4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat 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 agoHence "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 agoYes, 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 agoAre 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.