Originally Posted by The_Bear

Right, and by virtue of their ability to actively oppose the Vichy regime, and for this opposition to matter, this showed that the Vichy regime was not the sovereign for france - or, whoever controlled the Vichy regime.
I never said that the Vichy regime was sovereign.

I could say all that I want about how the Federal Government is an illegitimate government, how it has lost the moral authority it has ever had and thus 'its not my government'. However, it still comes down to this: the Federal government makes the rules, it governs to a large extent the actions, and if domestic insurrection rises up for whatever reason, it has the ability to stop that domestic insurrection by virtue of its force.

As to your last point, that the nation of france under my premise

well that's simply false. Firstly, we see that the Vichy people were French and not German; this shows us that despite the fact the Vichy government may have been beholden to the interests of the German government, it ruled over a fundamentally different area than the German government did. It ruled over France, not Germany. So, it was always going to be separate, at least in name, which is enough to maintain separate identities.

Secondly, we see that it never really managed to establish sovereignty among the people, because it failed to stop the resistance that actively worked against it. If it was a real sovereign, it would have been able to attack this resistance and destroy it; but before this could happen, DDAY happened and the major German support of the Vichy government ceased to exist.

Lastly, probably most importantly, something as abstract as nationality is almost purely imaginary; this doesn't make it fake, but nationality gets told through the stories that people tell about it. America is America because it has its own history, the Jews are the Jews because they have their own history, France is France and Germany is Germany, etc. To totally abolish the nation of France and reconstitute it as annexed into greater Germany would have just been stupid; the German people would not have accepted it because those 'frenchmen' aren't worthy of being called Germans. Thus, there was no attempt to remake the nation of Frenchmen; the attempt was to remake the sovereign and who controls the use of force, and to what ends.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

Ah but Bear, here again you are admitting (as an act of self determination)

Originally Posted by The_Bear

What does this phrase mean in context? I've not heard it before.


Legitimacy is something different from sovereignty. Legitimacy implies that we agree with them on some issues out of our own actions - for instance, that the federal government has the right to form a national military or set national policy in some regards. Legitimacy says that there are certain things which fall under the domain of a certain group; ie, an individual person doesn't have the right to set tax policy, but congress does. This is the case because within the system which we live, there is a constitution, which codifies what, in essence, legitimacy means.
Sovereignty, in my eyes, is what forms the basis of the system at large. It as if the idea of sovereignty provides the basic structure of the house - it provides the foundation, the basic exterior, the basic shape, and legitimacy provides everything else, or what makes the house worth living in. And in this 'base', so to speak, there are always going to be people who proclaim to understand the 'truth' of the world, because there is some fact that many people believe is an undeniable proof of the type of the will of God. But, a given system is established when enough people say 'this is our system, and we will defend it from those who seek to destroy it', be that destruction in physical, ideological, or other forms. Ultimately, although you are right, that the federal government makes the rules, it comes down to the fact that the people in America are sovereign. The people are the ones who established among themselves the system, and set up a system of governments that is dependent upon the people at large for its constitution.



Making rules is different from being sovereign. Having a violent capacity is.
As I said, the ability of a people to be sovereign is directly related to their capability to defend the system which has been set up. As to your example about the American civil rights movement - this was inherently not a violent movement. It did not seek to overthrow the government, it did not seek to create revolution among the people, it only sought to change the definition of what 'good' government is; it sought to blend the system, rather than overthrow it.



agreed, but who knows. Ideas are powerful.



Why do you bring this up?



I believe thats because in America the people are sovereign, but there are always going to be different views on what peoples' legitimate roles are.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

In context, post hoc ergo propter hoc means "after this therefore caused by this." Literally taken it means you have chosen a false antecedent for your argument: Because the government makes the rules it is sovereign.
The correct antecedent is "because the government is sovereign it makes the rules." It turns your argument on its head. Merely making the rules does not make one sovereign. It gets back to my argument about being mugged. Is a mugger your sovereign when he demands money from you?
The answer is no. You can choose to flee, to call for help, to fight, or to pay.

The American civil rights movement was entirely non-violent? Um, you may want to rethink that position, Bear.

In the case of sovereign government you voluntarily sacrifice some measure of your liberty to the social contract. There is, in theory, some consideration for that sacrifice.

In the instance of my other response (on revolution) it is rather silly to break it up in the manner you did in your response. It is a single contiguous thought (and was clearly expressed as such). The idea of revolution is not overwhelmingly appealing in America for the reasons I enumerated.