WAIT NVM!
He changed his avatar and a promise is a promise.

But of course i changed it! You believe i am a screwball, so i put for avatar a real screwball!!! Our prime minister, trying to play with a basketball on his middle finger! Hell, i even quoted him on my new profile description; he claimed europeans threatened him, that's why he fucked us harder than before and turned NO to YES in our referendum!

My word is always solid gold and i abide by it! Last thing remaining to me that others didn't steal or destroy from ole Bradley, is "honor" and trustworthiness. I never go back on my word. Unlike others, i never had any issue with any gog member or digital, internetal entity and i like you all here! I even refused to meet with that psycho-screwball who asked me out for a duel! Logic and responsibility are a gentleman's biggest virtues.

Like... how? Last time I checked the common citizen has no power to arrest and sentence criminals and has no means of selecting the ruling class other than voting/not voting for the presented candidates. What am I missing?

Revolution.
Don't ask me, I've jumped off that train.

I wish you'd stop calling it a duel. We're not renaissance aristocrats. Also it's not "asking you out". We're not teenagers in love either.

1) Your typical, local, left wing extremist thug, of the breed which burns (torch with molotov) means of public transportation in our capital city (city bus, trolley), claiming on indymedia that it is the symbol of their revolution against capitalism (fucking instead the daily life of innocent civilians who already have it hard). This is their "revolution". News are full of their "feats", as of late.

2) Okay, then. A raving lunatic's death threat against me; sounds better? Not a duel, so i assume your friends from "Rubicon" would gang up on me, upon showing up? No thank you. I don't play with the fucked-up children variety of nobodies who do bad weeds and drugs.

We could push for greater powers to hold the government to account. But too much red tape and nothing ever gets done. Ultimately a few bad decisions by a single government pales into insignificance compared to the crushing weight of bureaucracy carried over from government to government.

Most people don't have enough control over their government to be considered morally responsible for day to day decisions. If they had that control and didn't exercise it when the government crossed the line and broke election promises then that's on them, yes. But if people had that power then virtually ever decision could potentially be overridden by NIMBYs and activists. Effectively the electorate would become like the US republican party.

Alternatively we could impose restrictions on borrowing, but I certainly wouldn't tie that to war. That would be akin to when firemen were paid on a per fire basis - a really bad idea. Especially in some countries.

Death threat? No, just a proper spanking. C'mon, you know you'll love it.

A duel between you two! I will second! I suggest a Gog multiplayer ground where all can observe at the given time of the challenge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhwIrONyEzg

Choose your weapons!

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Mini_nuke_(Fallout:_New_Vegas)

Although that's true, if you're paying taxes, you're responsible for it. Or we default.

I don't want the debt and I'm all for voting in reasonable people who will drive our debt way down. But none of them have gotten into office. Although that's a shame, it doesn't free me from having to pay for our debt in many, many ways (surely no social security check, 1/2 of my taxes goes to paying interest with is held mostly by rich people tightly linked to politics).

When our countrymen start believing that they can have a successful life without debt, then our government will follow. Not the other way around.

I think there is a strong movement (especially among millennials) of living debt-free. I hope we see a day in the country in the next 50 years where our debts are paid off. But the talk right now is just reducing the deficit by half in 20 years, let alone paying off any debt whatsoever.

Except if they keep electing such "criminals" to office over and over again over decades, and later choose not to catch and sue the criminals for their alleged criminal acts. Why should they because the citizens were benefitting from those crimes as well?

Citizens do have some responsibility over what kinds of governments they elect. Then again a citizen can also avoid any consequences to himself by simply relocating to another country, if they have any means to do so.

I disagree.
if a criminal take the power is because he deceived the people. You can not blame the victims of a scam.

Revolt, if needed. Or become a better candidate yourself.

Maybe it is a cultural thing, but I feel I do share responsibility over what our government does, more than e.g. some Italian who can't even vote in our elections. Even if it is by some party I didn't vote for.

Also as pointed out by some others, it is more about "suffering from the consequences" than actual responsibility. If you are a citizen who has relocated to another country and has no ties (family etc.) to your home country, then no one will be coming after you personally to chip in for what your elected government did back in the day.

So in that sense the original question about "responsibility" is wrong, and maybe it should be "Are citizens supposed to suffer from the consequences by the decisions made by their elected leaders?". Usually they do, unless they relocate.
You can blame the "victims" for electing the scammer, even many times in a row, and later on not caring enough to get the scammer to face the consequences.

Anyway as I just wrote, it is more about "suffering from the consequences" than some actual moral or ethical responsibility that you should or shouldn't be blamed for. Do citizens suffer from the consequences made by their badly elected scamming leaders? Usually they do, unless they relocate to some other country. Tough. I am unsure what other realistic alternatives there could be. You suffer from the Italian politicians, and I suffer from the Finnish politicians. Deal?

@everyone: Skimmed the thread... Lots of interesting posts here; thanks! I'll comment/question/reply as able throughout the night.

"Normal" welfare, no. But I'm willing to consider well-designed alternatives; for example, Milton Friedman (an advocate of free market capitalism) proposed a guaranteed income or "negative income tax". His book “Capitalism and Freedom” is on my short list of "books to read next".

It sounds far better than what we have now (but of course I want to read more about it before endorsing it).

I think disaster assistance (manpower, transportation, etc) is an excellent peace-time use of our military (as is border patrol - with explicit directives against lethal force of course).

Beyond that, I'd support allowing market forces greater freedom to meet emergency needs, and of course I adore disaster relief crowdfunding efforts.

I suppose the ideal for surplus funds in the treasury might be to retain them for a period (perhaps four years?) to insure against unexpected expenses, after which the funds could be refunded to the people or used for improvements to various public services/works (as voted by the legistlature or referendum)?

And as usual, I'm willing to consider compromise solutions and recognize incremental progress. For example, the Penny Plan strikes me as a decent middle-ground attempt to reduce the debt. The plan allows for some measure of discretion in cuts; I'd prefer those cuts come first from reductions to military spending, ending the war on drugs and prostitution, ending foreign aid (as soon as possible under current treaties), and getting the government out of markets such as college education (where it is doing immense harm).

Not sure what you mean? Personal debt? I think that a program of debt consolidation loans is probably a good way to help people while teaching them that they must be responsible for their financial situation.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist or pure voluntaryist, but I have strong leanings in that direction. I'd call myself a classical liberal, libertarian, or minarchist and note that I tend to be more open to compromise than some vocal proponents of those ideas. "Fiscal Responsibility, Social Tolerance", minimal coercion, decentralization of power, etc. Free people, free markets. However, I am not blind to (legit) concerns about social justice.

This is all somewhat beside the point: What I'm asking in the OP is not whether it is just for a democracy to ask/force citizens to pay for various programs out-of-paycheck, but whether enslaving every citizen and all of their descendants into debt for perpetuity, most probably leading to economic disaster, can possibly be just by any reasonable measure. An actual existential threat which markets are probably incapable of addressing, such as a hostile foreign army, is the only possibility which strikes me as even remotely justifiable.

Edit: Eek. That underlined bit comes on a bit strong... but I feel strongly about the issue, so I'll let it stand.