Personal Responsibility in and for a Democracy

Great Debates
1

In another thread in IMHO, MLS said

I was going to post there, but I think this is more a GD topic. I respond:

Do I want you and/or your children dead? It’s a good question, isn’t it? Do you wish for the deaths of innocent Afghans? Iraqis? Grenadans? Palestinians?

If not, why do you cause them?

The nature of a democracy, and I apologise in advance for those that already understand this, is that it is a system of government by acclaim. In return for a right to vote (whether or not you choose to use it) you agree to permit the winner of that vote to represent you, and to act on your behalf. You can’t get out of it by saying you didn’t vote, or that you voted for the other guy, because the fact that you have that right means that you have agreed to this system.

Actions have been taken on your behalf. Missiles have been flung. People have died. You agreed, by your continued participation in this democracy, to permit this to happen on your behalf. You have not taken steps to disown these actions, such as renouncing your citizenship.

This gives you certain benefits. You get to live where you are at the moment. You are not subject to depravation, as many around the world are. You are not personally subject to certain unpleasantnesses such as torture for speaking out about your government.

It also has certain drawbacks. Your citizenship has made you hated by those you oppress. Your attacks on those people has caused sufficient aggravation for them to attack you directly. You call it terrorism. They call it a fight for freedom. Sometimes for the lives of their families.

War is quickly becoming an outmoded concept. Where one government has a hegemony, such that they are irresistable, nothing will be gained by attacks launched by nations that can be smacked down. Better for concerned groups to act alone. Where one can, with their death, slaughter thousands - even millions, where the opportunity exists - there is no need for a war of nations.

The concept of a non-combatant civilian has not been adhered to often, and since WWII has essentially ceased to be.

Where you take, or support, action you must face consequence. You can pay others to fight on the front line for you, but where you alienate someone sufficiently that they will risk their life to stop you, you cannot turn around and claim innocence.

I am not a pacifist - violence is an unfortunate, but inevitable part of life. But I choose my fights, and I accept that what I do may have consequences I do not intend.

I accept my role within a democracy. I recognise that even where actions taken on my behalf are against my wishes, I cannot disown them by simply claiming so. “Not in my name” is a salve to the soul, but where it is not backed by action it is a hollow claim.

Should you and your children die for your acts? Your children who are not members of your democracy are effectively innocent. Do you deserve to die for the deaths you have caused? I wouldn’t kill you for it - but others may wish to, and I can understand why. Do I deserve to die for my government’s acts? Maybe. But as a rational citizen I accept my personal responsibility for its acts.

2

No, I don’t wish the death of anyone. Well, maybe Saddam Hussein and his sons after reading about some of their atrocities. There is no evidence that any U.S. actions were designed to maximize civilian casualties; quite the contrary.
I did not, and I believe my government did not, go about saying “Gee, I hope lots and lots of those people die.”
That is what you said about me. You said you hope lots of American civilians die. My children and I are all members of our democracy.

I presume that you are also protesting the actions of the Iraqi government and that you are marching in protest against the horrors of that regime. Probably also the occupation of Tibet by China. How many letters have you sent demanding the return of the Panchen Lama?

BTW, I just heard that the U.S. is also sending 200,000 tons of grain to Iraq.

3

Good question, and one which encompasses a whole variety of varied philosophical questions. None of which I have time to address fully enough to give justice to here.

The most difficult one for me is, what gives me the right to remain a citizen of the UK, when the UK supports what I consider to be an unjust war? I’ll have to think about that.

The pragmatist in me says that, for the sake of the future, I can do more good by remaining in a position where I can influence my governments actions, in however small a way. Is renouncing citizenship simply walking away from Omelas, a refusal to engage with the problem?

On the other hand, is this merely intellectual wallpaper, put up hurredly by myself so that I can remain happily deluded that it is alright for me to enjoy my education, my healthcare, my freedoms?

I don’t know, right now.

Thanks for posting the question. I’ll think about it.

4

The US has traditionally been indiscriminate in its attacks. Allow me to repeat. Cluster bombs were dropped on non-military targets in Afghanistan. What’s most depressing is that this only made the (Australian) papers for three days.

