3 ms·

> 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. Th

> 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
    > Ideas are not self governance. I never said they were. What I did say is that expressing and communicating those ideas is (one aspect - and a critical one, IMO) of self-governance, and that when there exists a government that forbids said expression and communication, engaging in said expression and communication anyway is a pretty unambiguous rejection of that government's power. That is: > Ideas serve to communicate the interests and possibilities and to coordinate groups to organize a society. Exactly correct. ...but this all now drifting further and further from the original point of my original comment: that we Americans (like the people of any other country) have a collective interest in accurate, timely, and publicly accessible weather reporting, and that if the government ain't up to the task for whatever reason, then we arguably should be considering an alternative mechanism for said reporting - and that it's arguably our civic duty to help with that replacement, for the mutual benefit of ourselves, our communities, and our nation as a whole.

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
  > Ideas are not self governance. I never said they were. What I did say is that expressing and communicating those ideas is (one aspect - and a critical one, IMO) of self-governance, and that when there exists a government that forbids said expression and communication, engaging in said expression and communication anyway is a pretty unambiguous rejection of that government's power. That is: > Ideas serve to communicate the interests and possibilities and to coordinate groups to organize a society. Exactly correct. ...but this all now drifting further and further from the original point of my original comment: that we Americans (like the people of any other country) have a collective interest in accurate, timely, and publicly accessible weather reporting, and that if the government ain't up to the task for whatever reason, then we arguably should be considering an alternative mechanism for said reporting - and that it's arguably our civic duty to help with that replacement, for the mutual benefit of ourselves, our communities, and our nation as a whole.