6 ms·

Democracy clearly, empirically does not imply that the government is accountable to you.

by baddox 7y ago

iudqnolq 7y ago
[Citation needed] And I'm asking you not just to show that a bunch of bad stuff has happened, but that in its totality at least one country most people would consider a democracy (a good but imperfect shortcut for this is if Freedom House rates them as such) has essentially no accountability.
- baddox 7y ago
  Well, if you think that showing many many examples of democratic governments wronging individuals and then not being held accountable for those wrongs (including many examples of long-standing systematic wrongs, not just one-off extreme cases) is NOT sufficient evidence for the claim “democratic governments are not accountable to you,” then I don’t know what evidence would satisfy you.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    Let me guess: you're thinking of civil foreiture and qualified immunity in the US? I don't dispute the US is non ideal, I do dispute that as a whole the government is unaccountable. For example, what do you think would happen if Gavin Newsome (governor of California) had someone killed for disrespecting him? That's the kind of thing really unaccountable governments get away with. So I'm asking you to not only show that bad things have happened and not been adequately punished, but that the government is fundamentally as unaccountable as a reference unaccountable government, like the U.S.S.R under Stalin or Britain under Oliver Cromwell. Yes, that's an extreme requirement. But you made an extreme claim when you said not just that democracies are insufficiently accountable to be completely just but that they are unaccountable.
    - baddox 7y ago
      I didn’t have specific examples in mind, and my argument is not about what type of government is ideal or even whether it’s possible to do better. My claim was simply that democratic governments are not accountable to individuals in any ordinary meaningful sense, and I stand by that. Of course many governmental officials would likely be held accountable for extreme misconduct if they weren’t able to cover up the evidence. And of course certain governments are more accountable than others.
      - iudqnolq 7y ago
        Whats your definition of not accountable? Making an absolute and not relative definition sounds hard.
        baddox 7y ago
        Just the everyday definition that people use in normal conversation, not subtle insinuation about political philosophy or anything like that. I’m accountable to my employer for showing up and doing solid work. A student is accountable to their instructor. I’m accountable to the government for my income taxes (and many other laws). It just means that there is a fairly clear set of expectations and a pretty reliable and straightforward process that disincentivizes violation of those expectations in practice (not just in theory).
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        Why does needing to be reelected not make a politician accountable?
arcticbull 7y ago
No, it, literally and directly does, that's the definition of it. Your representatives are accountable to you via vote. If not that, then what do you think democracy even means?
- baddox 7y ago
  I think democracy generally means that the population elects representatives who establish policy. That’s certainly true. But in what sense is the government actually accountable to an individual in any meaningful sense? If you are wronged by a democratic government do you honestly believe that you have a remotely decent chance of holding the government accountable? And how about for individuals who are among the least fortunate in society?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I mean, this tends to be covered in high school civics classes. The government is bound by a constitution. Violations of your constitutional rights are remediated on an individual basis through the judicial branch. You may individually hold the entire government responsible for violating your constitutional rights. This happens regularly. The government is also accountable to you in aggregate through the voting process. Yes you don't get to vote on each individual issue, as you're not an expert on literally everything and have other things to do, so you delegate. Less delegation happens in America than in basically every other established democracy. You don't like what your representative did, vote for someone else, or run for office. The least fortunate are the disproportionate beneficiaries of constitutional rights. Yes it's not perfect, and direct democracy tends to lead to squelching the rights of minority groups, but that's why America has a constitution plus 3 branches of government with various checks and balances. Your employer has literally none of the above, which is why it has no business in your healthcare. If you get fired from your job and lose access to healthcare you don't get to run for CEO, you get to fend for yourself. If you're wrongly denied cover under a socialized medical system you can sue anyone and everyone involved and also vote them out, while still having access to the private markets to fend for yourself just as you would have if you left the company you worked at.

Democracy clearly, empirically does not imply that the government is accountable to you.

by baddox 7y ago

Democracy clearly, empirically does not imply that the government is accountable to you.

[Citation needed] And I'm asking you not just to show that a bunch of bad stuff has happened, but that in its totality at least one country most people would consider a democracy (a good but imperfect shortcut for this is if Freedom House rates them as such) has essentially no accountability.

baddox 7y ago
Well, if you think that showing many many examples of democratic governments wronging individuals and then not being held accountable for those wrongs (including many examples of long-standing systematic wrongs, not just one-off extreme cases) is NOT sufficient evidence for the claim “democratic governments are not accountable to you,” then I don’t know what evidence would satisfy you.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  Let me guess: you're thinking of civil foreiture and qualified immunity in the US? I don't dispute the US is non ideal, I do dispute that as a whole the government is unaccountable. For example, what do you think would happen if Gavin Newsome (governor of California) had someone killed for disrespecting him? That's the kind of thing really unaccountable governments get away with. So I'm asking you to not only show that bad things have happened and not been adequately punished, but that the government is fundamentally as unaccountable as a reference unaccountable government, like the U.S.S.R under Stalin or Britain under Oliver Cromwell. Yes, that's an extreme requirement. But you made an extreme claim when you said not just that democracies are insufficiently accountable to be completely just but that they are unaccountable.
  - baddox 7y ago
    I didn’t have specific examples in mind, and my argument is not about what type of government is ideal or even whether it’s possible to do better. My claim was simply that democratic governments are not accountable to individuals in any ordinary meaningful sense, and I stand by that. Of course many governmental officials would likely be held accountable for extreme misconduct if they weren’t able to cover up the evidence. And of course certain governments are more accountable than others.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      Whats your definition of not accountable? Making an absolute and not relative definition sounds hard.
      - baddox 7y ago
        Just the everyday definition that people use in normal conversation, not subtle insinuation about political philosophy or anything like that. I’m accountable to my employer for showing up and doing solid work. A student is accountable to their instructor. I’m accountable to the government for my income taxes (and many other laws). It just means that there is a fairly clear set of expectations and a pretty reliable and straightforward process that disincentivizes violation of those expectations in practice (not just in theory).
        iudqnolq 7y ago
        Why does needing to be reelected not make a politician accountable?

arcticbull 7y ago

No, it, literally and directly does, that's the definition of it. Your representatives are accountable to you via vote. If not that, then what do you think democracy even means?

baddox 7y ago
I think democracy generally means that the population elects representatives who establish policy. That’s certainly true. But in what sense is the government actually accountable to an individual in any meaningful sense? If you are wronged by a democratic government do you honestly believe that you have a remotely decent chance of holding the government accountable? And how about for individuals who are among the least fortunate in society?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I mean, this tends to be covered in high school civics classes. The government is bound by a constitution. Violations of your constitutional rights are remediated on an individual basis through the judicial branch. You may individually hold the entire government responsible for violating your constitutional rights. This happens regularly. The government is also accountable to you in aggregate through the voting process. Yes you don't get to vote on each individual issue, as you're not an expert on literally everything and have other things to do, so you delegate. Less delegation happens in America than in basically every other established democracy. You don't like what your representative did, vote for someone else, or run for office. The least fortunate are the disproportionate beneficiaries of constitutional rights. Yes it's not perfect, and direct democracy tends to lead to squelching the rights of minority groups, but that's why America has a constitution plus 3 branches of government with various checks and balances. Your employer has literally none of the above, which is why it has no business in your healthcare. If you get fired from your job and lose access to healthcare you don't get to run for CEO, you get to fend for yourself. If you're wrongly denied cover under a socialized medical system you can sue anyone and everyone involved and also vote them out, while still having access to the private markets to fend for yourself just as you would have if you left the company you worked at.