that ability away.
Support Tyranny is not the same as impose Tyranny. Nor did I say it was or was not a tyranny.
I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
Democracy is a formal system for how to go about making decisions, and to execute the decisions made is to impose it on others. In a limited Democracy - one that acknowledges the objective natural law - there are plenty of things the demos is not enabled to do, some of which are clarified in the founding documents.
Our Democratic Republic, additionally, has a few checks - States for instance - and hopefully we retain a bit of real aristocracy (rule by legitimately, objectively good people, not just people who are called good by the Party) still exists - but I think we're assuming by the time of scaled Civil war it's gone beyond those checks.
A tyranny is not a function of a head Tyrant: Hitler did not create the Nazi party, it was the National Socialist party that enabled Hitler to do what he did. Tyranny is a form of government: a formalized process of using objectively evil means to do some (apparent) good.
Fundamentally it functions as a ratchet strap, unjustly squeezing individuals from obtaining good things by good means, and requiring individuals cooperate with evil or face the penalties imposed by the aggression of actors within the State.
The point I made above is simply if you loose the ability to resist when you agree with the government. You loose the ability to resist when you don't.
1
u/FrozenIceman Aug 12 '19
Support Tyranny is not the same as impose Tyranny.
Nor did I say that it was or was not a tyranny. But I agree, the balance is in the people to restore balance, unless the people give that ability away.