[Mirioron]

>I also think it's important to distinguish between the government and the people. It can be easy to see them as one and the same, but that would be a mistake.

To a degree they are one and the same though. The government still requires the consent of the governed.

[rtkwe]

In a 'if you really hated it why haven't you overthrown it/left?' way? Authoritarian regimes live and die by their ability to coerce/fabricate consent and quash discontent. Until something significantly weakens the government's ability to quash rebellion auth regimes usually stand.

The looseness of the restrictions could kind of help because it gives people an outlet so it's not so bad they're ready to take up arms but the regime still has a ready cudgel to charge people with.

[0x0]

Tell that again to someone who lived under German occupation in ww2?

[Mirioron]

I have. I am from one of those countries. After WW2 we were occupied by the Soviets as well. My grandfather spent a significant chunk of his life in gulags. You can't lay all of the blame of a country on the government alone, because the government doesn't work without the people. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing with a democracy or autocracy. Bombs don't build themselves. Armies don't feed themselves. Deportations don't happen because an official wills it. Somebody has to execute the orders.

I am not saying that the government and the people are entirely the same, but I am saying that you can't just divorce them from one another.

[p49k]

You’re ignoring that a small minority of people can effectively repress the majority. The majority of Persians have been resisting as best they can for decades. You’re right that it’s not just the government (every repressive regime has some level of public support) but it’s not true that everyone else is providing tacit approval.

[complianceowl]

That's a great point. It can be tempting to completely divorce them, but you make an important point here: they can't.

[hpcjoe]

> To a degree they are one and the same though. The government still requires the consent of the governed.

This is decidedly untrue. Venezuela, North Korea, and many other counterexamples exist.

Repressive dictatorships do not require consent of the governed. They leverage their monopoly on violence and control. Quite literally, the first item on their agenda while forming is to disarm their populace.

This way, non-consensual governance is easier. No people demanding rights and freedoms, backed up by their ability to impose their will through force of arms. Put another way, they would be able to challenge the monopoly on violence that the (repressive) government holds.

Curiously, this is why the US bill of rights, is so important in guaranteeing freedom. The consent is given, up until the government decides to try to take rights away. Then consent is withdrawn.

[trhway]

>The government still requires the consent of the governed.

government is violence (either actual or a credible threat of it). Application of violence doesn't require consent of the subjects of violence when the violence applying side is many orders of magnitude stronger than the subject.

[FabHK]

You think people in the rest of the world need not distinguish between the Trump administration and the American people?