The will of a "faction" is a "general will". It is not a "particular will". So in one sentence after the other, you have granted what you explicitly denied.

According to Rousseau the will of a faction is a particular will, not the general will. I was using his terms. What have I granted by using them?

Let's get this straight. By your own words, there is no general will. He is carrying out what is wanted by the president, not what is wanted by the people. By your principles, there is no such thing as "what is wanted by the people". (Incidentally, those are the principles commonly exploited by the strategy known as "divide and conquer".)

Yes, there is no such thing as the general will. That’s not a principle. It’s just a fact.

You don’t think people wanted DOGE? I mean, Trump and Musk both campaigned on it.

Rousseau takes great pains to distinguish between the particular and general will, but I think he failed. There is no general will, and thus no Sovereign. In practice the “general will” always turns out to be the will of some individual or faction or other (a particular will), namely, the rule of those who claim to know and represent the “general will”. The rule of this group or any other can never be the rule of the people. A republic or any other state is necessarily an oligarchy, and no one living in one can ever free. — NOS4A2

But most people don't really want to be out in the woods trapping rabbits. They want to live more sophisticated lives of the kind that can only be found in society. So isn't the idea that you buy-in to the laws with some assurance that you're contributing to them, if not 100%? No?

This just in from DOGE:

The U.S. Department of Education moved to terminate nearly $1 billion in research contracts on Monday, a decision critics said depleted the government of vital data sources on American schooling and all but decimated the agency’s research division. — USA Today

A consistent pattern in the executive decisions is that the means of finding out what happens because of them are being eliminated.

But most people don't really want to be out in the woods trapping rabbits. They want to live more sophisticated lives of the kind that can only be found in society. So isn't the idea that you buy-in to the laws with some assurance that you're contributing to them, if not 100%? No?

One doesn’t need to live in the woods. He can live in a city if he wants.

By buy-in and contribute to the laws, do you mean he doesn’t violate them? Personally, the only reason I don’t violate any laws is because I do not want the authorities to have a reason to punish me. So I don’t drive through red lights. Other than that morality is the only thing that guides my behavior.

By buy-in and contribute to the laws, do you mean he doesn’t violate them? Personally, the only reason I don’t violate any laws is because I do not want the authorities to have a reason to punish me. So I don’t drive through red lights. Other than that morality is the only thing that guides my behavior. — NOS4A2

So it doesn't make any difference to you if you live in a democracy or a dictatorship. It's the same thing either way.

So it doesn't make any difference to you if you live in a democracy or a dictatorship. It's the same thing either way.

Pretty much.

So why do people freak out like they're losing something? Why the lamentations in this thread?

You don’t think people wanted DOGE? — NOS4A2

Sure they did, or at least they wanted...something. :) (bulldozing education, research, information sources, are among the things they seem to be getting)

So it doesn't make any difference to you if you live in a democracy or a dictatorship. It's the same thing either way. — frank

I'm guessing @NOS4A2 doesn't want either, wants there to be nothing, just people doing...their thing.

So why do people freak out like they're losing something? Why the lamentations in this thread?

There is no principle at work, as far as I can tell. For instance when Biden defied the Supreme Court for his illegal student loan forgiveness, the usual suspects, here, in congress, and elsewhere, didn’t care. Imagine if Trump defied the Supreme Court and he said “the Supreme Court blocked it, but that didn’t stop me”. I wouldn’t attribute to them malice, either, so my guess is there are a number of cognitive biases at work, like a band-wagon effect, fundamental attribution error, projection, and so on.

I'm guessing @NOS4A2 doesn't want either, wants there to be nothing, just people doing...their thing.

Do you need laws to teach you how to behave, Jorn?

For instance when Biden defied the Supreme Court for his illegal student loan forgiveness — NOS4A2

Biden didn't defy the Supreme Court.

Like I said, the usual suspects.

Like I said, the usual suspects — NOS4A2

I think you're the usual suspect in this case. You're repeating manufactured talking points like a good little soldier. :grin:

Aah yes, manufactured talking points. Projection is one of the biases I was speaking of.

Aah yes, manufactured talking points. Projection is one of the biases I was speaking of. — NOS4A2

Gaslighter. :lol:

I know you like The Washington Post.

Traumatized? Gaslit? How to know if you’re misusing therapy words.

