"people" vs. "the people"

[rasmack 0]

I do not hold the Americans I meet personally reponsible for whichever fallacy I believe the Bush administration to have. Likewise I do not expect to be held personally responsible for the strange things the Danish government can cook up (such as sending a submarine to a desert war
However in a representative democracy, the elected rulers represent their people. When the Bush administration sends American soldiers off to war, it is per definition the Will of the American People. I now submit the question: Where is the line? Where does "some people" stop, and where does "the people" begin? The Iraqi people as such can be considered innocent of the atrocities commited by Saddam Hussein's regime, as Iraq could hardly be considered a democracy. Can the American people be said to be innocent with respect to wrongdoing by their troops? Am I as a Dane free of responsibility towards descendants of the slaves in our plantations in the West Indies?

Are we all just spine-less softies over here for not supporting the war? Are Americans just oil-hungry warmongers? Is it a little more complicated than that?

I have tried to be neutral in my selection of examples. Apologies if I have offended any one political view. Any thoughts?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[prepheckt 0]

I have to admit this is one of the most well thought out positions that I've read in SC. Mostly because you are thinking critically about both sides of the issue at hand. If you're willing to examine all possible sides and then base your opinion based on the facts that are available to you, then you really know what's going on instead of basing your opinion on a political philosophy and become entrenched in that mentality. Props to you my good man.

"Dancing Argentine Tango is like doing calculus with your feet."
-9 toes

[andrewb898 0]

In theory, a true democracy would represent how the majority of the people would feel about an issue. Iraq was an unforeseen issue during the 2000 elections. So we didn't directly vote for the war. Although when you elect a representative into power part of your vote should be based on the individual's morals and ethics....which means that in a way the people were for the war.

Right now I'm personally trying to figure how I feel about some of these issues...but I have come to a conclusion.

I can't say that I honestly believe Bush went into Iraq for oil. War is NEVER popular. Bush risked losing his second term because of the war. Therefore I have to assume that Bush genuinely believes that we, the americans, were helping out the Iraqi people by invading.

Right now it is a shitty situation, but just maybe in two decades the positives coming out of Iraq will out-weigh the negatives of the present.

Are europeans spine-less softies for not joining the war?? No I don't think so, you just have a different perspective.

Hope that made some since.
-andrew

[rasmack 0]

I was not trying to start a discussion over any of the specific issues. I was merely trying to figure this funny thing out. To oversimplify a little, why are all the Americans I meet so nice, when I tend to disagree so strongly with the American people?

I am sure that some Bush supporter at some point has had the same thought: "The French stink... but the French guys I jumped with last weekend were outstanding guys. Strange."

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I have to admit this is one of the most well thought out positions that I've read in SC.

No position above, just a question topic proposed. In fact, I think he went out of the way on purpose to avoid taking a position.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

I have to admit this is one of the most well thought out positions that I've read in SC.

No position above, just a question topic proposed. In fact, I think he went out of the way on purpose to avoid taking a position.

Well at least someone took the position on his lack of position.

This would not be speaker's corner without that!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have to admit this is one of the most well thought out positions that I've read in SC.

No position above, just a question topic proposed. In fact, I think he went out of the way on purpose to avoid taking a position.

Well at least someone took the position on his lack of position.

This would not be speaker's corner without that!

Apparently it was a commendable avoidance of a position. Good job

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[prepheckt 0]

I think the absence of politics is a political statement....

"Dancing Argentine Tango is like doing calculus with your feet."
-9 toes

[dropoutdave 0]

I think it's alot better to take that kind of position than take the position of "I know it all and my views are right, peroid" like a fair amount of people in SC. (Not directed at you dude)

It's a very complex issue and to think that any of us have all the right answers and views on the subject of the war etc is ridiculous. Still, that doesn't stop most people demanding that their views and opinions are right unfortunatley.

It's sad but true. I have my opinions based on the knowledge that I have but I am more than happy for people to point out floors in my logic/understanding. IIIIIIIII dunno.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think it's alot better to take that kind of position than take the position of "I know it all and my views are right, peroid" like a fair amount of people in SC. (Not directed at you dude)

It's a very complex issue and to think that any of us have all the right answers and views on the subject of the war etc is ridiculous. Still, that doesn't stop most people demanding that their views and opinions are right unfortunatley.

It's sad but true. I have my opinions based on the knowledge that I have but I am more than happy for people to point out floors in my logic/understanding. IIIIIIIII dunno.

no, nope, that's not right at all

let me explain, no, let me sum up

stay out of my booze

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TomAiello 26]

I'd say that your responsibility flows through to the consequences of your actions, roughly in proportion to your ability to effect final outcomes.

