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

81–90 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#81

Post by y80 »

vacri wrote: post #76
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…

> Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies The countries with the highest quality of life are Social Democracies. Places like the nordic countries and the 'new world' anglo countries excluding the US. It's bizarre just how much the US has demonised the concept of socialism in its political dialogue.

Social democracies are not socialist states, and I 100% agree, there is no way I'd be able to argue against capitalism without prefacing with that statement because everyone would immediately think I propose something like the USSR.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#82

Post by y80 »

pyrale wrote: post #79
Sniffnoy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. These are hardly the only alternatives. In case you haven't noticed, the other people here aren't implicitly contrasting democracy with e.g. monarchy; they're implicitly contrasting it with anarchy (probably anarcho-capitalism). Again, there's lots of possibilities out there. Personally I like the…

Anarchy (and some of its branches) value very much the values of democracy, with the added benefits of stressing the search of compromise. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.

>In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.

There's also a reason all anarchists want to be differentiated from ancaps ;)

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#83

Post by sjclemmy »

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Winston Churchill

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#84

Post by jayajay »

hasenj wrote: post #69
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…

It doesn't work when the population is composed of different social groups with vastly opposite systems of values. Iraq for example (I was born in Iraq). We can already see a similar thing happening in America with different ethnic groups not getting along well together. I think this will only get worse over time. Pro Trump and anti Trump camps are really about how a significant number of whites are not getting along…

What you speak of is backwards. The answer to disagreement isn't for both parties to walk away in opposite directions, nor is it for one party to kill the other party. Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something. Your solution is to run away? That's seriously very sad, and I feel like crying that we still have people who think like this. The solution isn't crying, either. Many people are observed to get along with people who have different ideas, culture, and ethnicity. Perhaps a better solution is in education and learning.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#85

Post by kashkhan »

stevendhansen wrote: post #37
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…

"...until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone." In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to any consensus that is acceptable to everyone, but rather serves as little more than a moral battering ram that the 51% can use to impose their will on the 49%. Perhaps one day people will realize that democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other syst…

its solvable by using consensus democracy rather than majority democracy.

The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be legitimate.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#86

Post by rdtsc »

stenl wrote: post #55
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)

Good reference. I have the book as well!

The other book I like is "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion" by Elliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#87

Post by kashkhan »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #41
stevendhansen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone." In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to any consensus that is acceptable to everyone, but rather serves as little more than a moral battering ram that the 51% can use to impose their will on the 49%. Perhaps one day people will realize that democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other syst…

Any ideas on how technology would render nation states obsolete?

nation states fight over borders to increase tax revenues. wars are governments jockeying to get bigger pieces of the pie.

the solution is to make the pie arbitrarily large.

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#88

Post by adrianN »

stevendhansen wrote: post #37
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…

"...until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone." In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to any consensus that is acceptable to everyone, but rather serves as little more than a moral battering ram that the 51% can use to impose their will on the 49%. Perhaps one day people will realize that democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other syst…

In my experience the more common result is some kind of compromise that fails to solve the actual problem and leaves everyone dissatisfied.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#89

Post by erikbye »

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…

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ber...

Why stubbornly claim capitalism is a failure when America is not capitalist? It is not laissez faire capitalism, like Chomsky says, it is a nanny state, where government bails out failed business. That is not capitalism.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#90

Post by ojosilva »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #71
nostrademons wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative, assuming that you can't reach into peoples' heads and change their positions on an issue? Regardless of the decision, you would still have 51% of the population in support of it and 49% opposed (or vice versa, if the system were minority rules). If I could reach into peoples' heads, there's a solution: "mind your own damn business". If we didn't care so much what other people did, then we woul…

As I stated, there is no alternative as of today, and that is the flaw. Its not terrible flaw, and I think that the democracies on this earth are far better than any other form of government, but maybe one day someone will think up the alternative. Mind control though would just be an uber-dictatorship.

I think there's an alternative already available and sparingly in use today: certain decisions can require 2/3rds, 3/5ths etc. majorities.

For instance, any decision that will last for generations and impact profoundly in everyone's life, like secession or a "Brexit" should require slightly more votes than a majority one. Unfortunately it's only typically used by parliaments, courts and senates for constitutional change, never for popular vote on issues.

Post reply on HN