Indications in this morning’s news were that the US has already killed at least one Iraqi civilian in Doura and wounded others - again, indiscriminately rather than intentionally, and civilian targets are not realistically considered ‘off-limits’ by any power.

Many thousands have been killed by sanctions in Iraq since the last Gulf War. 200,000 tonnes of wheat (is that in addition to, or as well as Australia’s 100,000 tonnes?) will help save some lives - but many others are already dead, and many more will die. And you consider yourself blameless for this?

5

Welcome. I can tell you that I thought about it and yes, I sold out to a life of relative luxury. That’s subject to review, depending on how many I think ought to die to support me, but it was certainly an eyeopener when I realised that about myself.

6

Just FYI…

The Iraqi Civillian Body Count is at 16.

As is the Coalition Body County.

24 hours in, and we’re already killing more than one an hour…

Still, it could be worse.

7

Er, that should have been “Count”, not “County”.

8

So, BigNik, you’re an Aboriginie, right? I’m assuming your are, since I can’t imagine you exercising such moral superiority someplace that was stolen on your behalf.

The fact is I don’t live in a democracy. I live in a republic. That means I don’t vote day-by-day on every issue that concerns the governance of my country, but periodically I vote to appoint those that do. Those voted-in will in turn appoint others to protect the lives of their constituents. If they fail to do this, the Generals will be fired and the politicians will be voted out.

That’s not a perfect system. I expect it to be improved through technology, just as slaves and serfs were freed by the invention of farm machinery. That technology will free up our time and also allow methods for us to more actively participate in our government.
I happen to think that removing the current Iraqi regime will make another Sept. 11* less likely, not more so. I understand the arguments against this are well thought and passionately embraced, both of which I respect. Only time will tell which view was right. I also happen to agree with Leo Tolstoy; that man was made for a natural state of happiness, and that the only way to allow this is for good people to stop bad people.

*Yes, I know Saddam had no involvement in Sept 11, 2001. Likewise Hitler had no involvement in Dec. 7, 1941, but I’m not sorry he’s he was targeted in the hysteria of its aftermath.

9

BigNik,

Great question. I live in a very passive country, and I was brought up with the idea that my responsibility is effectively none. We go through the trouble have electing officials so that they will deal with all the crap I don’t have time for. This sounds like a copout, and for the most part it is.

There is however, one short time when you have a huge responsibility and it has nothing to do with voting. If you are truly unhappy with your government, so much so that it keeps you up at night writing on message boards, your responsibility is to GET INVOLVED. Don’t worry about voting, and don’t bother protesting, neither actually has a significant impact. If the current ruling party pisses you off, sign up with the opposing party. Get involved with them, volunteer, donate money, and do everything in your power to help them win (it also helps if you vote for them). One vote isn’t enough; you have to work to sway the votes of other people, and that, is your responsibility in a democracy.

For all the people that hate Pres Bush, you have no choice but to sign up with the Democrats, and get involved to make sure people don’t for Bush in 2004 (remember a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, he he he). Just complaining isn’t enough. If you are outside the US, and REALLY hate Bush, donate money to the Democratic Party [http://www.democrats.org/] to help them win.

On the other side, what are the responsibilities of people under a dictator? Who is responsible for letting Saddam stay in power?

10

Well, heckafahr! In that case, let’s just nuke everybody until nobody is left on the planet. If we’re universally hated already, then there’s nothing we can do about it in any case and we might as well do whatever the hell we want.

11

.

First, to answer your question, I’m not aboriginal. To answer the implied question, I agree that the way their land was stolen and they were treated is disgraceful.

That being said, you appear to have missed the point of the OP. What I’ve said is that part of the realpolitik of existence is that you have to take the negative consequences of your actions, and those you allow to act for you, as well as the good.

I have benefited from the seizure of aboriginal land. I have profited from misery. I admit and accept this. This does, indeed, make me a bad person. But, at least, not an hypocrite or wilfully ignorant.

Similarly, you have profited from genocide and theft that was committed some time ago. Whether you can deal with this is up to you.

In parallel, you have profited from murders, terrorism and theft that is being committed by people you have authorised to do this on your behalf. Good for you. Lucky you.

