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

111–120 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#111

Post by wav-part »

tempestn wrote: post #104
wav-part wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 51% and 49% cant come to agreement they should live separately. I am not advocating full secession but something like Hong Kong (HK handles everything except Defence and External Affairs). (I think) In democracy, voters are less likely to compromise. This is result of weak discussion between >1m.

Unfortunately ideology and geography have a correlation that, while positive, is less than one. There will always be a minority that gets overridden. And while it is a good thing for people to have freedom to move to a place that supports their values in extreme cases (some are even talking seriously about it this election), in most situations that isn't practical.

Still that does not stop me from solving 90% of the problem using seperations. For example I would like to have greater say in where my taxes are spent. If we can all agree on this, this would be great.

But likely technology (as always) will come to rescue before democracy. This is in reference to rise of renunciations, AirBnB etc.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#112

Post by dredmorbius »

happy-go-lucky wrote: post #34

Is there a system of government that enjoys the most success? Just curious.

The bureaucratic dynasties under the Mandate of Heaven ruled for ~3,000 years in China, ~2100 BCE until 1912. Individual dynasties lasted for 100s of years, the longest, the Zhou, for 790 years from 1046 BC to 256 BC.

The English royal system has persisted with relatively little discontinuity from 1066 AD to present, some 950 years.

Unless you've other criteria for "success", in which case you might care to consider what those might be.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#113

Post by Eupolemos »

saretired wrote: post #94
Swizec wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why real democracies have more than 2 [real/major] parties. Governments are a lot more interesting and concensusy when they're made up of 23%, 27%, 24%, and 26% for example. Suddenly there's no single majority to ram its will down everyone else's throat.

Except that cases are hardly rare where a small minority party becomes crucial for forming a government and winds up wielding power far beyond its numerical support among the population. And its not rare for countries to be unable to form a government for months or even years.

That's probably because their system is flawed.

In Denmark, we never have to wait for long. Whenever those in power want to pass something big or important in parliament, they seek a broad support - otherwise, it'll just get repealed whenever they lose power.

Everything certainly isn't perfect here (yes, it can be darn annoying when center parties hold too much power - but then again, it is a stabilizing factor), but healthy mechanics can get you a long way with democracy.

I feel a lot of people in this thread point out cases where democracy doesn't work. That's easy. But maybe it would be better to look for cases where it does work and learn from it.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#114

Post by damptowel »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #77
y80 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better re…

> I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".

Co-ops, probably.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#115

Post by sampo »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #58
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 lot of democratic decisions end up with really close counts like 51% against 49%.

America (and the few other remaining non-proportional systems) suffers from this problem much more than the more advanced democratic systems. If America is all you know, you shouldn't generalize too much.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#116

Post by 794CD01 »

kashkhan wrote: post #85
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…

its solvable by using consensus democracy rather than majority democracy. The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be legitimate.

According to a definition of legitimacy concocted specifically to apply to a few selected forms of government.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#117

Post by y80 »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #77
y80 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better re…

A democratic economy is one where the workers control it through cooperation across industries, the form this takes is up to the workers in this theoretical system. An anarcho-syndicalist approach may work, a participatory economic approach may work, a socialist market system is possible (mutualism). Unfortunately I can't really explain more without getting into the nitty gritty which requires an understanding of socialism.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#118

Post by 794CD01 »

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?

Continue to broaden the scope of what can be transmitted securely and anonymously over the internet until jurisdiction over specific pieces of land approaches irrelevancy.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#119

Post by 794CD01 »

Eupolemos wrote: post #113
saretired wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that cases are hardly rare where a small minority party becomes crucial for forming a government and winds up wielding power far beyond its numerical support among the population. And its not rare for countries to be unable to form a government for months or even years.

That's probably because their system is flawed. In Denmark, we never have to wait for long. Whenever those in power want to pass something big or important in parliament, they seek a broad support - otherwise, it'll just get repealed whenever they lose power. Everything certainly isn't perfect here (yes, it can be darn annoying when center parties hold too much power - but then again, it is a stabilizing factor), but…

It's much easier to agree on which cases are failures than which ones are successful.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#120

Post by vixen99 »

erikbye wrote: post #89
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.

Spot on! I believe the other term is 'crony capitalism' and this is too often confused with the natural desire of most of us to be able to freely trade goods and services (including our labor) with other people within an evolving independent legal system (national law & international agreements otherwise known as international law) that disallows criminal and unfair practices.
Post reply on HN