Hacker News Reader

Comment by sfn42 | Hacker News Reader

People always say stuff like this, but from my pov it doesn't matter what the populace thinks. They are directly supporting their government with everything they do. They are producing goods and services, they are the army, they are the government, the people are the country.

They have the power to choose who rules them if they want to. Nobody else does. Iranians are responsible for Iran's actions just like Russians are responsible for Russia's actions and Americans are responsible for America's actions.

View on HN

What should they do ? Stop working, or protest and risk getting killed ?

It's easy to call for action from your comfortable life.

No, the populace does not bear the same responsibility for the country's actions in all countries. Swiss with direct democracy bear much higher responsibility than systematically oppressed populace in other countries.

Well ideally they should peacefully replace the government with one that aligns with the people's alleged views.

Failing that, I don't know. I guess they'll have to figure it out as they go. All I'm saying is it's their country, their responsibility. And for example in the case of Russia there's clearly widespread support for Putin and his war so I'm not really expecting nor calling for them to do anything about it. I'm just saying I hold them responsible and I think the rest of the world should too. A leader is nothing without followers.

> they should peacefully replace the government

This screams privilege. I wish you never experience oppression, but please try to understand you privilege.

You're clearly not being very charitable in your interpretation of things I say so I'm just going to end the conversation here because I'm not interested in endlessly clarifying basic things like what I mean when I say "Ideally".

Obviously I'm not suggesting that it's easy or even possible. Though I also don't think we can completely rule out the possibility of a peaceful revolution. Stranger things have happened. And it certainly would be better than a violent one.

Anyway have a nice day

> You're clearly not being very charitable in your interpretation of things I say so I'm just going to end the conversation here because I'm not interested in endlessly clarifying basic things like what I mean when I say "Ideally".

I agree that the person you're replying to is getting a bit testy, but I think it's a bit justified, as you're being a bit obtuse here.

"Ideally" is irrelevant. We're not talking about ideal cases in these threads, so to bring up that word feels disingenuous. Yes, ideally people in a country where their government is doing bad things can peacefully replace their government with another one that won't do bad things.

But in practice, where in the world does that actually exist? Basically nowhere? So what's the point in bringing it up?

> Though I also don't think we can completely rule out the possibility of a peaceful revolution.

That's a bunch of weasel-word language. Sure, you can't "completely" rule out anything. But for most (all?) of the places under discussion, there's something like a 0.001% chance of that happening, which is far below the threshold of not even bothering to bring up the possibility.

I'm just answering a question. At the end of the day none of this is my problem. I'm not here to suggest a solution I'm just saying these people are responsible for their own actions.

Here's a history on nonviolent revolutions though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

> And for example in the case of Russia there's clearly widespread support for Putin and his war so I'm not really expecting nor calling for them to do anything about it. I'm just saying I hold them responsible

Yes, there is widespread support for Putin and his war - but by this very reason, how can Russians who do not support Putin and his war can be held responsible for it? What do you expect this minority to do, exactly? You can't hold people responsible for not doing something if you can't even articulate what that something is is.

Your entire argument is premised on the notion that there's a coherent "them". But that is virtually never the case, even in popular dictatorships.

The coherent them is the entire population. Sure some of them are for and some are against, that's how it works. Just because you didn't vote for Trump doesn't make you immune to the negative effects of electing Trump.

These things affect everyone, that's why we all have a responsibility.

This is a historically ignorant take, especially when you consider the country being talked about is Iran. As an American it's very easy to assume that a "government revolution" is something that can executed by the will of the people.

Iran had a democratic government. That democratic government voted to do something against Britian's economic interests. In response America dissolved it's government.

If I lived in a nation where any government instability would be used by wealth foreign powers who didn't care if I lived or died, I would also be hesitant in brewing any anti-government fervor.

You can't hold them wholly responsible when they don't even have the power of true self determination.

We all have history. It's not long ago that a lot of us Europeans did some pretty messed up stuff. We got over it and now we're all holding hands and such. Except for the damn Russians of course, because we can't just be friends and have nice things, someone has to ruin it for everyone.

I don't care what your history is. I care what you're doing now, and if what you're doing now is killing people over 80 year old beef (or anything else really) then I have absolutely no respect for you nor your history. Get over it, move forward. War should be a thing of the past at this point, we all share one planet.

>Get over it, move forward.

I'm not sure how Iranian's are supposed to "get over" the fact that America wants middle-east hegemony. My point is exactly that:

You wish the blame the Iranians for the problems with their government, but the underlying problems with their government is because _Americans_ can't stop electing war hawks. The only sin Iranians have comitted in the eyes of the west is being born on top of an oil field. The "beef" might be 80 years old, but the oil is there today and America wants it's cut. Iran didn't want sell their oil to the British while their own people starved and for that they've been a quagmire for 80 years. You are asking them to live as slaves in the name of peace.

Would you tell Ukrainians that they are at fault for the war?

Could you try to substantiate these claims about the US extorting Iran for oil?

The only part of your claims that I've found information about is the CIA/MI6 orchestrating a coup in 1953, over 70 years ago. Iran was an ally for a long time after that, the Iranian revolution happened two decades later.

So unless you can point to something more recent I really don't think your blaming the US makes a lot of sense. Iran was an ally of the west and Israel for a long time, then religious extremists took over and pissed all over those alliances. Here's an AI-generated summary:

> Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran experienced significant economic growth and secular, Western-oriented modernization under the Shah, with expanded education and some cultural freedoms. After the revolution, however, the economy stagnated, inflation and unemployment rose, and per capita income declined significantly

The revolution was not the fault of the west. Iran was doing well, then the revolution happened and it went to shit. I'm sure the west would be happy to support Iran again if it got its shit together. I honestly don't believe these claims that the US is pressuring Iran for oil. Maybe they were 70 years ago, but that's really not very relevant any more.

