If the government is not working like that, you have an administrative problem, not a societal one. A state is its population.
Very dangerous thinking. Unless each and every citizens has approved the elected "representative" and every decision they made (which will never happen), you cannot assimilate the state and the population. The state has to be considered a separate entity, one which operate beyond the common man's thinking.
But they have, by electing the representatives that ought to represent them, and thereby yield the power to make decisions on behalf of their constituents. If they do no not act accordingly, they will not be elected again in subsequent terms; if they act against the law, they will be fairly tried; and if the laws don't sufficiently capture the reality anymore, they will be adapted. That is how a representative democracy should work. If it doesn't, you have an implementation problem, not a systemic one (admittedly, this is almost a true Scotsman, but still.)
> The state has to be considered a separate entity, one which operate beyond the common man's thinking.
This isn't mutually exclusive. Of course the state has to make higher-level considerations and people in power will invariably be corrupted to some degree, but concluding that the state is your enemy and cannot be trusted is the wrong one, in my opinion. With that attitude, you're just waiting for it to become truly evil so you can say "See? I told you all along." Better to try and shape the state you have into something better while you still can.
Yes this is the theory, but what if there is no political party "representing" me, what about people abstaining from voting, what if peoples elect an authoritarian figure I didn't vote for ? This is one of the pitfalls of your system, if only one citizen disagree, or do not feel represented in it, this justification falls apart. You cannot hide this behind an "implementation problem", because there is no such implementation. If "we are the government" so everything the state is doing to me (or any other individual) will be "voluntary". With this reasoning the state is not putting me in prison for my dissident opinion, I went to prison myself.
> concluding that the state is your enemy and cannot be trusted is the wrong one, in my opinion
I didn't conclude such a thing, I only wanted to make clear that the state is a distinct institution that cannot possibly represent everyone, thus not worthy of the title "we". Also yes I do not trust it :)
If it bothers you enough, you’re supposed to create your own party. Democracy doesn’t mean that everyone else is doing the hard work for you.
> what about people abstaining from voting
Silent disagreement—if they were bothered enough, they would go voting.
> what if peoples elect an authoritarian figure I didn't vote for
If a few people do this, the system can (and has, for hundreds of years) handle it just fine. If more and more people do it, something is off, and nobody did anything about it. Part of the problem is people stopped caring and participating, expecting someone else to.
> if only one citizen disagree, or do not feel represented in it, this justification falls apart.
It’s no justification. We live in a shared society, democracy is a compromise to make the most people in it happy.
> the state is not putting me in prison for my dissident opinion, I went to prison myself.
As far as I can see, no democratic state is putting you in prison for a dissenting opinion, as long as you don’t endanger someone else with it.
Otherwise, yes: if you willingly went against the rules you agreed to follow by actively enjoying the benefits of a free, democratic society, then it’s reasonable to go to prison if you’re caught. You expect the same of other criminals, even if they may not realise the error of their ways yet.
People take everything around them for granted, acting like their freedom doesn’t come at a cost. It does. By living in a democracy, you enjoy boundless riches, housing, health care, fair trials, roads, plumbing, electricity, supermarkets, and a myriad of scale effects that are only possible because a lot of people have agreed to work together. The price to thrive in that system is to adhere to our collective rules, and deal with the fact that we constantly need to make compromises with our neighbours so the majority of people can be as happy as possible. And yes, that means even a government that you don’t fully agree with represents you, if not perfectly; it means taking responsibility for the mechanism that feeds you.
Yeah, and that party wouldn't get any seats. I'm sorry, how did we go from "the state IS the population" to "well if your policy preferences fall outside the two agendas on offer, you have to start an electorally-successful third party—something NOBODY has managed to do—and if you don't or if it doesn't work, then it's your fault."
It sounds like you're trying to apportion blame for why the state ISN'T the population, and at that point, you've already conceded that your initial claim was wrong.
It's not your fault how things are, but doing nothing and expecting things to get better on their own isn't going to work either.
> but doing nothing and expecting things to get better on their own isn't going to work either
Isn't this exactly what you advocate for? You say democracies faithfully represent the will of the people, and yet the American president's rock-bottom approval ratings indicate otherwise. Your attitude (correct me if I'm misrepresenting you) is basically that the system is fine, and the problem is that all the people in it are just irresponsible. Well, that's not a plan to fix anything. It's a do-nothing ideology. Or are you going to wave your magic wand and make everyone responsible?
> By living in a democracy, you enjoy boundless riches, housing, health care, fair trials
Tell that to poor people, homeless people, uninsured people, and the countless people unjustly imprisoned in the largest prison system in the world (1.8 million inmates).
Oh that's not true at all. A state is an institution which is influenced by its population, but if anything, the attitudes of the population are more a product of the state, its constituent political parties, and the associated media apparatuses than of a freestanding "will of the people."
To give a trivial counterexample, if the American state "is" its population, then why does your presidential vote only matter if you live in a swing state, and why can you only vote for one of two candidates? Surely your vote should reflect all of your policy preferences and have equal influence no matter where you live.
> That leaves no room for democratic participation
I think there is very limited room for democratic participation and it has become far to difficult to change anything. If I vote and I do not care which of the parties that have a chance of winning wins because their policies are so similar it does not matter, where is my democratic participation? Even if the parties are different and I do not like the policies of either, what is the value of my vote?
I think things will improve in the long term when there is sufficient pushback, but it will take a long time.
In joining a party that represents you better—or founding one if no such party exists—and campaigning for it. Democracy doesn't end with casting a ballot, especially in trying times like these. Nobody is going to come and save us; if we don't stand up, nobody will.
I can wholeheartedly recommend the book "The Germans: They thought they were free" by Milton Mayer[1]. It very thoroughly describes how a society ends up asking how the holocaust could possibly have happened while nobody did anything about it while it did.
> If the government is not working like that, you have an administrative problem, not a societal one. A state is its population.
How do you jive these two statements?
But of course that doesn't apply to autocracies and dictatorships, which Germany pre-WW2 obviously turned into. My point is that the Germans voted for the NSDAP, and dit not resist the transformation into an autocratic state. They let this happen, out of indifference, wrong assumptions, anger, stupidity, and fear. That means one way or another, the German people decided what the state became.
You present a choice between pretending everything is fine and giving up. This is no choice at all. Both options entail giving up; one is just honest about it.
We can make things better.
If platforms like discord take a hard-line stance of "no, we're not enabling a surveillance state apparatus" and the government then forces them to cease business in that country, that is a decision with consequences. People don't like when the government takes away their nice things due to motives they don't agree with. It catalyzes a position - "unchecked government surveillance is creating negative outcomes for me".
Over time, if enough actors behave the same way, public sentiments will shift and, assuming a healthy democracy, the government line will as well.
But acquiescing to demands like these only further entrenches the position, as the public is only loosely incentivized to care. The boiling of the privacy frog in a surveillance state like the UK means most people won't care enough to change it until it's too late
The entities that keep pushing for that stuff tends to be quite centralized.