Who's responsible for the actions of your state?



D

Deleted member 34656

According to the law, the actions of my state are dependent on the cause of the state of my actions.

I believe that quite effectively renders me not guilty of everything.
 

*EPIC SUCCESS*

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2016
Messages
3,087
I have absolutely nothing to do with the Irish state as much as possible and I most definitely am not in any way liable for its interminable crimes, transgression and general f*ck ups since its inception.

At times I wonder should we just throw ourselves at the mercy of more progressive states like N. Korea, Angola or Vanuatu and ask them to take over?
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
We grant our elected officials a certain amount of authority and some freedom to act with autonomy. Without that flexibility government could never function. We cannot be responsible if they abuse that freedom. Our responsibility extends only so far as the decision who to elect. After that if they go rogue then we're not responsible.
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
We grant our elected officials a certain amount of authority and some freedom to act with autonomy. Without that flexibility government could never function. We cannot be responsible if they abuse that freedom. Our responsibility extends only so far as the decision who to elect. After that if they go rogue then we're not responsible.
So, that looks implausible. Suppose you're deciding to give a loaded gun to one member of a group. If you don't take sufficient care when selecting the person to whom you give the gun, the fact that you give that person strict instructions not to shoot anyone does not absolve you of (all) responsibility for an ensuing bloodbath. If electors are careless, they can reasonably be held responsible for abuses by elected officials.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
So, that looks implausible. Suppose you're deciding to give a loaded gun to one member of a group. If you don't take sufficient care when selecting the person to whom you give the gun, the fact that you give that person strict instructions not to shoot anyone does not absolve you of (all) responsibility for an ensuing bloodbath. If electors are careless, they can reasonably be held responsible for abuses by elected officials.
The situation is that you are obliged to give that gun, though. If you apply due diligence and act in good faith are you responsible if they deceived you into selecting them or if for some reason their demeanour changes after they get the gun?

When assessing this we also have to consider the possibility that if I gave the gun to any of the others they might have used it to create even more havoc with it. It is entirely possible that our choice might yet have been the best possible one.
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
The situation is that you are obliged to give that gun, though. If you apply due diligence and act in good faith are you responsible if they deceived you into selecting them or if for some reason their demeanour changes after they get the gun?
I don't think so (though it might depend on whether or not you can act to recover the gun). But suppose you give the gun to A, having exercised due diligence and good faith, and A shoots and injures B. Suppose you can afford to compensate B (by assisting with medical expenses, for instance). Do you think that you owe B nothing more than I do? Assume you and I are equally capable of assisting B, but I had nothing to do with giving the gun to A, whereas you did. Some people might argue that you have a greater reason to assist B than I do, even though you did nothing wrong (you exercised due diligence and good faith).

When assessing this we also have to consider the possibility that if I gave the gun to any of the others they might have used it to create even more havoc with it. It is entirely possible that our choice might yet have been the best possible one.
Also true. But does that change the fact that you are responsible? (We might want to say that you are responsible, but not blameworthy, because you did the best you could.)
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Who is ultimately responsible for what the state does? Is it just the government, the people who voted for it, or the people in general?
The Irish people didn't vote for a 26 county free state. This state was created by English terrorism against the Irish people. Even since that, the state and its forces have looked on the Irish people with suspicion, and the Irish people have looked on it with equal suspicion. This is certainly not a democracy in any real sense of the word. What we have is a comprador eilte who hold the 26 country for the Empire.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
So, that looks implausible. Suppose you're deciding to give a loaded gun to one member of a group. If you don't take sufficient care when selecting the person to whom you give the gun, the fact that you give that person strict instructions not to shoot anyone does not absolve you of (all) responsibility for an ensuing bloodbath. If electors are careless, they can reasonably be held responsible for abuses by elected officials.
Hello Mercurial's sock.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The Nice and Lisbon referenda were examples of what "democracy" means in Ireland. When the voters got the "wrong" answer, they were told to go back and try again - this time with a load of threats and false promises to help them. We saw the gay marriage referendum hi-jacked by foreign oligarch money and the comprador elite stealing tax money to promote the sham. Even the name it was given "marriage equality referendum" told people that this was not to be a real choice, but that a certain outcome was going to be forced through - one way or another. No doubt we will have the same terrorist principle used to force abortion through. We've already had foreign oligarch Soros funding the abortionist side.
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
36,191
The Irish people didn't vote for a 26 county free state. This state was created by English terrorism against the Irish people. Even since that, the state and its forces have looked on the Irish people with suspicion, and the Irish people have looked on it with equal suspicion. This is certainly not a democracy in any real sense of the word. What we have is a comprador eilte who hold the 26 country for the Empire.
Sure.
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
36,191
The Nice and Lisbon referenda were examples of what "democracy" means in Ireland. When the voters got the "wrong" answer, they were told to go back and try again - this time with a load of threats and false promises to help them. We saw the gay marriage referendum hi-jacked by foreign oligarch money and the comprador elite stealing tax money to promote the sham. Even the name it was given "marriage equality referendum" told people that this was not to be a real choice, but that a certain outcome was going to be forced through - one way or another. No doubt we will have the same terrorist principle used to force abortion through. We've already had foreign oligarch Soros funding the abortionist side.
You should look into converting to Islam. You share most of the ideology already. Take Field Mouse with you. Good man.

