Sincerely, who gives a fuck about the legality of it? Would these people be happy if Congress had voted for it before they bombed brown people in the Middle East for the umpteenth time?
I think the idea is that legality is supposed to approximate morality here, right? Like legal wars are supposed to be reasonably justified ones. Whether or not that actually works can be debated, but it is a relevant distinction
I think the idea is that legality is supposed to approximate morality here, right?
I would argue it’s more to allow the proles to believe that they live in a world bound by (some) laws; so that it isn’t too obvious that they are subject to the whims of madmen.
Sincerely, who gives a fuck about the legality of it? Would these people be happy if Congress had voted for it before they bombed brown people in the Middle East for the umpteenth time?
I would be less pissed off if a governing body made the decision instead of a wanna be dictator.
Um… why?
Because multiple people deciding as a group means there were opportunities to object and at least the stupidity isn’t a single person’s whim.
To be very clear, less pissed off doesn’t mean not pissed off.
And because the power quite literally belongs to that group.
I think the idea is that legality is supposed to approximate morality here, right? Like legal wars are supposed to be reasonably justified ones. Whether or not that actually works can be debated, but it is a relevant distinction
I would argue it’s more to allow the proles to believe that they live in a world bound by (some) laws; so that it isn’t too obvious that they are subject to the whims of madmen.