Regardless of what form of government is currently ruling a given country, ultimately the people within it are responsible for the actions taken by the government, not the government itself.
As for your other point, I agree, free balanced independent journalism, whistleblower, leaks, etc - play a clear role in insuring public stays informed.
That said, in my opinion, if 90% percent of a population was against something, but they passively allowed it to happen, it is no one’s fault but there own. I don’t for a second believe average person does not understand they have a choice over who rules them and how, even if that choice is to fight to the death to defend that right, flee the area, or for that matter, simply do whatever they’re told to do.
There's a difference between "90% of the population is against something" and "the same, but they are also willing to vote against their chosen representative in order to stop it, and have a viable alternative that will".
In the US, we talk a lot of partisan issues that pit parts of the country against one another; and of bipartisan issues that unite them. I'd like to introduce the concept of an antipartisan issue: one that unites the country against its own politicians. In this particular case, surveillance is antipartisan, because:
- People do not want to be surveilled
- Politicians believe the people need to be surveilled in order to stay in office
The last one might seem confusing. But keep in mind that things like high crime rates tend to get politicians thrown out of their job. Big, high-profile busts of scumbag criminals tend to make politicians look more competent and thus increase chances of reelection. And if politicians as a class believe that surveillance is necessary to prosecute crime, then they will disobey democratic instruction not to.
I can be against something but not believe it is worth fighting to the death for. My town implemented a new tax that is highly unlikely to accomplish its stated goals. I’m not going to overthrow the government over $300 a year.
It’s the thousands of little paper cuts that build up over time but that can go on for an entire lifetime without ever reaching a breaking point.
Agree, there’s rarely critical point that would merit such a response, but obviously one that for some reason, for example being invaded by an authoritarian regime that intents to kill you regardless of what you to would I think for most be an ethical response. Fortunately, world has managed to avoid significant percentage of the world needing to make that choice for awhile.
While understand the death from thousands of little paper cuts issue, generally speaking, even when face with notable conflict, most people rarely independently take responsibility for insuring they aware of what’s going on and attempt to have an impact on the situation.
As for your other point, I agree, free balanced independent journalism, whistleblower, leaks, etc - play a clear role in insuring public stays informed.
That said, in my opinion, if 90% percent of a population was against something, but they passively allowed it to happen, it is no one’s fault but there own. I don’t for a second believe average person does not understand they have a choice over who rules them and how, even if that choice is to fight to the death to defend that right, flee the area, or for that matter, simply do whatever they’re told to do.