NationStates Jolt Archive

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?

People making their governments afraid is considered terrorism these days. :rolleyes:

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?
Yes.

Darn, I thought you were going to say teddy bears.

People making their governments afraid is considered terrorism these days. :rolleyes:

I concur.

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?
No. There should be a relationship of respect between them. The Government is there to serve the best interests of it's people, and the people in turn give it the power to do so. That is the scope of Government.

wait isn't the government the people in a way?

wait isn't the government the people in a way?
It's delegated with the power to represent their interests.

If the people are ugly, sure.

wait isn't the government the people in a way?
Ah, the idealism of youth. :)

Technically in a 'true' democracy, the government and the people are one and the same, with the people accepting responsibility for the actions of their state. In practice, government is an exclusive group of individuals selected from an exclusive pool of candidates by means of an image-based popularity contest.

It's delegated with the power to represent their interests.

I have an example look at the middle east there governments should be afraid of their people anytime. Iraq probably should.

People making their governments afraid is considered terrorism these days. :rolleyes:

Correction - Arsonists.

Sounds like chaos to me.

People making their governments afraid is considered terrorism these days. :rolleyes:
Sadly this is the case. The term "terrorist" is only a propaganda-term, and is used by by many governments about all who oppose it. As said: "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter."

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?
Yes, I do. A revolution should be accepted as a democratic action. It's even THE MOST democratic action there is. A people overthrowing a government ("democratic" or not) and making a new one formed by it's will.

Note the difference between a revolution and a coup. A revolution needs it's people support from beggining to end whereas a coup needs no support.

ok what about this scenario what happens if we have a democracy society and there are supporters for a nazi regime is that still a revolution "the most democratic thing there is?" or does it depend if it's voted or by force.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force..never for a moment
should it be left to irresposible action.

ok what about this scenario what happens if we have a democracy society and there are supporters for a nazi regime is that still a revolution "the most democratic thing there is?"

If a _clear_ majority of the people supported it, then yes. A government opposing them would be undemocratic.

This, however, doesn't mean I'd support them. I'd most probably be out on the streets routing for a socialist revolution at the same time while throwing rocks at FrP-representatives (norways second largest party) as the nazi-scum they are.

wait isn't the government the people in a way?

no

would any of you would go at any cost if you were in a totalitarian society to start a revolution then?

If a _clear_ majority of the people supported it, then yes. A government opposing them would be undemocratic.
So? Democracy is nothing holy, it is a means to an end. If that end (justice, protection, etc) isn't being met, then Democracy has failed.
And when something fails repeatedly, then it should be stopped.

So? Democracy is nothing holy, it is a means to an end. If that end (justice, protection, etc) isn't being met, then Democracy has failed.
And when something fails repeatedly, then it should be stopped.

elaborate, it's kinda confusing.

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?

Thank you, Alan Moore...

Jeez...at least cite the quote.

wait isn't the government the people in a way?

Depends on the nation's constitution and where it says sovereignty lies.

That's ideally anyway, governments are rarely little more then a kabal of elites legitimising their rule.[/commie bollocka]

elaborate, it's kinda confusing.
Democracy is a means to an end, much like jogging is a way to move around. If I, however, I discover that jogging isn't the best way to get around, and that a moped would be faster and more efficient, I should move to the moped.
In the same way, if Democracy isn't performing it's function (safe guard the people from government and from each other) then it should be replaced by a form of government that will.

Note the difference between a revolution and a coup. A revolution needs it's people support from beggining to end whereas a coup needs no support.

Nope, in both cases the support of the army is needed.

In cases when the army splits relatively equally everything gets more "interesting," such as in the Spanish Civil War.

Nope, in both cases the support of the army is needed.

In cases when the army splits relatively equally everything gets more "interesting," such as in the Spanish Civil War.

A revolution can be done without the army, but then the people have to become an army.

A coup must be done by an army. A general taking over the power using his army is a good example. A politician using his para-military is another good example.

A revolution can be done without the army,

Do you have any examples?

Do you have any examples?

The French revolution. The War of Independence.

You might argue that they had armies, but I would argue that it was the people that started the whole thing and they then had to become armies. As such, it didn't start out with an army.

Then there's also peaceful revolutions, that do not actually need armies.

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?
Completely.

