4 ms·

It's a combination. Here in the US, a large chunk of the population supported Trump, knowing full well what kind of things he would do. And another large chunk

by phyzome 10mo ago

It's a combination. Here in the US, a large chunk of the population supported Trump, knowing full well what kind of things he would do. And another large chunk of the population are trying to stop him. You can't blame the population as a whole. But I suspect it's uncommon for the government to be completely disconnected from (some portion of) the population's sentiments.

magicalhippo 10mo ago
> But I suspect it's uncommon for the government to be completely disconnected from (some portion of) the population's sentiments. However, that sentiment is shaped by the media available to the citizens, and in places like Russia, that means primarily by the government itself. So it's not so clear cut what the sentiment would have been had it not been for the governments propaganda.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- phyzome 10mo ago
  Yeah, it's absolutely tangled up in the way you describe. (In the US we have the same overall situation, but the propaganda seems to mostly be driven by rich people who own media companies...)
  - bilbo0s 10mo ago
    Make no mistake, it's the same in Russia. Globally, it's pretty much oligarchs all the way down.
thyristan 10mo ago
In a democracy, "We The People" is the sovereign. It is in the hands of the voters, and it is their responsibility to choose leaders wisely and shape their overall legal system. In democracies, the population doesn't get to use the "but its just our evil leaders" excuse. Only in other less democratic forms of government. And yes, this means that in a democracy, the opposition's voters are screwed because they share in the responsibility, even if they were right. Why? Because they were unable to convince the majority of the wrongness of the majority vote.
- scns 10mo ago
  I'm baffled, this is one of the worst comments i've read on HN. It's hard to answer without using insults. Seems i'm really triggered by Blaming The Victim.
- vintermann 10mo ago
  Is supposed to be the sovereign/source of all legitimate authority. But it's not as a practical matter in the US, or even in legalistic practice. Most legalistic factions in the US plainly treat the constitution itself (and/or its authors) as the source of its own authority.
  - thyristan 10mo ago
    > We the People of the United States [, in Order to ...,] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. That is the literal first paragraph of the US constitution. I cannot imagine a valid legalistic argument that ignores that. When first establishing the constitution, it also didn't appear in a vacuum, the pre-existing states and confederation were already democratic for some time. So all authority/validity/legitimacy the US constitution has comes from the population, back then. And through continuing use, participation and broad acceptance until present. And of course, as a practical matter in a representative democracy, between elections, the people do have far less of an influence. They can basically only voice their opinions, threaten to vote differently in the next election, or start a revolution. But that doesn't absolve them of their responsibility on election day.
    - vintermann 10mo ago
      > So all authority/validity/legitimacy the US constitution has comes from the population, back then Exactly, back then. But those people are dead to a man. They are no longer people of the United States. Even if you count them as such, they would be extremely outnumbered by currently living people of the United States, and thus, democratically they can no longer confer any legitimate authority to the constitution. If they do confer any authority, it isn't democratic authority, because it has to be based on something else than the people. > And through continuing use, participation and broad acceptance until present. I think that's a pretty tenuous argument, all the time people constantly point to the constitution itself as authority for why they accept the constitution, rather than pointing to themselves as they should if they truly believed in the people's authority as opposed to gods, kings and holy texts. But even accepting that argument, at the very least you'd have to agree that if the people decided to change the constitution through means other than those the constitution propose, then that could still be perfectly democratic.

by phyzome 10mo ago

magicalhippo 10mo ago

> But I suspect it's uncommon for the government to be completely disconnected from (some portion of) the population's sentiments. However, that sentiment is shaped by the media available to the citizens, and in places like Russia, that means primarily by the government itself. So it's not so clear cut what the sentiment would have been had it not been for the governments propaganda.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
phyzome 10mo ago
Yeah, it's absolutely tangled up in the way you describe. (In the US we have the same overall situation, but the propaganda seems to mostly be driven by rich people who own media companies...)
- bilbo0s 10mo ago
  Make no mistake, it's the same in Russia. Globally, it's pretty much oligarchs all the way down.

thyristan 10mo ago

In a democracy, "We The People" is the sovereign. It is in the hands of the voters, and it is their responsibility to choose leaders wisely and shape their overall legal system. In democracies, the population doesn't get to use the "but its just our evil leaders" excuse. Only in other less democratic forms of government. And yes, this means that in a democracy, the opposition's voters are screwed because they share in the responsibility, even if they were right. Why? Because they were unable to convince the majority of the wrongness of the majority vote.

scns 10mo ago
I'm baffled, this is one of the worst comments i've read on HN. It's hard to answer without using insults. Seems i'm really triggered by Blaming The Victim.
vintermann 10mo ago
Is supposed to be the sovereign/source of all legitimate authority. But it's not as a practical matter in the US, or even in legalistic practice. Most legalistic factions in the US plainly treat the constitution itself (and/or its authors) as the source of its own authority.
- thyristan 10mo ago
  > We the People of the United States [, in Order to ...,] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. That is the literal first paragraph of the US constitution. I cannot imagine a valid legalistic argument that ignores that. When first establishing the constitution, it also didn't appear in a vacuum, the pre-existing states and confederation were already democratic for some time. So all authority/validity/legitimacy the US constitution has comes from the population, back then. And through continuing use, participation and broad acceptance until present. And of course, as a practical matter in a representative democracy, between elections, the people do have far less of an influence. They can basically only voice their opinions, threaten to vote differently in the next election, or start a revolution. But that doesn't absolve them of their responsibility on election day.
  - vintermann 10mo ago
    > So all authority/validity/legitimacy the US constitution has comes from the population, back then Exactly, back then. But those people are dead to a man. They are no longer people of the United States. Even if you count them as such, they would be extremely outnumbered by currently living people of the United States, and thus, democratically they can no longer confer any legitimate authority to the constitution. If they do confer any authority, it isn't democratic authority, because it has to be based on something else than the people. > And through continuing use, participation and broad acceptance until present. I think that's a pretty tenuous argument, all the time people constantly point to the constitution itself as authority for why they accept the constitution, rather than pointing to themselves as they should if they truly believed in the people's authority as opposed to gods, kings and holy texts. But even accepting that argument, at the very least you'd have to agree that if the people decided to change the constitution through means other than those the constitution propose, then that could still be perfectly democratic.