zlacker

I just want to add: "A government is not the people and the people are not the government." Just in case this needs to be stated for anyone here or reading. If you disagree with a people's government that doesn't mean you should treat the people of said government in a critical manner. Their views do not necessarily reflect that of their government (often they do not, just look at us here in America where criticizing the government is the great American past time)

>>godels+(OP)
the american experiment in democracy was to make the government synonymous with the people. certainly that was pulled back a bit by the republican (as in republic, not the political party) elements by our founders, who were themselves 'elites' of the time. in china, the communist party is meant to be the same: a party of (all) the people.

certainly xenophobia expresses itself acutely in mediopolitical contexts where power and money are on the line, but also in forums like this where such ego boosts are basically costless. it's not really about a distinction between the people and the government.

>>clairi+Ub
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the American experiment is about making the government synonymous with the people.

The American experiment was all about splitting the governmental power among different entities, keeping the government small and letting the people preserve freedom and power - while still being protected by the government.

The constitution is a tool to prevent the government from overreaching - and it's been successful at that.

Unfortunately, this experiment also grew in the largest and most warmongering government in the world.

To me, the USA are the proof that minarchism doesn't work and that we need to try anarcho-capitalism.

>>joketh+m61
> I'm not sure where you got the idea that the American experiment is about making the government synonymous with the people.

It's a common mistake to conflate the Gettysburg Address ("government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth") and the Preamble of the US Constitution ("We the people...")

>>joketh+m61
it's hard to take that criticism seriously when you choose to hang your hat on anarcho-capitalism, a system that isn't even coherent in theory, much less in practice (were it to be). democracy is literally about aligning the government to the will of the people. the US is a representative democracy, which is a compromise borne of the founders' uneasiness with direct democracy (partially because it would mean piercing the sovereignty of the states).

>>godels+(OP)
The CCP is basically China and at least most Chinese people, because it draws its authority and power from the complacency of its constituents. Trying to differentiate the CCP from its subjects will leave you labeling all counter-parties as communist agents until you’ve realized you’ve labeled the majority of Chinese citizens!

Of course no country’s government has the full support of its citizens, but to say Chinese people are wholly distinct from the CCP is disingenuous.

There is no ruling ethnicity, just a more unified single party system. People can choose to participate in politics, they just have to do it within the party.

>>joketh+m61
> ... we need to try anarcho-capitalism.

This is the worst idea I've ever heard. [1]

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertari...

>>Igelau+8b1
The whole point of the electoral college was to intermediate the people and the government. The fear was that information wouldn't travel quickly enough to all edges of the realm, and that people couldn't therefore be trusted to make an electoral decision.

>>arctic+1Y2
that had me literally laughing out loud. although to be fair, it was only depicting libertarian capitalism. anarcho-capitalism would be more like westworld on steroids.