To what extent are a country's "people" responsible for their government's

[Guaranteed]

actions?

I'll set out the answers here, and you can choose the numbers in the poll:

#1. The people of a country are never responsible for the actions of their government.

#2. The people of a country are responsible for the actions of their government only when the majority of them agree with the actions.

#3. Only the people who agree, publicly or otherwise, with the actions of their government are responsible for their government's actions, except for children.

#4. Only the people who do not publicly dissent from the actions of their government are responsible for their government's action, except for children.

#5. The people of a country are only responsible for the actions of their government when they have a functional (or semi-functional) democracy, like in the U.S.A, with the exception of those who publicly dissent and children.

#6. The people of a country are only responsible for the actions of their government when they have a functional (or semi-functional) democracy, like in the U.S.A, but they are all responsible.

#7. The people of a country are always responsible for the actions of their government, except for those who publicly dissent and children.

#8. The people of a country are always responsible for the actions of their government.

#9. I have a different idea about when the people are responsible for the actions of their government, and I'll respond with it below.

[genie_weenie]

1. Whew that's a list!

I choose #3. Those who are vocal and point out the multiple evils of their government deserve to be lauded, listened to and defended.

I can not condemn those who remain silent (even in the face of OVERT evil). The State has many appartutuses to silence dissenters. I would hope those people would offer hidden support, aid, food , money, time, etc...

But, there is a catch. If a government hides or distorts all information going to the people who support the Government (such as has been the case in the US for many years), then even those people who agree should be treated as ill or sick and shown the way.

It's hard and thankless work, there will always be the Hannity's of the world who will wage a propaganda war to keep people from the truth.

[blonndee]

2. BGL

I have another comment on your poll. :) This one is much better and more interesting, in my opinion. But one small question: Aren't number 4 and number 7 the same? Or are they meant to differ in some way?

[Guaranteed]

5. Yes, they are. My train of thought ran into a redundancy.

:)

[mmonk]

3. An informed people is important

if they vote or choose in some manner their leaders and could affect their degree of responsibility.

[Rosemary2205]

4. Responsibility requires informed consent.

Absent of informed consent I don't think the public can be held responsible. -- For good or bad. And that goes for individual choices too.

[Selatius]

8. Then we can't be held responsible for the Iraq War then

Because I don't think we are informed as a nation.

[blonndee]

9. I respectfully disagree with you on this

because the information WAS out there for us to know it was all a lie--obviously it was out there, since so many of us said so from the beginning. So I do hold those who supported the war either by cheering it on or by not saying a damned thing responsible to some degree. And I said after the 2004 election that every dumbass who voted for Bush AGAIN ought to have to go serve in Iraq and give the soldiers a break.

Still, in our case, I think the media should be held much more accountable than the general public. Just my two cents.

[conflictgirl]

6. Other

So I guess that would be #9?

In a representative-based government such as ours, the citizens cannot be held responsible for the actions of that government, especially considering that the outcome of elections is usually relatively close. If we had 100% voter turnout and there was one candidate that got an overwhelming majority of the vote (I'm talking like 90%, not 55%) then maybe it could be considered to be truly representing the people. But let's face it, the US government does not represent the views of the majority of the people. How can we be held accountable for the actions of our government when the only thing we really have to do with it is vote every couple of years? It's not like when we went to war with Iraq, there was a referendum on that specific issue that we all got to vote on. If the people themselves directly voted on each specific issue, then the people individually could be held responsible for the actions of the government. But particularly in a representative style government like ours, we are just guessing and trying to predict how a candidate would vote on a particular issue. I'm not psychic enough to know which issues are going to come up during a particular term in office to enable me to vote accordingly. And so far, there have been very, very few politicians (even Democrats) who voted the way I would have wanted them to on every single issue.

And we won't even get into the accuracy of our election results and how that has bearing on this.

[Endangered Specie]

7. This is an interesting question, I voted #5, but it really does depend...

on the political system and information freedom of the nation in question..
I like the seperation of children (aka minors) from the possible list of responsible citizens.

Heres how I see it:
Ideally as a people's ability to control the governments action increase (ie: vote, express dissent, run for office), their responsibility for it increases.
Ideally as a people's ability to know what their governemnt is doing (freedom of information) is proportional to their responsibility.

When you say people I assume you mean civilians, I see a definite division between civilian and military populations in a nation.

[Selatius]

10. Other: You are RESPONSIBLE if you PAY TAXES to THAT GOV'T

It is not limited to merely giving legitimacy to the government by voting but also by voluntarily paying taxes to that government. You can still choose not to pay taxes; you'll suffer consequences, but nobody can take away your free will, just make you feel regret for exercising that free will in a particular manner.

After all, what does it matter if you voted Democrat or Republican to the dead one year-old Iraqi child who was killed by the 500 lb. bomb that was built on a US assembly-line that was built with American hands that was made possible by your tax dollars that fell on her mother, father, and herself? Your money helped build the machines of war whether you wanted it to or not.

[Guaranteed]

11. I like that point of view.

But voting is important, too, as is voicing one's opinion and even taking up arms in revolution "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

[TahitiNut]

12. What's it called when a person's own trivial comforts are worth more ...

... to them than the lives of thousands of innocents taken in his or her name?

