3 ms·

> the whole point of democracy is that governments should fear their citizens, rather than vice versa. I think that's more an optimistic interpretation of demo

> the whole point of democracy is that governments should fear their citizens, rather than vice versa. I think that's more an optimistic interpretation of democracy. After all, it's the government that gets to decide who is a citizen, and who has the franchise. Historically the US said that African Americans were not citizens, within the meaning of the Constitution. In 1858 your statement might be 100% true about the US, but it would exclude a lot of people - who indeed were justifiably fearful of the democracy they lived in. While the 14th amendment made many new citizens, for many decades after the end of reconstruction these citizens feared their government far more than vice versa. You can see the variable concept of "citizen" when considering that a minor may be a US citizen for many purposes, but does not have the voting rights of full citizenship. Before the 26th amendment even 20-year-old adults were not full citizens. Something like 2% of US adult citizens cannot vote due to being a convicted felon, further showing how shaky your assertion is. There's also a large number of immigrants to the US who are not citizens, but ideally should not fear the government any more than citizens do. Perhaps the US doesn't count as democracy, but that sounds too much like a No True Scotsman response. Switzerland, with its famous direct democracy, didn't allow full women's suffrage until 1971-1990, depending on canton, again highlighting that "citizen" and "those who can vote" are not really the same thing in a democracy.

gottorf 3y ago
To be fair, the GP said governments should fear their citizens, not that they do and always have done. It's an ideal end state, I guess.
- eesmith 3y ago
  I think that veers too close to the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's like saying that in a {a benevolent dictatorship, real communism, true anarchy} the citizens will not fear the government.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    That a goal. Equating it to a logical fallacy is meaningless noise. (Personally, I'm not sure how much it's an actionable or desirable goal. But it's a goal.)
    - eesmith 3y ago
      Hence "I think that's more an optimistic interpretation of democracy." I don't think it's a goal of democracy, and I highlighted what I think are flaws with thinking of it that way. In your ideal democracy should non-citizens fear the government? Are children full citizens and, if not, should they fear the government too? It's also a goal of communism and of anarchy, yes?
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        Yes, it's a goal of (Marxist) communism, and (AFAIK) the one largest goal of anarchy. You can criticize it as a goal as much as you want. There's plenty of things to disagree in it. But you just can't go and state it's a no true Scotchman, that is meaningless nonsense.
        eesmith 3y ago
        Are there democracies now? Yes. Do they have the goal you describe? No. Will they ever? Very unlikely, for reasons I listed. Does that make them democracies? If you say they are not democracies then I'm calling No True Scotsman. We have 2000 years of history where the most vocal proponents of democracy deliberately restricted full citizenship from all its population. It's therefore hard for me to think your goal is a core part of democracy.

gottorf 3y ago

To be fair, the GP said governments should fear their citizens, not that they do and always have done. It's an ideal end state, I guess.

eesmith 3y ago
I think that veers too close to the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's like saying that in a {a benevolent dictatorship, real communism, true anarchy} the citizens will not fear the government.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  That a goal. Equating it to a logical fallacy is meaningless noise. (Personally, I'm not sure how much it's an actionable or desirable goal. But it's a goal.)
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Hence "I think that's more an optimistic interpretation of democracy." I don't think it's a goal of democracy, and I highlighted what I think are flaws with thinking of it that way. In your ideal democracy should non-citizens fear the government? Are children full citizens and, if not, should they fear the government too? It's also a goal of communism and of anarchy, yes?
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Yes, it's a goal of (Marxist) communism, and (AFAIK) the one largest goal of anarchy. You can criticize it as a goal as much as you want. There's plenty of things to disagree in it. But you just can't go and state it's a no true Scotchman, that is meaningless nonsense.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        Are there democracies now? Yes. Do they have the goal you describe? No. Will they ever? Very unlikely, for reasons I listed. Does that make them democracies? If you say they are not democracies then I'm calling No True Scotsman. We have 2000 years of history where the most vocal proponents of democracy deliberately restricted full citizenship from all its population. It's therefore hard for me to think your goal is a core part of democracy.