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

Is democracy a failure? (1861)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#51

Post by y80 »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #32
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…

Can you elaborate on what you mean by " a democratic economy"?

A worker controlled economy. Many different forms this could take, perhaps a syndicalist approach. Not state controlled, no central control.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#52

Post by wyager »

roenxi wrote: post #18

We haven't yet found a decision making process that works better than democracy, and a lot of people have tried. At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are. Either that person is the average voter, or it is a minority group. If it is a minority group, they are in a position of extreme moral hazard to funnel societies resources to their benefit and lo…

> At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are.

Technically true, but you're glossing over another way to approach this fact; we can reduce the number of "decisions being made by the political apparatus" as close to zero as practical.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#53

Post by y80 »

Qantourisc wrote: post #38
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…

Capitalism vs socialist states. Could you define both ? In my experience it's just a sliding scale, either extreme is bad/non-optimal.

A socialist state is one which claims to be a transitional state between capitalism and socialism, i.e. the USSR. They're states which have nationalized most industries in order to prevent capitalists from seizing control until such time the state is no longer necessary and withers away into the establishment of a socialist society (some obvious flaws in this though). A capitalist state is essentially every other modern state, parliamentary democracies,republics etc. all with capitalism as the underlying economic system. Socialism is not state control.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#54

Post by jayajay »

unclenoriega wrote: post #15

The part that struck me the most: > We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound like sacrilege. Some things never change.

This, which is also ironic considering what happened in the late 1700's. No Government should ever program itself to be resilient to change. Such a thing is a virus, not a Government.

"Ok kids, we're going to play a game called 'I get a unique power but you can never take it away no matter what!' starting now!"

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#55

Post by stenl »

rdtsc wrote: post #40

Yes it is a failure, but everything else is even more of a failure. So we settled for a lesser failure. Also "democracy as a failure" is a common trope that is used by those who perceive the election isn't going according to how they planned. "They are not voting the way I like, therefore democracy has failed" or if the election or polls go the expected way then "democracy and clear minds prevailed again!". One inter…

About controlling people in a democracy, there's a great documentary, "Manufacturing consent" featuring Noam Chomsky.

See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_...

Seems to be available full-length on YouTube: [http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y](http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y)

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#56

Post by gragas »

y80 wrote: post #28
gragas wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 w…

I've really become more and more for states' rights as time goes on. It's very clear that most states (especially rural states) fundamentally disagree with California, New York, and the other blue strongholds.

I want to preserve the culture I grew up in. I want everyone to contribute to society. I want a culture where what you get is what you worked for. I don't want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move to the town I grew up in.

Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.

In my mind, it would be an absolute travesty to allow the distant majority to vote for the destruction of the culture I grew up in.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#57

Post by cderwin »

kevinwang wrote: post #26
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?

Reagan was not a particularly popular actor, and only rose to national prominence as a political figure. So no, not like Reagan.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#58

Post by FreedomToCreate »

nostrademons wrote: post #3

Democracy is interesting because it requires you to step outside your own head, understand that there are people who hold different values and different experiences from you, and then mentally engage with them, holding your own doubt and revulsion at bay, until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone. It's a thoroughly unnatural and uncomfortable experience that can be both fatiguing and time-consum…

This is great and all in words, but in reality a lot of democratic decisions end up with really close counts like 51% against 49%. If you look at it like this, a majority is forcing the minority into something even though there is actually a significant number of people it effects who are against the motion. This is far better than a dictatorship, but it is a flaw and something that human society still needs to find a solution too.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#59

Post by matt_wulfeck »

The author speaks about the "provincial" partisans that exist between states, cities, and areas of the Union as if it's the byproduct of a failing Democracy. He or she points specifically to the different ways laws are written and enforced, as one example.

This is, to me, perhaps one the strongest strengths of our Republic. Different ideas and values can be thrive in different areas at the same time, and we can test and experiment with what's true and right.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#60

Post by wyager »

y80 wrote: post #50
wyager wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we need a democratic economy Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong? > a democratic workforce "We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!" > if you believe democracy is a failure, you're sa…

>Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong? The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? If you think the people decided on these two I'd say you misunderstand the process by which these two reached the forefront. A very small minority selected Clinton and stacked the odds in h…

> The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it?

First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories.

Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton and rallied extremely hard against Trump. I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something.

> I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system

You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!

> I'm not proposing elected slavery,

Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".

> I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.

Besides this statement being more or less incoherent, it also doesn't have anything to do with your earlier statement that

> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.

There is no connection between the decisions I make for myself and the decisions imposed on me by the whims of a political majority.

Post reply on HN