Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#221

Post by DanielBMarkham »

bokonist wrote: post #139
philwelch wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gorbechev did not kill the people gathered at the White House to demand their freedom from communism--he dissolved the Soviet Union and allowed liberalization. Deng may have not had the power to dissolve the communist system in China, but a recognition of the rights to free assembly and free political speech, combined with a concrete plan towards devolving power away from the Communist Party, would have been a better…

would have been a better option than killing people for asking for it. The people who died were people who refused to vacate a public area after occupying it for weeks, accumulating automatic weapons, defying orders to disperse, and burning buses and using them as blockades. These were not peaceful reformers, but power seeking revolutionaries, in the mold of revolutionaries that have destroyed nations for the past th…

If only the German generals had cracked down on the street thugs as Deng had put down the Tienanmen protesters

Wow.

So Mao was okay in killing millions, but a few thousand held up in a park constitutes "power-seeking revolutionaries"

In a democracy, you change up who is in power every so often. How could a supporter of frequently-changing power structures be "power-seeking"?

Created the Fox News effect ... It was these hatreds that created World War I

WWI was caused by a lot of pre-planned military manuevers that ran automatically.

The August Madness was real, but don't go blaming the entire war on that.

Hitler came to power as a result of mob violence

Once again, you overstate. Hitler was part of a highly-motivated and organized political party. He was as much part of a mob as he was a ballerina.

FDR provoked Japan into war

What?

It's great to have unusual views. But you are really way on the outside of left field with a lot of these views. It's almost like you already have the answer and are taking a historical hammer and banging away to make the facts fit into your preconceived worldview.

I mean, hey, we all do the same thing, but at some point if you're making a dozen points that are all extremely debatable perhaps your logic isn't on such solid ground, you know?

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#222

Post by johnnybgoode »

chrischen wrote: post #216
johnnybgoode wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly. Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems. This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many resou…

Yes every government has to satisfy it's people, or it will be overthrown. The question is which typed of government is designed to satisfy the people. Whether or not it satisfies the people is up to reality to determine and enforce. The idealogies of the governments may not necessarily account. I think the current gov't in china, an authoratative oligarchy, is designed so that the majority of people are kept from we…

> the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse.

This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction.

> So ultimately in the US you definitely have more freedoms in terms of doing what you want.

I agree, but it is not very difficult to beat China in this respect.

> The democratic process naturally weeds out those who suck so that those deserving, by merit, will come out on top.

This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy.

> Obviously the education system needs reform and more freedom, but I think democracy is heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#223

Post by DanielBMarkham »

johnnybgoode wrote: post #222
chrischen wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes every government has to satisfy it's people, or it will be overthrown. The question is which typed of government is designed to satisfy the people. Whether or not it satisfies the people is up to reality to determine and enforce. The idealogies of the governments may not necessarily account. I think the current gov't in china, an authoratative oligarchy, is designed so that the majority of people are kept from we…

> the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction. > So ultimately in the US you defini…

I hate to be jingoistic or defensive here, but you guys are way out there.

In practice, the US is an oligarchy

Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we?

We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become president. We had another president impeached for lying in court. During this same time, we've had expansionist foreign policies, realistic policies, conservative policies. We've had all sorts of financial policies. Our court system has swung both left and right.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a ruling class of bureaucrats and rich politicians in key roles, but the government has effectively changed up policies, executives, and legal theory in surprisingly quick order.

With all due respect, China just doesn't compare here at all. They're great people and all, but if they have that kind of flexibility in governance I haven't seen it.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#224

Post by chrischen »

johnnybgoode wrote: post #222
chrischen wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes every government has to satisfy it's people, or it will be overthrown. The question is which typed of government is designed to satisfy the people. Whether or not it satisfies the people is up to reality to determine and enforce. The idealogies of the governments may not necessarily account. I think the current gov't in china, an authoratative oligarchy, is designed so that the majority of people are kept from we…

> the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction. > So ultimately in the US you defini…

> Separation of powers" has been a complete failure.

