10-29-2003, 07:00 PM
In the end, I don't think anything he's done has really been that terrible. We don't like him and thus we invaded. However, people tend to come together in order to avoid living in the natural way, right? They do so in order to keep from the relatively savage manner of living that comes with living outside of a ruler(s) and that ruler can be through religion or government, right? At any rate, they choose a ruler and that ruler may be under any number of styles of government (as we can see). Francos will probably not abuse his people...he'll probably be a fairly noble tyrant...Thespius is an example. He'll just rule them as he thinks best suits them. It is necessary for a ruler, in order to retain his position, to rule in a manner as will foster as much well being for his people as possible (ideally). So, as long as the people are relatively well off then they won't rebel and so long as they're not begging for aid...we didn't need to help them. We dashed in because we didn't believe, apparently, in Francos' style of government. Nations fight one another for such reasons and always have: Competition, diffidence, glory...our reason for the invasion was mostly glory, part competition, and perhaps some preventative diffidence. We invaded because we feel, according to laws of perception, that the peoples of the Pacific are being oppressed. Still, they're not fleeing en masse, are they? They're not screaming out for aid or suffering, really. Francos is a savvy despot. He knows who to "execute" and how to keep his allies and those who aren't threats at his side. There's nothing wrong, I suppose, with the father-knows-best way that he rules. There are plenty of other people that rule that way, most likely, in the NS world. Even the republic which we are under can become tyrannical. Apparently, Francos has done something in the past which made people angry (I'm not familiar with why, but people wouldn't be so eager to oust him if he hadn't a reputation that was poor, right?)So, reputation is an important part of it, too. It ties into what one does and that ties into existentialism's concepts of one's freedom to do what one will, responsibility for actions...and that ties into what we did. However, the destruction of our attempt and the actions taken by mods...the inability of either side to fully understand the other...these point to solitude. What man can truly know another?Those are just some thoughts about it. What makes him different? Nothing, probably...but beyond that...it's much more complex than the Social Contract. I don't know much about the idea of sovereignty in NS, though. It's even been a while since I read S.C.I could take time to organize this more, but...I thought I'd send it off.I hope nobody's terribly offended, but...taken from the school of thought that I generally embrace he's done nothing too devastating. He's just ruling as he normally would and we don't like it. I'd love to see him removed, but still, he's just an arrogant, defensive, father-knows-best dictator...he's not really hurting us and unless the people are crying out to be "freed" then we're just invading much in the manner of Bush's Iraqi Freedom.