4 ms·

considering in a democratic system the government is a representation of the will of the governed and, you know, us governed types don't expect us to lie to our

by pyvpx 10y ago

considering in a democratic system the government is a representation of the will of the governed and, you know, us governed types don't expect us to lie to ourselves. or something.

fiatjaf 10y ago
Your deduction is right but your assumptions are wrong.
clarkmoody 10y ago
> government is a representation of the will of the governed No. By this reasoning "we are all murderers." A democratic system means that 51% of the people can legally deprive the other 49% of basic liberties.
- wongarsu 10y ago
  >A democratic system means that 51% of the people can legally deprive the other 49% of basic liberties. That's an implementation quirk of some democracies, not an inherent feature. Even worse: in first-past-the-post systems like the US and GB you can elect 51% of the representatives with far less than 51% of the people. On the other hand, "basic liberties" are usually protected by some for of constitution that requires 66% of representatives to change. Sometimes protections are even more extreme: Germany is considered democratic, but its constitution contains two articles that can not be lawfully changed, no matter how large the consens (one about basic rights, one about the form of government). Democracies can have arbitrarily strong protections for minorities and basic liberties, there is no requirement for democracies to be governed by simple absolute majorities (and few if any are).
- ptaipale 10y ago
  What you describe is "dictatorship of the majority"; at least over here, when people talk about democracy, they mean "liberal democracy", i.e. as Wikipedia puts it, a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    So we never had any example of "liberal democracy" in the entire history. I don't know of a single government that hasn't taken money from some citizens against their will to use it in benefit of other citizens.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      If you're equating "liberal democracy" with "no taxation", then we're talking about a different thing. That's not what I quoted above.
      - fiatjaf 10y ago
        You quoted "equality before the law". I don't see how people can be equal if some are taxed and the money is given to others. I know you must be thinking that "equality before the law" is just to have a clear law like "everybody will be taxed if they meet so and so requirements" and apply that to everybody, but consider that a law could be written in exactly that same way, but instead saying "every people will be taxed if they are black". The distinctions the law make are arbitrary.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  A democratic government is the responsibility of the people it governs - even if you didn't elect them, the fact that you choose to continue to be governed by them, and that they gain all their powers from this investment of your own sovereignty into their state, means that you are in fact responsible for your government. Period. It doesn't change just because you don't like it. American citizens, pro- and anti- the American state, nevertheless gain their protections as citizens from participating in that state, large and small. Citizens are responsible for their governments, who have no powers otherwise. And we all know: the corruption of government begins with its secrets. That we, citizens, are unwilling to deal with the secrets that corrupt us all, is very telling in this day and age ..
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    Please tell me what should I do to stop "investing my own sovereignty". That's not clear.
pjmlp 10y ago
People that believe secret services follow any kind of law other than their internal regulations, are only deluding themselves. They never did and they never will, regardless of the country.
- cryoshon 10y ago
  so... why do we need them in a democracy? for everyone else who won't follow the rules, we have prison.... and dont try to tell me that a few terrorist attacks are sufficient cause to allow them to run wild over the public.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Because regular police needs to follow rules that criminals by definition do not. As such they need a group able to work without scruples outside what the public think as acceptable, so that certain criminals that would never by caught playing by the book, do get caught. Also no government is going to publically tell the others what is their official agenda. Again, you need the sort of people able to do the right set of questions. Yes I am harsh, but real life is harsh. Not all of us get to live in movie sets were the good guys always win at the end.
    - cryoshon 10y ago
      >so that certain criminals that would never by caught playing by the book, do get caught. we never get any evidence of this happening, so i'm going to say "citation needed". we also don't get any oversight regarding who they decide are criminals. >Not all of us get to live in movie sets were the good guys always win at the end. starting from the assumption that the intelligence agencies are the good guys is very much from a movie set... these agencies exist to effect the will of the state against arbitrary targets by way of power. there's no moral content there until they actually act.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        When I was a child the weapons were still hot from the colonial war and through the years I got to learn quite a few PIDE-DGS stories, some from people that lived through it, yet I rather have secret services around than not.

