6 ms·

This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation. The idea is, every 4 years the highest position of governance is p

by mrtksn 5y ago

This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation. The idea is, every 4 years the highest position of governance is put on a trial and the population votes if they approve or disprove the way things are done and reconsider alternatives. Besides the 4 year period for the evaluation of the highest ranking officers, there is an ample opportunity for direct intervention through other elections and NGOs. The burden is on the US citizens but other nations holding the US nation accountable is unrealistic. The Germans were held responsible for Hitler but they lost an open war to a greater power. The US is not facing such a power. Whatever happens is up to the US internal politics and the culture of the US nation. The best the external powers could do is to push for events that change the US populations feelings, thus affecting the judgement of the periodic reviews.

La1n 5y ago
>Whatever happens is up to the US internal politics and the culture of the US nation. If only the US would live by that when looking at other countries. Sanctions, embargos, trade-restrictions, threats are used against other countries by the US, why should they be treated any different themselves?
- mrtksn 5y ago
  The US is powerful and can do that. Well, at least up to some extend but even then it turns to be ineffective but as we see with the recent developments.
- ta_20210816 5y ago
  because for the US, to sanction basically any country is a blip on their economy, but for any other country, indeed blocs of countries to reciprocate that means not only losing your second or third largest trade partners but also shutting you economy off for electronics, software, international financial services, etc
- forz877 5y ago
  Because US is hegemon and can essentially do as it pleases without immediate consequence. This is why Russia and China have been focusing on destabilizing the US and minor geopolitical moves to chip away as opposed to directly challenging US authority.
mdp2021 5y ago
> This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation Such "proposal" is completely irrational. Proposals must be defensible, irrational ideas are not universally defensible. One is not responsible for other people's choices, and cannot be held responsible for other people's (or coinhabiting peoples') choices, nor for the barbaric systemic faults that hinder the ideal implementation of a political system.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  "Key figures must be held responsible" is the highest rated opinion right now. It's fascinating how nation denies responsibility for the actions of the freely and democratically elected officials, which are the very same key figures that "must be held responsible". For some reason, people with option to choose and change their representative claim that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of their representatives. What's irrational on holding a population responsible for the choices they make? I see statements but no reasoning that would explain the irrationality of holding the electorate responsible for the actions of the elected. Care to explain?
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > people with option to choose and change their representative > holding a population responsible for the choices they make > holding the electorate responsible That option does not exist for individuals, mrtksn. The "people" on an abstract level do, but the "people" does not exist. John exists. The population does not make any choice; it does not exist: Jane exists. The electorate is not a person. The irrational way you used is to work on abstractions without having vetted your idea against real reality. To which purpose one may make non existent entities "responsible"? The thought cannot stop there. You kept the idea floating, since having brought it to immediate consequences would have debunked it - it must not have been kept afloat by reason. If a sensible idea to make this virtual "people / population / electorate" fairly and justly face these mysterious responsibilities, keeping firm that Jack is completely innocent of the choice of his neighbours (nor of the perversions in the established choice itself, nor of the system in which all takes place), exists, I am very curious. To blame it on "all" without blaming it on Jill, still keeping out of the meaningless thin air of ideas - this would be an impressive feat.

by mrtksn 5y ago

La1n 5y ago

>Whatever happens is up to the US internal politics and the culture of the US nation. If only the US would live by that when looking at other countries. Sanctions, embargos, trade-restrictions, threats are used against other countries by the US, why should they be treated any different themselves?

mrtksn 5y ago
The US is powerful and can do that. Well, at least up to some extend but even then it turns to be ineffective but as we see with the recent developments.
ta_20210816 5y ago
because for the US, to sanction basically any country is a blip on their economy, but for any other country, indeed blocs of countries to reciprocate that means not only losing your second or third largest trade partners but also shutting you economy off for electronics, software, international financial services, etc
forz877 5y ago
Because US is hegemon and can essentially do as it pleases without immediate consequence. This is why Russia and China have been focusing on destabilizing the US and minor geopolitical moves to chip away as opposed to directly challenging US authority.

mdp2021 5y ago

> This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation Such "proposal" is completely irrational. Proposals must be defensible, irrational ideas are not universally defensible. One is not responsible for other people's choices, and cannot be held responsible for other people's (or coinhabiting peoples') choices, nor for the barbaric systemic faults that hinder the ideal implementation of a political system.

mrtksn 5y ago
"Key figures must be held responsible" is the highest rated opinion right now. It's fascinating how nation denies responsibility for the actions of the freely and democratically elected officials, which are the very same key figures that "must be held responsible". For some reason, people with option to choose and change their representative claim that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of their representatives. What's irrational on holding a population responsible for the choices they make? I see statements but no reasoning that would explain the irrationality of holding the electorate responsible for the actions of the elected. Care to explain?
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > people with option to choose and change their representative > holding a population responsible for the choices they make > holding the electorate responsible That option does not exist for individuals, mrtksn. The "people" on an abstract level do, but the "people" does not exist. John exists. The population does not make any choice; it does not exist: Jane exists. The electorate is not a person. The irrational way you used is to work on abstractions without having vetted your idea against real reality. To which purpose one may make non existent entities "responsible"? The thought cannot stop there. You kept the idea floating, since having brought it to immediate consequences would have debunked it - it must not have been kept afloat by reason. If a sensible idea to make this virtual "people / population / electorate" fairly and justly face these mysterious responsibilities, keeping firm that Jack is completely innocent of the choice of his neighbours (nor of the perversions in the established choice itself, nor of the system in which all takes place), exists, I am very curious. To blame it on "all" without blaming it on Jill, still keeping out of the meaningless thin air of ideas - this would be an impressive feat.