Is democracy a failure? (1861) • Hacker News Board

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#21

Post by pinwale » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:08 AM UTC

nick0garvey wrote: post #7

This was published less than a month before the Civil War started.

add some more context, this NYT editorial was written a couple days before Abraham Lincoln was sworn into office (March 4th, 1861).

The states had already voted to secede (or not to) earlier in the year. The Confederates had even provisionally elected a president, Jefferson Davis, on February 18th. The secession crisis started after Abraham Lincoln was elected in November of 1860.

The nation really was falling apart, hence the lamentation of the republic being just a collection of states in the editorial.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#22

Post by y80 » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:13 AM UTC

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democracy if the people we trust with developing legislation must filter everything they develop through the approval filter of an undemocratic, and unfairly powerful minority?

Fortunately we have options that aren't the failed states of the 20th century, we need a democratic economy and a democratic workforce. Those are the only solutions to this problem, and if you spend enough time looking at the problems and their causes, it becomes readily apparent why this is so.

Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. The problem is the structure on which modern democracy has been built.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#23

Post by gragas » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:15 AM UTC

y80 wrote: post #22

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democra…

>Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.

Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#24

Post by stale2002 » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:16 AM UTC

y80 wrote: post #22

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democra…

Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life.

What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#25

Post by justinsingh » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

capkutay wrote: post #11

I really think the movie Idiocracy nailed the scary potential future of democracy. If elections continue and build on this trend of featuring reality tv show style candidates and media that lives off hyperbole, eventually we'll just start electing the most popular celebrities.

I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this trend?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#26

Post by kevinwang » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

capkutay wrote: post #11

I really think the movie Idiocracy nailed the scary potential future of democracy. If elections continue and build on this trend of featuring reality tv show style candidates and media that lives off hyperbole, eventually we'll just start electing the most popular celebrities.

Isn't that like Reagan?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#27

Post by WheelsAtLarge » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

It's not a failure but democracy is about to be tested like no time before. With the ability for everyone to have a voice via social media single minded groups are easier than ever to create. As we have seen many of these groups are unwilling to compromise their ideas which makes it likely for chaos to erupt over any hot issues. We saw an example with the Arab spring and Occupy Wall Street. They erupted but yet have had no real results. Primarily because there was no real leadership behind it to move it forward. In many ways you can say that the revolution made matters worse.

When everyone is upset and there are many points of view there is no common way to move forward but there are many hot heads that are willing to shoot first and ask questions later. Imagine a million hot heads without a common goal but the willingness to fight and we can see chaos with out results.

People get upset at the "do nothing congress" because they can't get X done but people aren't willing to admit that the reason is that voters have sent individuals with very diverse ideas to try to get things done. Voters are the ones that are pushing them to not compromise any idea or be punished by being voted out. I can see a future where one person that can use social media very well can push people to vote in ways that we consider distasteful now. What will happen then? Groups will erupt with opposing view and many will be ready to fight.

We've heard allegations that the voting system is rigged but that's very unlikely. We have laws and watch dogs that prevent that in any significant way. We don't have the same for social media but we know that it's possible to manipulate it, even by foreign powers, and that's not illegal worse yet it's hard to impossible to prevent. It's hard to even contemplate how that effects a democratic system.

The founding father created a representative government because they knew that rule by majority can be as distasteful as government by a monarchy or emperor. They thought a functioning government needs representatives that can sort out what's needed. With everyone having a voice that's going to get extremely difficult. Social media is about to let the US test out its governmental system, lets hope it can pass the trouble ahead. Can the US stay together as a nation?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#28

Post by y80 » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:19 AM UTC

gragas wrote: post #23

y80 wrote: post #22

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democra…

>Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

>I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life

Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. Democracy allows us to make decisions that influence our own life, however we must obviously respect the fact that we live in a society with other people, and they must be respected. Beyond living in a vacuum, we have no real way to ensure absolute individual freedom, however a completely democratic society is one way of reconciling the thirst for individual freedom with the necessity of cooperation with others.

>The ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

This is absolutely a valid concern, which is why I believe in a rigid groundset of rules on which all laws and rules must comply (consitutions/bill of rights) which respect the rights and liberties of individuals to ensure they have maximum freedom with respect to other individuals in society. This isn't a groundbreaking idea, but I do believe we need to re-evaluate these approaches in a modern context, as most countries were established in a time before progressivism was dominant.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#29

Post by solipsism » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:20 AM UTC

justinsingh wrote: post #25

capkutay wrote: post #11

I really think the movie Idiocracy nailed the scary potential future of democracy. If elections continue and build on this trend of featuring reality tv show style candidates and media that lives off hyperbole, eventually we'll just start electing the most popular celebrities.

I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this trend?

Sarah Palin

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#30

Post by y80 » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 7:21 AM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #24

y80 wrote: post #22

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democra…

Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life. What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.

> Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life.

Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society. There is no other system of decision making which even attempts to reconcile these two adversarial relationships (individual vs. society).

>What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.

I fail to see how you could have an undemocratic voluntary society. I'd argue democracy is the backbone of a voluntary society.