I said, " All of the quotes you've presented here have been cut to be limited in extent to logically justify any rule, including the present govm't of Iraq." I gave as an example your cut fron Locke:
"And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.-- John Locke"
Now, I elaborated on meaning back in #189 . The use of the word mob was per Webster: "a group of people : crowd syn see crowd", plus the additional concerns of that group given in #189. Posting popular, imprecise meanings of terms, given accurate descriptive meaning in the post, muddles up the whole thread.
This quote from Locke is simply a statement that a majority group that begins and/or constitutes a political society is all that is needed for lawful government. Locke is also quite inclusive, he uses the word, "any", to include all possibilities. I originally asked, "Is the govm't of Iraq a just form of govm't, or is it simply justified, because it was established and controlled by an effective majority of freemen and thus, according to Locke, lawful?"
The United States was not created with such limited concerns as Locke's majority group to declare itself lawful. In fact the group that rebelled against England was a minority. The founders, a minority from the several States, commented and made claims regarding rights and justifications for the goverment they created. They placed limits on the power govm't could exert. Some of those limits were expressed explicitely in the Bill of Rights.
The point of my original question was to illustrate that simple lawfulness, does not constitute right, or proper claim as just and fair. Simple exercise of majority rule w/o regard for the principles of truth, Freedom and individual rights is simply rule by a group with its own arbitrary motivations.
Federal government.