The French revolution.

so all those mutinies didn't happen?

The War of Independence.

and i suppose the fact that the militias were the military doesn't count?

(i assume you mean the american revolution, yes?)

The government are the people of nation who have formed to insure a set amounts of agreements are created in terms of justice system, economy, and military. The people do this as a way to form unite and stop any chaos from happening so the government cant terriorize the people because it is the people unless its a individual or individuals who have taken control through military or other ways.

The French revolution.

The French Revolution did, to a great extent have the support of the armies.

You might argue that they had armies, but I would argue that it was the people that started the whole thing and they then had to become armies. As such, it didn't start out with an army.

My claim didn't rest on the arguement that armies must instigate revolutions, just that they must support them.

Then there's also peaceful revolutions, that do not actually need armies.

I think we can agree they are a different kettle of fish.

Though peaceful revolutions tend to happen (AFAIK) in far different circumstances than typically violent revolutions. That is, to throw occupiers out rather then change a nation's constitution.

However, they still need the army to at least be sympathetic. Either in terms of the rank and file being sympathetic or the command urging them not to turn to wholesale butchering.

Though 20th Century history really isn't my thing.

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?
Of course not. Government is people.

A situation of mutual respect would be better.

You know of course that being afraid of something usually doesn't mean you cave in, it means you start to keep secrets and work against whatever you are afraid of.

A government that doesn't feel it can trust its own population...well, we've seen plenty of examples.

Of course not. Government is people.
this (http://www.usdat.us/secretary/archives/rove_1.jpg) is a person?

this (http://members.optushome.com.au/hark/cheney.jpg) to me looks more like gollum than anything else! :p

Of course not. Government is people.

Well in certain idealist fantasies of course.

In the real world though...

Well in certain idealist fantasies of course.

In the real world though...
In the real world, they are Soylent Green.

Government exists to serve the people. It is not a means unto itself, and the second it becomes that, it should be disposed of or reformed.

And to that end, the best kind of government is one that is aware of this fact, and knows the consequences.

(BTW, I'm looking forward to the release of "V is for Vendetta")

(yes I'm looking forward to V for Vendetta)

As Bolol said, the government works to server the people. But if those in the government are not afraid of being punished by the people for wrong-doings, then those in the government will be more likely do wrong. Thus the government must be afraid of the people, afraid of being wrong, in order to keep them from overstepping their bounds.

In the real world, they are Soylent Green.

I think that will a bit later in the future.


[homer simpson]Hmmm, Soylent Green, aaarrrggghh[/homer simpson]

yeah i admit it's from V for Vendetta I just thought the line was interesting.

Not affraid per say, but definitely respectful. The People should have the true and final power within the system.

Not affraid per say, but definitely respectful. The People should have the true and final power within the system.

I'd see it though more as an affiliation with terrorism.

(yes I'm looking forward to V for Vendetta)

As Bolol said, the government works to server the people. But if those in the government are not afraid of being punished by the people for wrong-doings, then those in the government will be more likely do wrong. Thus the government must be afraid of the people, afraid of being wrong, in order to keep them from overstepping their bounds.
I agree with this quote.

If a president say like Bush has no fear of impeachment (which means a trial not a punishment neccessarily) than they have no fear and can continue to do things deemed wrong or unconstitutional.
(not getting into whether or not he is impeachable)

But that just screams power corrupting.

OP, are you saying that the Iranian people have nothing to fear of the Iranian govt?

If I had to choose one or the other, the government should fear the people.

I also agree with H N. If a form of government is inefficient at a proven goal, it has failed.

If I had to choose one or the other, the government should fear the people.

I also agree with H N. If a form of government is inefficient at a proven goal, it has failed.

how would you know if a form of government is inefficient, it may to your standards but not the people necessairly living in it.

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?

Yes, I do... The sovereign (the people) should always be feared by their servants (the government).

Thank you, Alan Moore...

Jeez...at least cite the quote.

indeed. can't wait to see V.

(the quote is a catchy cheesy tagline to promote a movie.. what are you guys discussing here anyway..)

"People should not be afraid of their governments governments should be afraid of their people" do you agree with that line?
Ah. You saw V I pressume?

The government should be the people and the people should be the government.

The government should be the people and the people should be the government.
I am the people and the people should do my bidding.