I don't think this is true. You referring to the fact that the democrats have complete control is not good enough of an example of one faction controlling everything. The idea of separation of the government with three branches is not necessarily to have 3 branches controlled by different parties, but the idea of having three separate entities that do not report to a single point. That's what the separation of powers intends with the three branches of government. That being said the Democratic party is heavily factioned itself. It's not a very unified entity, especially when compared to the Communist party of China, and this is mostly because the representatives report directly to their constituents. If they piss off their constituents, most of them can easily lose their seats. So to say that the government is controlled by one faction right now is misleading since the Democratic party is huge, and represents about 50% of the population.

> This is not what actually happens. In practice, the US is an oligarchy. As I said before, the representatives report directly to the constituents. So in practice it may seem like an oligarchy because a selected few are given the power to govern, but this is actually a republican type of government. It's necessary for this to happen because having every issue directly voted on would be super inefficient. The representatives that have power do not actually have as much power as you think because of their responsibilities to their constituents. In China, I'm pretty sure the communist party officials have final say no matter what.

> Unfortunately it isn't heading in the right direction at all. Parents in many states are having to fight government officials just for the ability to opt out of the govt. school system. Govts. are trying to make it harder and harder to do this. If you look at who is actually causing all of this, democracy has to take the blame.

Even if this is true, like I said before, the fundamentals of the US system is freedom of speech and democracy. Therefore you will always have the right to pursue an education independent of the government, even if it means doing it on top of government mandated education. So this makes the issue of the school system moot with respect to the style of government. The education system may be going the wrong way, but why is it because of democracy? Freedom of speech/individualism certainly isn't pushing it that way, right? I think the problem with the school system is actually a whole other issue not related to the American democracy/individual freedom. China on the other hand, has a governing style based on oligarchical manipulation of the population. Manipulation will always result in something unnatural, such as the restriction of speech and information. That in turn means no freedom to pursue education as one wishes. So in essence the Democratic method does not force the bad education system, while the Chinese method fundamentally will oppose freedom of education as it will eventually, if not already, conflict with the interests of the oligarchy.

To summarize my points: If your issue is the education, the American style of government does not necessarily promote the current system of education we have. It may oppose a radical change to the education system, but that is simply because the government is designed to resist unnecessary radical changes. China on the other hand has a style of government that will definitely not allow the freedom of education you and I both love.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#225

Post by johnnybgoode »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #223
johnnybgoode wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the government never becomes a single ruling class or entity that may significantly alter the status quo for better, but more horrifyingly, for worse. This has already happened to a greater degree than most people realize. "Separation of powers" has been a complete failure. Just take the present time as an example. All three branches are currently controlled by the same faction. > So ultimately in the US you defini…

I hate to be jingoistic or defensive here, but you guys are way out there. In practice, the US is an oligarchy Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we? We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become pres…

The reason you see us as "way out there" is because if you limit your vision to a fairly small area, the relatively minor policy changes you mention appear to be far more important than they actually are.

The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consistently running an empire for decades now. Take a look at what the State Dept. does. The financial system is a particularly bad example, as core financial policies have not changed at all.

For whatever reason, you're focusing on flexibility in governance, but are you really suggesting the Chinese government has been less flexible than the US on policy changes in the last 30 years? If there is any giant government that has been making rather sudden and extreme changes in short order, for better or worse, it's China's.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#226

Post by DanielBMarkham »

johnnybgoode wrote: post #225
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be jingoistic or defensive here, but you guys are way out there. In practice, the US is an oligarchy Let's review the last 30 years or so of U.S. political history, shall we? We had a president that was tossed out of office by his own party when he covered up a political crime. We had a peanut farmer with little political clout become president. We had an actor who was on a TV show with a monkey become pres…

The reason you see us as "way out there" is because if you limit your vision to a fairly small area, the relatively minor policy changes you mention appear to be far more important than they actually are. The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consiste…

So your argument consists of -- my points don't matter?

That's all you got?

The neat thing about such arguments about systems is: time will tell. When China is at 250 years with the same system, we can compare notes! (grin). But throwing away each others' points is not exactly a good way to continue a conversation. I'm of the opinion that real changes occurred, in all areas of policy. You are not. No amount of my explaining the changes is going to convince you, I'm afraid. You already know what you believe and no amount of discussion is going to persuade you otherwise.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to play advocate of everything the U.S. does, and if you want to play that role for China you would be a fool as well (which I hope not).

