2 ms·

This misses the point: that the country is what we - as the people thereof - make of it. The American government - like, I suspect, the Chinese government - ha

This misses the point: that the country is what we - as the people thereof - make of it. The American government - like, I suspect, the Chinese government - has a vested interest in trying to paint itself as "the country" and thus demand said country's people to serve that government unconditionally, but that couldn't be further from the truth; governments come and go (as they have here in what we now call the US, and as they have in China) but the the people - themselves being the country - remain. That is: countries do not commit tyranny. Their governments do. And when those governments commit tyranny, or otherwise fail to serve the people, it is the right and duty of the country - i.e. the people - to bring that government to heel, or else establish a new government obedient to the will of the people (or, better yet, learn to govern themselves instead of insisting on some government to do so). Driving out the people of a country in order to appease the wishes of some government is arguably the worst-case scenario in terms of that country's identity; a country which allows a government to dictate that identity only weakens as a result - as we can see quite plainly in both the US and China. So, when it comes to weather reporting or anything else, if the government can't or won't do it, then it's on us - the people - to do it, for the sake of all of the rest of us. If any community or demographic or what have you is marginalized in our country, then it is on us - we being the country - to correct that, and to extend a hand in friendship and mutual aid. This is how patriotism is supposed to work: a commitment to one's fellow human, not to some arbitrary state. If you do indeed love China (and I'm assuming here that you're a resident of it), you might want to reflect on what you can do to improve it for all of your fellow countrymen - including those who currently feel excluded from it. If more people did the same in our respective countries, said countries - and given their global influence, the world - would be much better places than they are now.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> it is the ... duty of the country - i.e. the people No, there is no such duty. If we look at the Soviet dissidents, plenty of them neither wanted to support the Soviet regime nor challenge it, so instead they retreated into their own private world, and that was a totally legitimate choice. Also, you suggest that the people naturally want a free country ruled by the people. Yet support among Americans for the 18th-century Lockean ideals that informed the Founding Fathers (radically free speech, division of powers, decisionmaking by the popular will instead of some recognized experts, etc.) seems to be falling on both sides of the political spectrum. In many countries, those ideals were never there in the first place.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > plenty of them neither wanted to support the Soviet regime nor challenge it, so instead they retreated into their own private world, and that was a totally legitimate choice. So two things: 1. You seem to be conflating the country with the government here. The Soviet regime was not the country. It was one government asserting control over a country (and also some other countries, on that note). That country existed before the Soviet regime, and continues to exist after it. 2. "retreat[ing] into their own private world" is itself a means of challenging the power of a government. It demonstrates one way - indeed, the simplest way - in which the people of a country can abolish a government: by ignoring it entirely. > Also, you suggest that the people naturally want a free country ruled by the people. No, I suggest that the people - and the country existing as an abstraction of them - are distinct from whatever rulership is currently in place. The power of that rulership is contingent on its recognition by the people. This is pretty inherent to whether a government is actually functional; if the people refuse to listen to the government, then what power does the government have? The form of whatever government the people do fashion for themselves (if they fashion one for themselves at all) is an entirely separate question. Doesn't matter if it's a direct democracy or a dictator for life; if it has power, it is because the people of a country enable it to have power.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    > It demonstrates one way - indeed, the simplest way - in which the people of a country can abolish a government: by ignoring it entirely. No, not entirely. The USSR and Eastern European dissidents' approach was often to publicly acquiesce to the demands of the regime, perform the rituals expected of them, while in private revealing to one another their true opinions and tastes in art, music, literature, etc. You stated above that people have a duty to "bring the government to heel, or else establish a new government obedient to the will of the people", but clearly people have often not been willing to take action like that, and that is perfectly alright.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      Fair. Still, it's those private actions that matter here; that perpetuation of ideas against the will of the ostensibly-in-power government is, too, a rejection of that government's power. That is: > You stated above that people have a duty to "bring the government to heel, or else establish a new government obedient to the will of the people" Chopping off the parenthetical immediately following that quotation changes the meaning from what I wrote entirely. As noted in that parenthetical, a perfectly valid way of fulfilling that duty is to promote and exercise self-governance - which is exactly what those dissidents did in private. And further, that promotion and exercise of self-governance is itself a way to bring an errant government to heel - namely, by introducing an alternative to it and prompting it to seek a more "diplomatic" outcome.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> it is the ... duty of the country - i.e. the people No, there is no such duty. If we look at the Soviet dissidents, plenty of them neither wanted to support the Soviet regime nor challenge it, so instead they retreated into their own private world, and that was a totally legitimate choice. Also, you suggest that the people naturally want a free country ruled by the people. Yet support among Americans for the 18th-century Lockean ideals that informed the Founding Fathers (radically free speech, division of powers, decisionmaking by the popular will instead of some recognized experts, etc.) seems to be falling on both sides of the political spectrum. In many countries, those ideals were never there in the first place.

yellowapple 6y ago
> plenty of them neither wanted to support the Soviet regime nor challenge it, so instead they retreated into their own private world, and that was a totally legitimate choice. So two things: 1. You seem to be conflating the country with the government here. The Soviet regime was not the country. It was one government asserting control over a country (and also some other countries, on that note). That country existed before the Soviet regime, and continues to exist after it. 2. "retreat[ing] into their own private world" is itself a means of challenging the power of a government. It demonstrates one way - indeed, the simplest way - in which the people of a country can abolish a government: by ignoring it entirely. > Also, you suggest that the people naturally want a free country ruled by the people. No, I suggest that the people - and the country existing as an abstraction of them - are distinct from whatever rulership is currently in place. The power of that rulership is contingent on its recognition by the people. This is pretty inherent to whether a government is actually functional; if the people refuse to listen to the government, then what power does the government have? The form of whatever government the people do fashion for themselves (if they fashion one for themselves at all) is an entirely separate question. Doesn't matter if it's a direct democracy or a dictator for life; if it has power, it is because the people of a country enable it to have power.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > It demonstrates one way - indeed, the simplest way - in which the people of a country can abolish a government: by ignoring it entirely. No, not entirely. The USSR and Eastern European dissidents' approach was often to publicly acquiesce to the demands of the regime, perform the rituals expected of them, while in private revealing to one another their true opinions and tastes in art, music, literature, etc. You stated above that people have a duty to "bring the government to heel, or else establish a new government obedient to the will of the people", but clearly people have often not been willing to take action like that, and that is perfectly alright.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    Fair. Still, it's those private actions that matter here; that perpetuation of ideas against the will of the ostensibly-in-power government is, too, a rejection of that government's power. That is: > You stated above that people have a duty to "bring the government to heel, or else establish a new government obedient to the will of the people" Chopping off the parenthetical immediately following that quotation changes the meaning from what I wrote entirely. As noted in that parenthetical, a perfectly valid way of fulfilling that duty is to promote and exercise self-governance - which is exactly what those dissidents did in private. And further, that promotion and exercise of self-governance is itself a way to bring an errant government to heel - namely, by introducing an alternative to it and prompting it to seek a more "diplomatic" outcome.