It's the "bargain" of democracy vs. autocracy. The policies and actions of a nation/state bear certain fruits. Those fruits may be sweet or sour. As that nation slides toward autocracy, under some presumption that the few are somehow able to rule more effectively or efficiently than the many (i.e. sweeter fruits), it is certain that the sweet fruits will be distributed more to the few and the sour fruits to the many. When that nation climbs toward democracy, the fruits are presumably shared more equitably, even though they may be somewhat less sweet. Within that nation, it's well-understood throughout history that the vast majority's fruits will be sweeter under a democracy than an autocracy because the effect of more equitable sharing dwarfs the arguably better effectiveness or efficiency.

We consume a highly disproportionate share of the world's resources (fruits). The people who are exploited (in our name) share very few of the fruits. When people share in the plunder, they're equally responsible, especially when the vast majority gain a share greater than the people exploited.

There is always the "democracy" of revolution. No autocracy can long exist without the complicity of the people - particularly those who say they're not responsible, and don't do everything in their power to regain the democracy that they claim is all that's missing for them to share responsibility.

It's a Catch-22. We ARE responsible - unless and until we've done all we can, including bleed.

[Guaranteed]

13. I'm very surprised at the results of this poll.

I actually wasn't expecting nearly this many votes for #8, and definitely not for it to be winning the plurality.

I actually voted for #7, myself, which, as pointed out above, is logically the same as #4. In my opinion, whether a government is a republic or not, the people are responsible for its actions to the extent that they haven't done what they can to stop it, within reason. That includes voting, giving strong voice to one's opinion, possibly not paying taxes (another idea offered above), and, in still rarer cases, armed resistance.

I take this opinion more or less from what I learned in studying the ideas of our country's founding fathers, who, I believe, thought that not only should "the people" be responsible for and represented by their government, but that they are, whether they believe it or not. Regardless of the government's form or circumstances, it is the people's responsibility, their duty, to ensure that their government is acting in their best interest.

Obviously, children have no power, and are exempted from any kind of responsibility. But, other than them and people who have made it perfectly clear, publicly, that they disapprove of a certain governmental action, every constituent of that government is responsible for that action- and its consequences.

[Guaranteed]

14. Kick! nt

[Solon]

15. Actually, I'm surprised at how many actually damn themselves in this poll.

Granted, I agree with number 7 myself, I opposed the Iraq war when it was first started, and still view it as no more than a war crime, and have been quite vocal about it as well. I also didn't vote in this government, and really HATE this administration.

[PWRinNY]

16. How can the people be responsible for what Bush does

when the people actually voted for Gore? And Kerry, for that matter. Sometimes governments just cheat and lie. And media covers it up and tell us more lies. I believe the media is more responsible for the actions of a government than are the people. Yeah, people are responsible too, but people are also very gullible. In an ideal world, the people should be the responsible ones, but we've had our republic hijacked, and it's no longer governed by the people.

[Guaranteed]

19. But, if our government is no longer representing us,

we have to do what we can to take it back. I don't think that the people can shirk their responsibility.

[bemildred]

17. Authority and responsibility go together.

You are not responsible for things you do not control. If the people rule, they are responsible. Otherwise not. In the USA, for example, the people do not rule, and the government works hard to keep it that way.

[porphyrian]

18. Other - It depends entirely on the type of government.

Do we blame Ugandans for Idi Amin or Soviets for Stalin? At least as often as is not the case, governments are established to control a population rather than to serve its interests. Only when the government is acting as an extension of the people should the people be held responsible for the government's actions.

The argument can be made that it is an individual's duty to actively try to stop the actions of a government that is behaving unacceptably, but to what extent and by which methods? Our government is doing wrong and not being very representative right now. Are we responsible anyway? Maybe just those who voted for bush? Or do we blame those who didn't vote at all, too? If a thousand innocent children are murdered by our government's actions, is simply voting enough? If we do anything illegal, we get put in prison or killed. Should that be a factor as well? What about people who were duped into supporting the government who are basically good, just suckers? There are way too many factors for a simple answer here.

[The2ndWheel]

20. It's tough to say these days

States, governments, whatever, are so large these days. They have many layers of complexity and bureaucracy. They supposedly represent millions, and in some cases billions of people, however that may be possible. Everything is basically done in secret. We've specialized politics to the extent that only the wealthy can get to the point of being voted for. There isn't anything you can do lawfully outside of maybe a meaningless feel-good protest(they had their day, they don't work anymore) or voting.

I think we're at the point where, because of size, people don't really have that responsibility anymore. We've got career politicians for that, think tanks to think for us(whatever side they're on), political organizations(which are top-down entities) that, well, do the organizing.

Then again, maybe it's always been that way.

[Guaranteed]

21. Good post.

The thing that bothers me about my view on this is just that societies have gotten so large that they have seemingly taken on lives of their own. Its almost as if governments don't really do as much anymore as we think they do.

It's all its own animal.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. They Are NEVER Responsible.

Only those people in government who create policy and implement it into action are ever responsible for those actions, much like employees are technically never responsible for their management's behavior.