It occurs to me that democracy probably wouldn't mean much to a sociopath.

Trump isn't ending democracy. He's dismantling every policy and institution he disagrees with with reckless abandon, precisely as his supporters want him to do.

His supporters comprise the majority. Such is democracy. To the victors go the spoils.

"Elections have consequences" as Obama noted.

, check the likes of the Unabomber, Torquemada, Capone, Escobar, Mogilevich, the Pagans, neo-Nazis, jihadists, ...

, yep, and furthermore

Democracy has always contained the possibility of its own undoing, it just takes a majority vote of someone non- or anti-democratic. — Dec 27, 2023

He's dismantling every policy and institution he disagrees with with reckless abandon, precisely as his supporters want him to do. — Hanover

Last I checked, his supporters wanted him to address high prices and immigration while downplaying the possibility he'd do the rest.

I don't think that what Trump is doing is a good idea, but I think it must be admitted that he is doing just what he said he would. So, anyone who voted for him has no justification for complaint.
Is he actually flouting the law, the courts? I don't know, but if what the stupid article I linked a few posts ago claims is correct, he is not, and it will be congress that acts on the DOGE's 'intelligence'.

What that screed fails to observe is that many actions are being taken that have consequences for actual operations in real time. That is different from a Legislative oversight committee taking in testimony before arguing for a budget.

I don't think that what Trump is doing is a good idea, but I think it must be admitted that he is doing just what he said he would. — Janus

Except for the part where he said he'd immediately bring down prices.

Is he actually flouting the law, the courts? — Janus

Legal challenges to Trump administration actions

Every one of President Trump's most sweeping executive orders is now being challenged in court by multiple lawsuits.

Trump never campained on immediately shuttering U.S.A.I.D. or freezing foreign aid, medical research expenditure, and many of the other actions he has taken. The normal way of going about those would be to introduce legislation to Congress, debate it, and then pass it and enact it. Trump has instead signed all of these into law by his so-called 'executive orders' which amounts to government by decree. There is no question that it is authoritarian in intent, with any dissent, either from Congress or the Courts, smeared by Trump's minions as 'thwarting the will of the people'.

He can realistically have claimed only that what he does will bring down prices, he cannot directly control the markets. It seems that what he is doing will actually inflate prices, so it seems he was mistaken to think he could bring down prices, or else it was just empty rhetoric designed to hoodwink those who are struggling economically.

Last I checked, his supporters wanted him to address high prices and immigration while downplaying the possibility he'd do the rest. — Mr Bee

He's doing a brilliant job in keeping prices high and making them higher.

The January 2025 Consumer Price Index (CPI) report surprised to the upside, as the headline figure rose by 0.5% month-over-month (MoM) and core CPI (excluding food and energy) rose by 0.4% month over month.

These monthly gains have led to a modest firming in the year-over-year (YoY) rates, bringing the headline CPI to 3% YoY and core CPI to 3.3% YoY.

But Trump can surely get the prices up from just 3%. I'm sure he will get that inflation higher. After all, he promised you higher prices, more taxes on what you buy!

That's what you so much wanted, right?

If you read the article I linked you will find the claim that it is congress that will enact Trump's policies, and that the DOGE are only gathering the information re corruption, waste etc that congress needs in order to act. I don't know enough to know if the article is correct. But whatever Trump and Co does one would think must be within the law or it would be stopped.

I think your interpretation is overblown and a tad hysterical, even though I think that what Trump is doing is not a good idea and is probably, on balance, unethical.

If you read the article I linked you will find the claim that it is congress that will enact Trump's policies, and that the DOGE are only gathering the information re corruption, waste etc that congress needs in order to act. — Janus

The freeze upon funds is happening in real time. That is what some courts are opposing.

I don't know enough to know if the article is correct — Janus

The point about DOGE's activities is that NOBODY knows on what basis all of these wild claims about 'fraud and corruption' are being made. Musk is showing up in Government offices with a troupe of 20-25 y.o. computer engineers and SpaceX interns, many of whom have had no clearance and certainly no congressional vetting, and going through their accounts. And yet, calling attention to the extreme nature of this, and the obvious dangers it poses, is 'hysterical' or 'hate speech'.

Here's Time Magazine being a tad hysterical: