What is the duty of a citizen when government fails to live up to its standards?

Author: AleutianTexan

Posts

Total: 21
Topic's author
#1
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
I was in a current events thread and this came up as a core prior question to the issue of a police shooting. However, the question in a vacuum is a good one and I was directed to create this thread. 

Classic liberal thought, from what I understand, is that a government is only legitimate if it does its job in protecting liberty/property, and a tyrannical government would, therefore, be ethically able to be brought down. The counter, however, would be the argument that the government knows what is best or that reforming institutions is better than radical revolution. This is a general starting point, but I want to see what other people have to say about it.
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 358
Posts: 10,726
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Tyrannical governments in themselves are not a problem.

Its the war starting governments that I am concerned about.

"Taking away freedom of speech" is very low of importance when compared to "starting wars and doing mass killings".

There are levels of tyranny, and we shouldnt start a civil war over "little tyranny".
#3
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
If change is slow, there is never an opportunity to torture and kill the corrupt leaders
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I dunno, people seem to be fine with the current "6 years to almost get the Orangeman"
#5
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I dunno, people seem to be fine with the current "6 years to almost get the Orangeman"
My personal theory is that the cabal is panicking, because whatever documents him and Q took from the Whitehouse will expose them.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,060
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
They will just Assange him. Cabal isn't worried.
#7
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,363
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@AleutianTexan
I think the criteria is a bit vague,
As people and groups have different ideals, lines.

Maybe it would have been better for America to take it slow, in getting Representation.
But I don't really know the history of Britain and it's colonies representation,
I imagine Canada and Australia did 'something,
I 'think those two slowly formed their own governments under Britain's guidance,
Until they separated as nations,
And yet the Canadians and Australians still have the Royal family as their Monarchs,
Which I don't quite get,
But this is off topic.

. . .

Eh, take Germany in WW2,
Certainly individuals and groups oppressed by their government, despite being citizens,
Would have been considered justified in open revolt,
Certainly would not have been able to make change lawfully,
Not with Hitler and his group.

. . .

India,
Didn't seem to have much luck with open revolt, that I recall reading,
Not that it was morally wrong,
But better luck working within and half within the system,
Nonviolent protests being half within I mean.

Maybe protests ought be considered all the way in the system,
But depends on the system.
Topic's author
#8
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@Best.Korea
So, would you call civil war/revolution over unjust wars?
Topic's author
#9
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
So, do you think that bad policies shouldn't be fixed through legalistic reform, but through revolution to purge leadership? Who would replace it?
Topic's author
#10
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@Lemming
So work in the system for democracies but revolt against more centralized power structures, not as a hard an fast rule, but a guiding idea?
#11
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
, do you think that bad policies shouldn't be fixed through legalistic reform,

Depends on how bad and what were the motives you can infer. I would infer that if the results of a policy harmed a lot of people, they were intended to do so and the people creating the policy should be treated in response to that. 

So for example let's say that  their policies caused 3 people to die who had the policy not been indicated would not have died. Let's imagine we aren't in some scenario where losing 3 lives to save 6 is happening or anything like that 

Well the politicians should by hung for murder.

Let's imagine that declassified documents appear 30 years from now that show the 2020 election was stolen. Everybody who criticized the January 6 protest not regular citizens but media, politicians etc. Should be treated as have committed treason. 



but through revolution to purge leadership? Who would replace it?
It's not as important who, as it is important they fear the people they govern. This will make them be more careful about creating policy for the public good with respect to the bill of rights than would having no fear. 
Topic's author
#12
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
How do you measure if a bill kills people? 
#13
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
We can usually measure it by death rates prior to and after the policy is effected. Generally as I said you want to look at the results of a policy to see what the motives for passing it were.

Let's say somebody legalized abortion. Well if black births decreased by 10% that would be the same as genociding 10% of African American new born baby's and they can be punished accordingly. 
Topic's author
#14
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1. When there are 1,228 enacted laws in the last congressional session of two years, or more than one a day, how do we measure which ones do what with certainty?

2. Is life the only thing that can be measured as valuable?

3. So, the passage of COVID lockdowns led to suicides. The repeal of lockdowns led to COVID deaths. How do you weigh those against one another? Or more generally, how do you weigh lose-lose situations in general?
#15
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
1.When there are 1,228 enacted laws in the last congressional session of two years, or more than one a day, how do we measure which ones do what with certainty?
Simple bring it down to like 5 laws enacted a year. It is illegal in North Carolina to eat ice cream on Sundays. There are no need for laws like that to be on the books.  The laws I would require to also have politicians literally read every bill they pass as well as make them quote the part of the constitution that allows them to pass that specific law. 

2. Is life the only thing that can be measured as valuable?

I thought it would be easier to measure life. I would personally consider freedom more important. maybe life was a bad example.

So, the passage of COVID lockdowns led to suicides. The repeal of lockdowns led to COVID deaths. How do you weigh those against one another? Or more generally, how do you weigh lose-lose situations in general?
The passage of the lockdowns also restricted freedom, so I would consider it treasonous, especially with curfew in place.

