Black Wolf

corrections:

(eg. 1 pres. 1 vp. 535 congress and 9 judges vs. 300 million +)

overwhelm the* people

The jailors are relatively few, and the jailed are relatively the great many. (eg. 1 pres. 1 vp. 535 congress and 9 judges) The jailed must be convinced to stay in their cells, otherwise they would just overwhelm to people forcing them, no?

They cannot execute their activities without in turn relying on the voluntary support given to their actions by an even larger number of family, friends, neighbors, and bystanders, who in turn rely on their family, friends, neighbors, and bystanders, etc.

If they passively accept it as default, then in my view it is their fault. The cooperation cannot be forced because the number of people involved is too great eg. there is one dictator, his cabinet, and millions of citizens.

Yeah, but the cooperation is usually forced.

Even if most citizens (keyword: most) passively accept the dictatorship, it's shouldn't be their fault. When people are under duress, of course they will accept things that they normally wouldn't.

Vietnam is the only case in which I would consider it a consensual dictatorship, not taking into account the people that ...

(I don't know if the post worked, but as continued) Look @ the Shah regime in Iran or the USSR, soldiers were literally given the orders to shoot and kill, but the orders just went ignored. As soon as a majority of the public considers the dictator's orders illegitimate, the regime will fall. They rely on the voluntary cooperation of countless numbers of people.

See my thread here:

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=19583

for more details. AR expounded on this idea in, (if I remember correctly) FNI. But you can find Étienne de La Boétie discovering this truth in "The Politics of Obedience" in the 16th century. Even a dictatorship needs the at least passive legitimization of its people to stay in power (look @ the S...

Think of it as for example a marketplace of ideas. If the people have low taste in literature for example, then low brow junk will dominate the market and high quality writers will be on the margin. If they change to demand high quality stuff, then the market will be filled with great publications and the filth will be relegated to the margins. It works the same with governments and politicians.

To your second question, my answer would be "no" because your only concern is stopping his aggression against you. You are not responsible for the rights of citizens he controls, especially if he is sending them against you. In anyway, it is the citizens that are responsible morally for their government, as their acceptance and public opinion keeps them in power, even in dictatorships.

No, I am not convinced that the establishment of a military base is per se an initiation of force. IoF requires an aggressor and a victim, specific individuals who are under the threat of violence. I don't know the particulars of Beirut, I don't think having these bases is a good idea, but it is not a rights-violation (per se) of specific individuals (until taxing comes into the picture.)