Libertarians have a take on this. Not the Party people, presumably, but the philosophic types (who no doubt infuriate their party).
They say the act of voting implies consent to the result. In effect, you've joined the system and are stuck with it.
If a libertarian on the list can better describe this point of view, please do so. It certainly seems to me to have merit.
Harry
--------------------------------------------------------
Ed wrote:
Brad, I knew I was going to get into deep trouble with this one. You'll note that as a precaution I called it a "thorny question". I don't have many answers, but I do feel that if Canada had joined the "coalition of the willing", there would have been hell to pay. This suggests to me that my democratically elected government keeps its ear pretty close to the ground. I know that on many other issues my government will or will not take action because it senses the popular mood. It's an osmotic process which does not always work, but does quite a lot of the time. Pollsters help.
I don't know if ordinary citizens should be responsible for their leaders war crimes. I've read Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners", which argues that the Holocaust was the product of how Germans thought about Jews and that all Germans, not only Hitler, had to bear the guilt. But then you can't try everybody in Germany as a war criminal. Someone has to take the rap, as Milosovic is for the behavior of the Serbs in Kosovo.
I would draw the line when it comes to leaders like Stalin. Ordinary Soviet citizens could not be held responsible for what he did. He was beyond their control. I'd say the same in the case of Saddam and ordinary Iraqis.
However, in the case of a modern free democratic state, I would still say that citizens have to take responsibility for what their governments do. They can vote, they can talk to their representatives, they can protest and they can use the courts. They can join and support organizations which can take the government on. If they do everything in their power to stop the government from doing something stupid and the government still does it, they can feel exonerated. But, on major issues, unless they are willing to go that far, democracy becomes meaningless. I'd like to think that isn't happening, but have to concede that maybe it is.
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Expediency not responsibility (was Re: US not an Empire)
> Ed Weick wrote: > > Keith, what we're into here is the thorny question of the extent to which > > the people of a modern democracy are responsible for the commitments their > > leaders make on their behalf. IMHO, they are responsible, > [snip] > > WHat could this possibly mean? How could it > be operationalized? > > If Bush (or the U.S. military, etc.) commit a > war crime, should *I* be tried along with > the likes of Goering and Speer (or even Kissinger and > O. North)? Even if I voted for Gore (or Nader)? > > Should I be made to pay reparations for what > they did? I barely make enough money to have > a moderate life as it is. > > How can powerless individuals be held accountable for > the actions of their "representatives"? I called > Senator Clinton's office to try to get some help with > something entirely patriotic and I was given the > brushoff. > > *Now* ! There *is* a way citizens can make a > difference, but I doubt it'w what you had in > mind. Timothy McVeigh made more diference > than most ordinary citizens. > > I think the ontological status of the individual > person in mass society is a profound problem (not > really, since each individual soon enough is dead, and > as Don Quixote observed: > > There is no memory which time does not efface, > ANd no pain to which death does not bring an end. > > So what?). > > I think "the Scandanavian model", and the conclsions > of the study _Work in America_ which the Nixon > Administration comissioned, which also > suggested the desirability of greater > worker participation in work group self-management > would at least begin to try to turn the juggernaut > around. > > But maybe, by "people", you are not referring to individual > human beings, but to that quasi-real entity "the American > people", who are everybody in general and nobody > in particular? That would remind me of when galaxies > "collide": such a collision does not imply that even > a single individual star from one galaxy shashes > into a star from the other galaxy -- but the two > galaxies, nonetheless, can be so drastically > upheaved that it no longer is possible to > say that either galaxy continues to exist. > Or they can pass thru each other like ghosts > crosing paths, perhaps? > > In what ways do you propose I am responsible for > what the U.S. government does? What do you > want me to do about it? (Please substitute > yourself and your government in the preceding > two sentences, unless you are a high government oficial, > in which case you can probably find some good reason why > you are not responsible for whatever happens). > > I find it very discouraging to be a "nobody", but > I don't see what I can do. Maybe you can illuminate me? > > \brad mccormick (transcendental subjectivity is not > necesarily political agency)
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/28/2003