by pyvpx 10y ago

considering in a democratic system the government is a representation of the will of the governed and, you know, us governed types don't expect us to lie to ourselves. or something.

fiatjaf 10y ago

Your deduction is right but your assumptions are wrong.

clarkmoody 10y ago

> government is a representation of the will of the governed No. By this reasoning "we are all murderers." A democratic system means that 51% of the people can legally deprive the other 49% of basic liberties.

wongarsu 10y ago
>A democratic system means that 51% of the people can legally deprive the other 49% of basic liberties. That's an implementation quirk of some democracies, not an inherent feature. Even worse: in first-past-the-post systems like the US and GB you can elect 51% of the representatives with far less than 51% of the people. On the other hand, "basic liberties" are usually protected by some for of constitution that requires 66% of representatives to change. Sometimes protections are even more extreme: Germany is considered democratic, but its constitution contains two articles that can not be lawfully changed, no matter how large the consens (one about basic rights, one about the form of government). Democracies can have arbitrarily strong protections for minorities and basic liberties, there is no requirement for democracies to be governed by simple absolute majorities (and few if any are).
ptaipale 10y ago
What you describe is "dictatorship of the majority"; at least over here, when people talk about democracy, they mean "liberal democracy", i.e. as Wikipedia puts it, a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.
- fiatjaf 10y ago
  So we never had any example of "liberal democracy" in the entire history. I don't know of a single government that hasn't taken money from some citizens against their will to use it in benefit of other citizens.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    If you're equating "liberal democracy" with "no taxation", then we're talking about a different thing. That's not what I quoted above.
    - fiatjaf 10y ago
      You quoted "equality before the law". I don't see how people can be equal if some are taxed and the money is given to others. I know you must be thinking that "equality before the law" is just to have a clear law like "everybody will be taxed if they meet so and so requirements" and apply that to everybody, but consider that a law could be written in exactly that same way, but instead saying "every people will be taxed if they are black". The distinctions the law make are arbitrary.
fit2rule 10y ago
A democratic government is the responsibility of the people it governs - even if you didn't elect them, the fact that you choose to continue to be governed by them, and that they gain all their powers from this investment of your own sovereignty into their state, means that you are in fact responsible for your government. Period. It doesn't change just because you don't like it. American citizens, pro- and anti- the American state, nevertheless gain their protections as citizens from participating in that state, large and small. Citizens are responsible for their governments, who have no powers otherwise. And we all know: the corruption of government begins with its secrets. That we, citizens, are unwilling to deal with the secrets that corrupt us all, is very telling in this day and age ..
- fiatjaf 10y ago
  Please tell me what should I do to stop "investing my own sovereignty". That's not clear.

pjmlp 10y ago

People that believe secret services follow any kind of law other than their internal regulations, are only deluding themselves. They never did and they never will, regardless of the country.

cryoshon 10y ago
so... why do we need them in a democracy? for everyone else who won't follow the rules, we have prison.... and dont try to tell me that a few terrorist attacks are sufficient cause to allow them to run wild over the public.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Because regular police needs to follow rules that criminals by definition do not. As such they need a group able to work without scruples outside what the public think as acceptable, so that certain criminals that would never by caught playing by the book, do get caught. Also no government is going to publically tell the others what is their official agenda. Again, you need the sort of people able to do the right set of questions. Yes I am harsh, but real life is harsh. Not all of us get to live in movie sets were the good guys always win at the end.
  - cryoshon 10y ago
    >so that certain criminals that would never by caught playing by the book, do get caught. we never get any evidence of this happening, so i'm going to say "citation needed". we also don't get any oversight regarding who they decide are criminals. >Not all of us get to live in movie sets were the good guys always win at the end. starting from the assumption that the intelligence agencies are the good guys is very much from a movie set... these agencies exist to effect the will of the state against arbitrary targets by way of power. there's no moral content there until they actually act.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      When I was a child the weapons were still hot from the colonial war and through the years I got to learn quite a few PIDE-DGS stories, some from people that lived through it, yet I rather have secret services around than not.