It seemed to be more about tyranny. Let's use the following example. The grocery store near me was open 24 hours a day. 

When COVID happened the store was open 12 hours a day. 

Assuming they have 1000 customers it makes less sense to shove them all in the store at a tightened window than spread them out for social distancing. 

So whoever created those curfews clearly wasn't concerned about anything other than a power grab. So they should be subject to charges of treason or have a lynch mob go after them
Topic's author
#16
AleutianTexan
AleutianTexan's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 115
0
3
7
AleutianTexan's avatar
AleutianTexan
0
3
7
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1a. Five laws a year? Is that practical? What five laws passed during the last congressional session make the cut, and why does each of the other five not?

1b. Quoting the Constitution is useless. First, promote the general welfare has been stretched to mean everything. Second, it's about interpretation, which the court rules on. Them quoting why they get to pass it doesn't matter unless someone contests it and then the courts decide.

2. How do you measure freedom? I'm assuming you don't mean unlimited anarchy where there is essentially no state is good, so what's the benchmark?

3a. The lockdowns saved lives and "promoted the general welfare". How do you weigh that against "freedom", especially when it isn't quantifiable.

3b. In regards to your grocery example, wasn't that time supposed to be used for deep cleaning the store? Assuming that's true, is there a difference between a mistake and maliciousness?
#17
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
1a. Five laws a year? Is that practical? What five laws passed during the last congressional session make the cut, and why does each of the other five not?
If they haven't crafted a perfect set of laws for the entire 200 years of the country than I don't know why blindly creating 1200 more is useful. Plus how do I even know if I am breaking a law if so many are on the books?

Quoting the Constitution is useless. First, promote the general welfare has been stretched to mean everything. Second, it's about interpretation, which the court rules on. Them quoting why they get to pass it doesn't matter unless someone contests it and then the courts decide.
It's a useful reminder to the people passing bills what they are supposed to be adhering to. 

2. How do you measure freedom? I'm assuming you don't mean unlimited anarchy where there is essentially no state is good, so what's the benchmark?
A night's watchman state

3a. The lockdowns saved lives and "promoted the general welfare". How do you weigh that against "freedom", especially when it isn't quantifiable.

It is quantifiabke and if not we need to make it quantifiable so that way we can make perfect policies guided by the philosophy. I think the concept of negative Rights is pretty perfectly spelled out. You can use the non aggression principle if you like. The government is essentially there to protect negative rights though. That is there only ethical function.


3b. In regards to your grocery example, wasn't that time supposed to be used for deep cleaning the store? Assuming that's true, is there a difference between a mistake and maliciousness?
I don't consider there to be a difference between a mistake an maliciousness. I expect perfect policies and if someone is incapable of doing that, then they shouldn't run for public office. 
#18
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
duty of a citizen
Live. Possibly in the country.

The duty of any organism, including humans, is to live. If humans need to do anything to their country, it is for the sake of protecting themselves, long term or short term.

#19
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,363
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@AleutianTexan
Hm, no,
I can't give a guiding idea,
It's still too vague in my head.
#20
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,363
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@AleutianTexan
I don't know about duty,
Revolution 'can be a means to secure it.

But sometimes one's desire is not so strong,
Or contends with other desires, strong desire for right government, strong desire that this is not done in murder and death,

Other methods than revolution might be expected to work easier, depending on situation,
Though I don't know if people were expecting change,
The situation changed after Franco's death,

"Franco won the war and set up an authoritarian regime that lasted until 1975, providing relative stability while restricting individual liberties and suppressing regional autonomy.
He decreed that on his death the monarchy would be restored, and Prince Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon was groomed to become king. Franco died on Nov. 20, 1975, at the age of 82, and the 37-year-old prince became King Juan Carlos I.
The King soon ousted the conservative Prime Minister, Carlos Arias Navarro, and selected a moderate, Adolfo Suarez, for the job. Together they set about restoring democracy and transforming Spain into a constitutional monarchy."

Though there were 'still a lot of people,
For whom the situation failed to live up to their standards, it sounds.

"While often cited as a paradigm of peaceful, negotiated transition, political violence during the Spanish transition was far more prevalent than during the analogous democratization processes in Greece or Portugal, with the emergence of separatist, revolutionary, fascist and vigilante terrorist groups.[3]"

23 days later

#21
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@AleutianTexan
Classic liberal thought, from what I understand, is that a government is only legitimate if it does its job in protecting liberty/property,
A government cannot protect property or liberty if it presumes to sustain priority over another's property or liberty.

and a tyrannical government would, therefore, be ethically able to be brought down.
Any government that subjects moral disputes to referendum is tyrannical.

The counter, however, would be the argument that the government knows what is best
An often repeated platitude. How does the government know better as it concerns you and yours better than you? The platitude merely acts as a pretext in justifying the subordination of non-government interests.

or that reforming institutions
Reforming institutions make little to no difference when the objection is with the institution itself.

So then,

What is the duty of a citizen when government fails to live up to its standards?
End the association. Unfortunately this cannot be done without threat of penalty which certainly includes the prospect of deadly force.