This is not hard to understand. Gov’t officials believe that the work they do is different in kind. This is a philosophical belief. The desire to be in government requires this belief to a greater or lesser degree.
So the idea that citizens should be monitored, but not gov’t officials, is intuitive from this point of view. A variation on diplomatic immunity, if you will.
It’s not irrational or uncommon. I happen to disagree with it as much as a human possibly can. But one can understand the position.
It is perhaps understandable in a communist dictatorship, but how exactly is that understandable in a representative democracy? They act as representatives of their constituents, they do not work for anyone except their constituents. And 'work' is imprecise verbiage - they serve. Undermining the constitutional freedoms of the people they serve is far from an understandable position for any elected person.
Maybe you understand it because you accept sociopaths as your representatives?
> Maybe you understand it because you accept sociopaths as your representatives?
Now, now, let's not be like that. You do NOT have to agree with something to try understanding someone else's point of view or thought processes.
Understanding a point of view gives you a better chance of bringing someone around. Also, this isn't limited to politicians. Almost any form of authority, public or private, comes with the same attitudes. Think prosecutorial immunity and the like. Or how some company management views things. There's usually a fair amount of "the ends justifying the means" in there somewhere.
Honest question: do you find, say, police enforcement in a representative democracy also non-understandable? Is the idea that only a few designated individuals have the right to arrest or interrogate someone equally revolting, and that in an ideal society we should either all have this right or nobody?
> the idea that only a few designated individuals have the right to arrest or interrogate someone
Might want to keep in mind that they don't. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest, and the police don't have the right to interrogate you, you have the right to remain silent.
You're right, but with a few asterisks. Citizen's arrest can only be for felonys. The citizen who is arresting also is liable in the scenario where the arrestee isn't guilty--- because then the citizen arrester could be liable for kidnapping.
You can make a citizens arrest, sure, and you will then likely be sued into oblivion, in addition to whatever criminal charges the DA may file against you.
Only a few designated individuals have the right to do so with enhanced protections, if not outright immunity (to much dismay, in these current times...)
The fact that legislators have a different legal status from the general population is documented in the Constitution -- they can not be arrested or detained while in session, or on their way to or from a session. There's a clear legal doctrine that each branch of government should be free from interference from th others.
Not to say that it's OK for the NSA to spy on American citizens in general ...
but how exactly is that understandable in a representative democracy? They act as representatives of their constituents
It's easily understandable if you spend some time thinking about who their constituents are. If you think that group includes you, then you are thinking just like the "gov't officials" mentioned by the grandparent: believing your society is one that is different in kind.
I think the explanation is that the HN crowd appreciates mature discussion and could do without the derpy comments regardless of what president is punchline.
The people that have reached the highest levels of the political system are understand better than anyone that we don't really have much democracy remaining. They know what the system does value and are devoted to it.
So the idea that citizens should be monitored, but not gov’t officials, is intuitive from this point of view
Shouldn't it be the other way round? If I have the power to do something that will affect others, I would want someone to monitor my actions to keep me in check. For example, if I had access to production boxes, I would absolutely want to have some processes/checks and balances in place so I don't mess up, even unintentionally. So why should these govt officials not be monitored, when they go around poking other people's lives, often without any permission and repercussions? Not only their access be controlled/monitored, they should be subject to more scrutiny than normal Joe.
What exactly is understandable? Their outrage? Or their hypocrisy of provoking the Fourth Amendment, for example, to defend their right against unreasonable search and seizure under the constitution as regular American citizens and not government officials? Is it understandable that they think they're above the law? If so by which law? A secret law that no one knows about and is just understood if you're a government official? If so how can it be understandable by anyone else? Is it also in the same way easy for you to understand when a person lies to their teeth and commits the most heinous crimes? What about war crimes? Can you understand those too? After all everyone believes something.
> This is not hard to understand. Gov’t officials believe that the work they do is different in kind.
We're talking about public servants.
They're given some power and privileges only so they can do the job of serving the public and not for any other purpose. This comes with risks of corruption and abuse and so the situation calls for stricter monitoring and scrutiny of the public servants than of the citizens they represent.
If any public servants hold the view you described then they are misguided and utterly misunderstand the role they've been given.
So the idea that citizens should be monitored, but not gov’t officials, is intuitive from this point of view. A variation on diplomatic immunity, if you will.
It’s not irrational or uncommon. I happen to disagree with it as much as a human possibly can. But one can understand the position.