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

121–130 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#121

Post by wav-part »

y80 wrote: post #68
wyager wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

>First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories. Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence: "Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic i…

Can you not type so much. Just define "democratic economy" in 1-2 sentences without using more undefined words (buzzwords).

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#122

Post by erikbye »

urza wrote: post #93
hairy_man674 wrote: post #91

"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans…

I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary. However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.

It is often said that Huxley's Brave New World prediction was more accurate than Orwell's 1984, but Orwell actually got the boot-stomping-your-face prediction right: even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull. Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised. The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#123

Post by andrewclunn »

So article asks if the fundamental idea of democracy and republics are flawed, and concludes that we must impose a singular republic, without addressing those initial concerns. Good to know that the mentality of the North Eastern liberal hasn't changed since the civil war.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#124

Post by 794CD01 »

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?

Arnold Schwarzenegger definitely owes his political success to his fame as an actor.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#125

Post by y80 »

wav-part wrote: post #121
y80 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories. Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence: "Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic i…

Can you not type so much. Just define "democratic economy" in 1-2 sentences without using more undefined words (buzzwords).

A worker controlled economy. I don't really know what you consider buzzwords and not.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#126

Post by vixen99 »

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…

You hope that nation-states will be obsolete within your lifetime? Seems to me that's a strange wish given the overwhelming evidence that we would then be faced with a global corporate feudalism from which there would be no retreat. Nowhere to run, no place to hide where people can live as they wish in a way they find congenial. The latter might be unlikely given that local laws could be easily rendered pointless if a powerful central authority elsewhere deemed them unacceptable. Only my view but I'd call that a dystopia.

You say 'democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other systems are worse!?") is simply barbaric'. Does your "quote" rebut itself as you seem to suggest? What is your non-barbaric alternative to democracy?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#127

Post by mseebach »

SFJulie wrote: post #97
urza wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary. However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.

euh... Don't confuse Republics and democracies. Letting the people vote is a not an equivalent statement to let the people rules. Condorcet has shown how voting systems can be unfair, and a quick look to every elected assembly from the G20 is showing a clear non representation of the demography of the people in the assemblies. We do not live under democratic systems, neither was USA in 1861. These are Republics. And…

Thats a fairly irrelevant objection. Both the NYT, Huxley and the GP are referring to the system still in place in the US and Europe today (and so were Churchill in the "worst system, except for all the others that has been tried" quote), whether correctly identified as 'democracy' or not.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#129

Post by mseebach »

justinpombrio wrote: post #99
hairy_man674 wrote: post #91

"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans…

> "soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators" Read "soldiers, policemen, lobbyists and advertisers"?

No, read "lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats". Making you afraid of mere advertisers (demanding evermore protection from - you guessed it! - lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats, with the help of their soldiers and policemen) is a great act of mind-manipulation that harks back to the aristocratic and academic disdain for trade.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#130

Post by afarrell »

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.

I've participated in such structures before. Honestly, very few people have the time to go to 5-hour-long meetings on a weekly basis.
Post reply on HN