Actually, the US is responsible for Iran's actions. We're the ones who meddled in their government and pushed them to the point they're at today.

Regardless, it's laughable to think that regular Iranian citizens are just as responsible for their theocratic dictatorship as Americans are for the US's (crumbling) representative democracy. Those two things are not the same at all. Your average Iranian has zero influence over what the Iranian government does. The average American... put Trump in office, either by voting for him or by abstaining.

So if your grandfather killed my great great aunt and I used that as justification for killing your niece, it would be your fault your niece is dead. Got it.

This is an extremely important, often overlooked, point. I also know of many "educated Iranians" living in the US who voice their opinion as GP suggests, and are self-proclaimed to be anti-regime. However, they travel to Iran to visit family and friends twice a year and take an iPhone or two on their way to gift them, directly benefiting the Mullah's system. I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family, so I would take "hate the government" with a grain of salt when everything you do benefits the same establishment.

Some even line up to vote for sham Presidential elections of the Mullah regime, whose turnout legitimizes the regime, while inside the United States! Being Stanford educated does not prevent this seemingly cognitive dissonance or perhaps deception; it actually makes that more likely.

"I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family"

Then I recommend some history books. Family ties can be strong and the persecution of the jews was not always as violent and open as it was during the war. It was more systematic discrimination in the beginning, so of course people still travelled back and forth. Uprooting a whole family is not a simple thing.

"Some even line up to vote for sham Presidential elections of the Mullah regime"

What else they are supposed to do?

That is a small option of influence and they use it. You think the Mullahs would loose their power if people just would not vote for them? If that would be true, they would be a democracy.

> If that would be true, they would be a democracy.

I am positing perhaps they are a democracy. Many of the "educated people" in question that the GP suggests "hate" the government, may say so but their actions nevertheless are directly and indirectly benefiting the Mullahs. Democracy does not mean good, or effective, or not evil. It might be a collective compromise towards mediocrity and stagnation.

"I am positing perhaps they are a democracy."

Then maybe take a closer look into how their system works.

Every candidate has to be approved by the Mullah's. So the Mullah's are effectivly in control. Still, there are differences with the candidates. Would I vote under such conditions? No idea, I am struggle to find a party representing my views and I am in a western democracy.

The Democrats in the US have Superdelegates effectively vetoing candidates. So is the media and funding apparatus and the deep state by holding potential blackmail material.

To be clear, I am not defending their system. I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it.

"I am suggesting democracy is not a panacea that automatically guarantees prosperity. Far from it."

No, but I would say it is a precondition for broad prosperity. When the wealth and power lies concentrated with small minority, they tend to use their power to keep it that way. If power is distributed, so will be the wealth usually. And yes, I do see some problems with western democracies as well.

I don't think that is necessarily true. First, I don't agree with the implicit premise of your statement, i.e. that democracy does not lead to concentration of power. Second, I don’t think it has been a requirement throughout history.

Rule of law is much more important to success and prosperity than fetishizing a mechanism to vote in the head of state. There has been many successful instances of prosperous monarchy in Iran and elsewhere throughout history. The rich Persian Gulf states are prosperous monarchies. Iran was too, a constitutional monarchy, uprooted by Islamic-Marxist ideology partially in the name of “social democracy,” as if that’s a virtuous goal. What they ended up is Mullah. Chaos and tyranny, as Hamilton and Adams would predict.

Monarchies can be rich, but no one can be richer than the emperors family.

If you are into that, good luck with that and hope that there will never be a retarted king. Because it all depends on whether the king is nice and capable, or not.

Is that the stability and rule of law I should look forward? And they are all not so long lived either btw.

Plots, intrigues and coup d'etat of people who think they would make a better king is still a thing.

And .. I do make the claim that a real direct democracy does not tend to centralisation of power, as there are check and balances, but politicians left alone surely will aim for that as it make governing easier.

You're muddling the line between democracy and dictatorship.

In a democracy if you control all the votes of people you should be able to make changes in the government that the incumbent may not want. You can't do this in Iran.

> You can't do this in Iran.

How are you sure about this? What evidence or statistics do you have that there have been enough people who want an alternative that is sufficiently different? It appears the regime is great at persuading people they want some sort of "light reform" and propagandized the populace to hate taking a risk for real change. It appears lots of people talk the talk but are comfortable where they are and in fact resist change when it happens. Otherwise you should have seen some level of unrest given the lack of water and electricity and the regime at its weakest.

Vice versa, how sure are you about it being true in other countries? Looking at various elections in parliamentary systems like Germany, France, or Canada, it does appear that even a strong opposition has a really hard time competing with the status quo in a "democratic" setup. The system resorts to all trickery including importing voters and creating unnatural coalitions to enforce the establishment agenda. And that is not including physical elimination of the opponent which was attempted in the United States.

> I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family

That is because they wouldn't be having a family in Germany since they would be dead

What a weird take. Family is important; I think it's a great thing that these people can maintain their family ties and even visit them. Hell, this is a great avenue to bring outside perspectives into the country.

Not sure how bringing a family member an iPhone is "benefiting the Mullah's system". It's a rounding error. And those family members are well aware that they can't get an iPhone in the usual way.

> I don't think a jew would have gone back to Nazi Germany to visit family

They might, though, despite the risk! And this isn't really a great comparison, since a Jewish person visiting Nazi Germany to visit family would run a high risk of being found out and sent to a camp (along with the family they're visiting) and killed. I don't think that sort of thing would likely be the case for an Iranian expat visiting family in Iran.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com