Meanwhile I'll work on "expanding my vision." I commented because I thought you might help in this area. It appears not, though.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#227

Post by thismat »

johnnybgoode wrote: post #219
chrischen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not A by your definition that the person has NO choice in education. In the US we clearly do have choice, and even if we go the public education route, we still have the freedom to pursue spread and pursue information independently.

You don't have the option of not paying for govt. schools. You don't have the option of avoiding legal credential requirements in many careers. Again the US is obviously not identical to China, but they are both A.

On this same note though, there are some jobs where you do indeed have the option to avoid legal credentialing. In fact, the nuclear industry, the industry with the heaviest regulations, will let you work at a plant if you can pass their tests, these tests are open on a government website and anyone may take them (this is according to my uncle who is indeed a nuclear engineer working at a plant).

Edit: No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing", because I don't want people who are under qualified working in the nuclear industry, but the fact stands the opportunity in the MOST regulated field in our nation, has entrance paths for those who did not get an engineering degree formally.

So there is a larger level of freedom than you make it out to be. The biggest regulator is the taxes. I don't have any formal credentials and I'm not finding any roadblocks keeping me from a greater quality of life or making millions.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#228

Post by johnnybgoode »

thismat wrote: post #227
johnnybgoode wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have the option of not paying for govt. schools. You don't have the option of avoiding legal credential requirements in many careers. Again the US is obviously not identical to China, but they are both A.

On this same note though, there are some jobs where you do indeed have the option to avoid legal credentialing. In fact, the nuclear industry, the industry with the heaviest regulations, will let you work at a plant if you can pass their tests, these tests are open on a government website and anyone may take them (this is according to my uncle who is indeed a nuclear engineer working at a plant). Edit: No, the above…

> No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing"

Technically it does, but I do agree that it is more open than many other careers. And yes, there are plenty of options still left. But some careers are completely shut off to you if you do not go through govt.-approved schools. That is the key.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#229

Post by johnnybgoode »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #226
johnnybgoode wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you see us as "way out there" is because if you limit your vision to a fairly small area, the relatively minor policy changes you mention appear to be far more important than they actually are. The office of President and the scope of presidential power have changed little even as the person holding the office has changed. Foreign policy has not changed as much as it seems, either. The US has been consiste…

So your argument consists of -- my points don't matter? That's all you got? The neat thing about such arguments about systems is: time will tell. When China is at 250 years with the same system, we can compare notes! (grin). But throwing away each others' points is not exactly a good way to continue a conversation. I'm of the opinion that real changes occurred, in all areas of policy. You are not. No amount of my exp…

Please don't be offended. You did start by saying we were "way out there," and I don't think you meant in a good way. I think that does imply that you are "zoomed in" on a smaller range of policy options and that does make small changes look big.

I'm not sure if you thought I was advocating everything that China does, or that I was somehow taking China's side in a US vs. China debate. That wouldn't be the case at all. If you read my other posts in this thread, I criticize both the US and China.

I'm also not sure if I misunderstood what you said about flexibility of governance. Whether or not you support the changes, I don't see how the Chinese government can be seen to have changed policies less in the entire Deng era than the US in the same time period.

Re: Ask HN: Whom do you admire most?

#230

Post by thismat »

johnnybgoode wrote: post #228
thismat wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this same note though, there are some jobs where you do indeed have the option to avoid legal credentialing. In fact, the nuclear industry, the industry with the heaviest regulations, will let you work at a plant if you can pass their tests, these tests are open on a government website and anyone may take them (this is according to my uncle who is indeed a nuclear engineer working at a plant). Edit: No, the above…

> No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing" Technically it does, but I do agree that it is more open than many other careers. And yes, there are plenty of options still left. But some careers are completely shut off to you if you do not go through govt.-approved schools. That is the key.

What is your suggestion to replace that? As some careers demand a certain level of competency and skill (Doctors, Nurses, Civil Engineers, et cetera)?

Are you saying the confidence we give doctors based on their years of studying and research just might be too much faith in the Government standard? Interesting question that brings up as well, how do we accurately gauge a persons skill in a profession like this if we were to try to "free" up the institutional thought process? Maybe an apprentice/master system? Seems to work well for skill trades, why not for doctors?

Post reply on HN