Or should I say, allah Akbar!
 

Dorcha

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
3,944
I'd have thought the opposite, in reality everyone is held accountable frequently, e.g., war.
Well I can only speak for myself, but I cannot understand how I might be responsible for something I never did.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,937
In a general election we are only asked to select our local representatives.

A collection of local representatives elect a Taoiseach based on tribal loyalties rather than capability.

This Taoiseach then appoints Ministers to a Cabinet which can be reshuffled at any point without referral to the electorate.

I find it difficult to consider myself culpable for misdemeanours by such a badly-selected group of "leaders".
 

drummed

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
36,191
In a general election we are only asked to select our local representatives.

A collection of local representatives elect a Taoiseach based on tribal loyalties rather than capability.

This Taoiseach then appoints Ministers to a Cabinet which can be reshuffled at any point without referral to the electorate.

I find it difficult to consider myself culpable for misdemeanours by such a badly-selected group of "leaders".
In which case it would be helpful if you could propose an alternative system.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,937
In which case it would be helpful if you could propose an alternative system.
Just one? There are quite a few that give an electorate a more direct link to national decision-making and by extension greater responsibility. The US or French presidential models; a greater proportion of direct democracy; sortition (if the electorate were to establish such a system).

Ideally we should be able to vote for decision-makers based on function rather than geography. Why can we not elect ministers directly so we can have candidates in e.g. health who have expertise, vision and plans which the winner gets endorsed by the electorate.
 

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
5,995
Twitter
crimesofbrits
You would have to say the electorate are the main culprits. The American people are ultimately responsible for what their government does as they vote for what they do and never seriously protest against their government's actions. Not only that, the American people are never held accountable at all for their state's foreign policy and any retaliation against their state, fellow citizens or military is met with screams of indignation.

I think in totalitarian regimes, you can't hold people responsible as they do not have the freedom of elections to change leaders, freedom of speech, right to protest and more. In so-called 'democracies', people must be held accountable as they have these rights - that were fought for against the state, mostly. Indeed, in rare cases, the population in so-called 'democracies' actually drives the government to go to war such as the Spanish-American war and Thatcher with the Falklands.

As James Connolly pointed out, regarding jingoistic British people:

And finally, let us say that we are sick of the canting talk of those who tell us that we must not blame the British people for the crimes of their rulers against Ireland. We do blame them. In so far as they support the system of society which makes it profitable for one nation to connive at the subjection of another nation they are responsible for every crime committed to maintain that subjection.
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
Ideally we should be able to vote for decision-makers based on function rather than geography. Why can we not elect ministers directly so we can have candidates in e.g. health who have expertise, vision and plans which the winner gets endorsed by the electorate.
Because that would lead to incoherent, contradictory policy; because functions of government are not independent of one another.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top