“The people = government doctrine is equivalent to political infantilism -- an agreement to pretend that the citizen's wishes animate each restriction or exaction inflicted upon him.”

In a de jure representative republic, with a constitution limiting the representatives scope of action (not limiting or addressing an individual of We The People in any way), the comment is totally INaccurate. In a practical application, as now exists world wide, the statement's fallacy focus is dead-on accurate. In a people = government, with representatives or otherwise, no person (individually or in concert - government) can lawfully compel the compliance of another, license, create or enforce victimless crimes, commit larceny against another's labor or property, or in anyway infringe on another's right(s).

Remember, it is the government that keeps equating itself with 'the people' even though they are but a tiny minority and almost always representing their own interests rather than of those they supposedly represent. There is a significant difference between a representative government and a 'ruling' government.

Wow! That says it very succinctly. And Waffler's "The government is the people", theory is described perfectly as..."infantile"

Isn't it the citizens=government doctrine? Are not the restrictions and exactions put in place so the political infants are controlled by the more experienced political juveniles?