And your point is?
Sure we are a republic. A republic isn't a very precisely defined word, or perhaps it would be better to say it has multiple definitions. One of which is "a state without a monarch". That definition seems totally irrelevant to my post, so I guess you might mean the other common definition, a state where the people, or at least a significant subset of them, have an impact in determining the government's leaders. But even that 2nd definition is fairly irrelevant. Sure we have an impact (a wide subset of the population gets to vote), but that still doesn't imply or suggest, that "the government is us".
I might have more impact on what some local store carries, or even whether it stays in business, by what I buy or don't buy there, than I do on the election of a president or a senator. Does that mean that "the store is me"? Of course not.
The fact that you can impact some organization does not mean that organization is you.
The government is separate from any person, and is even distinct from the general population, or eligible voters, or those who actually voted.
"The government is us" theme is often used to argue that government abuses aren't really abuses, but that's nonsense even if the government was the same as us. If 99 people out of a hundred vote to abuse the remaining person, the fact that he got a vote on the issue doesn't mean that something outside of him isn't abusing him. |