Quote

Am I as a Dane free of responsibility towards descendants of the slaves in our plantations in the West Indies?

So, in this case, I'd say no. You had no opportunity to take action (pro or con) to effect the situation, so you have no personal responsibility (aside from any you choose to undertake, of course).

Quote

The Iraqi people as such can be considered innocent of the atrocities commited by Saddam Hussein's regime, as Iraq could hardly be considered a democracy.

Because the Iraqi people, for the most part, had no ability to take action that might effect these events, for better or worse.

Quote

Can the American people be said to be innocent with respect to wrongdoing by their troops?

Nope. But they can be said to share a larger or smaller portion of the responsibility. Someone who is vocally in favor of the occupation, for example, bears greater responsibility that someone who is vocally opposed. I'd say that the person bearing the least responsibility is probably going to be someone who, say, refuses to pay their taxes in protest. Conversely, the person bearing the most responsibility is the actual person committing the wrongdoing. Most everyone will fall somewhere between those two levels of responsibility, depending on their individual ability to take action that might effect that outcome.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jakee 1,609]

Quote

However in a representative democracy, the elected rulers represent their people.

Do they? Western states aren't so much democracies, more like democratically elected oligarchies. That election every 4 years (or whatever) is the only chance the many have to directly influence the course of their nation, after that its rule of the few.
The government has no real responsibility to do what the people want, in fact it could be that one of the main roles of government is to take unpopular, but neccessary decisions.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Do they? Western states aren't so much democracies, more like democratically elected oligarchies. That election every 4 years (or whatever) is the only chance the many have to directly influence the course of their nation, after that its rule of the few.

Well, these few then represent you in looking after the interests of society as a whole to the best of their abilities... or at least that is the idea

Quote

The government has no real responsibility to do what the people want, in fact it could be that one of the main roles of government is to take unpopular, but neccessary decisions.

Very true, but I still think that we need to accept the fact that, like it or not, actions are taken on our behalf. Can I deny any moral responsibility for my government being a bunch of racist pigs? Can vou honestly say that you have no part in ? I think that none of us have a problem with accepting a part in things that go well. How do we relate to things that are less than favourable but are never the less consequences of actions taken in our name?

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[andrewb898 0]

Of course the american people can be said to be innocent with respect to the wrong doing of the troops. Using the logic that everyone assumes responsibility for the actions of individuals is ridiculous. Saying that americans are in any way responsible for the horrible actions taken by a few people just doesn't make since.
Using this logic you can say anything you want. For example I could say that Marilyn Manson's mother should be put on trial for the crimes of her son. I mean she did contribute by giving birth to him...and we might as well put all of his co-workers, friends, family on trial for contributing to his sociopathic behaviors.
This logic just does not make since.

Rasmack, to answer your question I don't think that citizens are responsible for any positive or negative outcomes by their government unless they intentionally elect individuals whom they know will promote these positive or negative outcomes. Are americans responsible in any way for wrong doings taken by certain individuals who went AGAINST the law, of course not.
The only way american citizens could be held responsible for these actions would be if they had elected political leaders who set rules encouraging this type of behavior. Instead americans elected people to congress who made laws making these horrible acts illegal....therefore american citizens can assume no responsibility these wrong doings.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

... Saying that americans are in any way responsible for the horrible actions taken by a few people just doesn't make since.

OK How many people does it take, before it makes sense?

Quote

Are americans responsible in any way for wrong doings taken by certain individuals who went AGAINST the law, of course not.
The only way american citizens could be held responsible for these actions would be if they had elected political leaders who set rules encouraging this type of behavior. Instead americans elected people to congress who made laws making these horrible acts illegal....therefore american citizens can assume no responsibility these wrong doings.

You seem to equate "American citizens" with "the American People". Your point of view is (if I read this correctly) that no single individual can be held personally responsible. Is there no such thing as collective responsibility? Do the United States of America not have to take responsibility for the actions of the people whom they send out? Will the prisoners at Abu Ghraib have to take their case to a civil court to be compensated, or does the Military share responsibility?

I apologize that we seem to be stuck in this example. Please feel free to think up another.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Skyrad 0]

Your tag line is a good example of mans ability to develope technology with developing himself, kind of worrying....

But to get back on topic... What about the millions of Brits that did not want to go to war and rallied and marched and demonstrated and were ignored by a toady Prime Minister. If we did not vote for the government and did not agree with the war and did everything in our power to stop it then are we still culpable?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[likearock 2]

Quote

For example I could say that Marilyn Manson's mother should be put on trial for the crimes of her son. I mean she did contribute by giving birth to him

Wow, you must really hate his music!

Wayne

[andrewb898 0]

LMAO i love marilyn manson... i meant charles manson my bad