3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Ideas are not self governance. Governance is a relationship of power, ideas can only bring prompt changes to relationships of power. In the Soviet Union, for example, change in systems of government by and large happened not because of ideas or dissidence but because a large part of the elite decided it would be in their interest to implement and oligarchy instead, against the overall wish of the population. In the end, the ideas mattered a lot less than relationships of power. Even in the American revolution the ideas of classical liberalism only struck because there was a class of rich landowners for which these ideas prompted the exercise of their power in a way that was conducive to their interest - increasing their power and reducing taxes, and enabling them to warmonger to their content. That's not to say this necessarily only benefits and elite - many révolutions were prompted by ideas that allowed the common man to actualize their freedom and collective interest, but until now the inability to coordinate collectively always gave rise to an elite that seized effective power. But never has any real political change been brought by anything but power and interest. Ideas serve to communicate the interests and possibilities and to coordinate groups to organize a society.

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.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Ideas are not self governance. Governance is a relationship of power, ideas can only bring prompt changes to relationships of power. In the Soviet Union, for example, change in systems of government by and large happened not because of ideas or dissidence but because a large part of the elite decided it would be in their interest to implement and oligarchy instead, against the overall wish of the population. In the end, the ideas mattered a lot less than relationships of power. Even in the American revolution the ideas of classical liberalism only struck because there was a class of rich landowners for which these ideas prompted the exercise of their power in a way that was conducive to their interest - increasing their power and reducing taxes, and enabling them to warmonger to their content. That's not to say this necessarily only benefits and elite - many révolutions were prompted by ideas that allowed the common man to actualize their freedom and collective interest, but until now the inability to coordinate collectively always gave rise to an elite that seized effective power. But never has any real political change been brought by anything but power and interest. Ideas serve to communicate the interests and possibilities and to coordinate groups to organize a society.