Unfortunately, this does make you a bad person. Evil, evil Tove. If you believe that there’s an afterlife that rewards and punishes your actions in this one, it will be substantially unpleasant for you.

Further, people who do not want you to kill or terrorise them may take whatever actions are necessary to try to stop you from doing this. Good for them. Best wishes all around.

You seem to feel that once you cast your vote, your responsibility ends there. This is, at best, disingenuous. At worst, intellectually dishonest.

While you may not have direct control over your representative on a regular basis, the fact that you have agreed - by your citizenship - that they may represent you means that you retain responsibility for things they do on your behalf. Likewise, you will - no doubt - be happy to take the benefits that flow from these actions.

One question you do raise that’s interesting is whether you can be held responsible for things that were done before you became a participatory member of your Democracy (or, if you’d prefer, the subtype of your Democracy that you call a ‘Republic’). This is a more intellectual exercise, but I would profess that if you will take the benefits that flow from these actions, you must also take the unpleasant ones.

12

Your ability to affect actions is effectively none. Your responsibility is not decreased by the fact that you choose someone to make decisions on your behalf.

Absolutely. Your actual vote has next to no effect. Theoretically it could, but for all intents and purposes it is highly unlikely that this would ever be the case.

If you want to have a real say in what your country does, it will take a massive commitment to do so, and essentially would consume your life. I’m not willing to make that commitment. Few are.

You are accountable for your actions, or lack thereof. Recognising this will allow you to see what you are sewing - knowing that once you do so, you may not be able to choose what you reap. Otherwise you are as recalcitrant as the crusading monk who was told he could not shed blood in the Holy Land, and so filed the points off his mace.

And, for reference, the US Democrats are no less evil than the US Republicans - witness the atrocities that Americans committed under such Presidents as Clinton, Johnson and Kennedy - they are merely less overt.

Hussein should be stopped. The US does not have the moral right to do so, or to harm others in this process.

13

It is absolutely false to say that a single vote has no effect. Try telling that to the MP who has a wafer-thin majority. Every vote counts. Even if your candidate doesn’t win, the winner will take note of the size of the losers’ votes.

14

Every vote counts. Not every vote makes a difference. The MP I voted against today has a margin of 6,651 in an electorate of 32,351. If I’d voted for him he’d be sitting on a whole 6,652 (my vote expired before it hit either him or his major opponent).

Boy, did I show him. He won’t be taking me for granted next time.

15

BigNik- I live in the USA. In fact, I grew up in the middle of what probably used to be Tribal lands. Did I benefit from the almost-genocide of the Native Americans? No. Did I reap the rewards of a policy of terror and violence? No. See, those things happened long before I was born. The Indian Wars are a thing of the past. My geographic location doesn’t automatically make me responsible for things that happened decades or centuries ago.

Right now, soldiers are fighting and dying. Some of them have been sent to fight by me, as represented by the government we have chosen (like it or not, you knew the system when you voted. If you didn’t, why were you voting?). They are fulfilling the will of the people, and performing an act that will benefit the US in terms of safety in the future.

Are innocent civilians going to die? Sadly, yes. Far less than everyone thinks, however. I wish it weren’t the case, but sometimes one must look at the greater good.

Thousands of soldiers died in the Normandy Landing of WWII. It would have been easy to just accept Nazi domination of Europe, and never make the sacrifice. But it would have been the wrong decision, both politically, and “morally”. In the end, the results were for the greater good, not just of the US, but of the world.

Am I responsible for deaths of Iraqi’s due to the sanctions? No. Is the US? No. The fact of the matter is, the primary culprit there would be Saddam Hussein. He holds the reigns of oil that are allowed to be traded for food and basic staples. He has (on at least one occasion) stopped that trade to make a political point. Did he miss a meal? No. But a few more of the people under him died.

For that, and many other acts, it has come time for Saddam Hussein to be punished. The UN, being a non-military body, cannot in all honesty do this. So we, the US, must do so. We have made every attempt to do it without violence… but much like the schoolyard bully of our youths, Saddam Hussein, in the end, understands little else.