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

141–150 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#141

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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…

I mean, of course we don't actually have democracy. That's the problem.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#142

Post by y80 »

wav-part wrote: post #131
y80 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Undefined: A worker controlled economy.

It's really not definable in 2 sentences, there are so many different forms this can take. In essence it's where rather than a capitalist system of a small minority directing the production based off the market, it's the workers directing the production based off of mutual cooperation across industries (note this doesn't mean no market, there are market socialist economies e.g. mutualism). That's it in very broad strokes but by no means an all encompassing definition, especially as the form this co-operation takes is left out of this discussion, and that is a very big part of it.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#143

Post by y80 »

vacri wrote: post #139
y80 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is more that it's not an either/or proposition. Social democracies have significant components each of democracy, socialism, and capitalism.

It actually is. Capitalism is defined by the ownership of private property and individuals selling their labor to these owners in the form of a wage/salary, whereas socialism is where private property has been abolished for some form of common ownership. They are mutually exclusive. Social democracies aren't socialist, they're strong welfare in a capitalist system.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#144

Post by Someone »

x0137294744532 wrote: post #95
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.

Imagine party A has 23%, party B has 28%, and party C has 49%. Party A and B join forces; they decide per consensus on how they would vote in parliament. Since they have together 51% and vote as one, they don't need to consult party C, even though it's the party with the most votes. We have again a situation where 51% crushes the 49%.

That's only true if party A and party B agree on every decision, in which case you simply have two parties, "AB" and C.

Also, in some countries, there are way more than 3 factions (over a dozen in Belgium and the Netherlands), making it less likely that the same subset of parties will find itself in agreement every time.

The effect of having that many factions is that the majority part of parliament will always take the minority opinion into account because they know that, in the next vote, they may be part of that minority.

Of course, that is not a guarantee; I think it is part of a nation's culture. Other countries may value the short-term "let's win this vote" way above the longer term "we have to live in this country together".

That certainly seems the case in the USA, where "in four years time, we might end up with the shorter straw." doesn't seem to play a big role in politics (?anymore?)

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#145

Post by zigzigzag »

ojosilva wrote: post #90
FreedomToCreate wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cha…

No, some countries use referendums for lots of things, like Switzerland. Including quite small things like whether or not to build new tunnels.

Simple majority has the advantage that it's fair. If you're going to start claiming that decisions that will "profoundly impact everyone" need higher than majority you're just going down the road to totalitarianism. Anyone can claim a decision they think they're on the losing side of is too important to leave to majority decision making. Then it's just about ramping up the threshold until you win.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#146

Post by zigzigzag »

gragas wrote: post #56
y80 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 countr…

Significant relaxation of federal power is the only way USA and Europe can be politically stable over the long run, but good luck getting people to let go of the idea of federalism.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#147

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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.

God forbid society should invest in the interests of small minorities occasionally to win their support for the majority interest?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#148

Post by zigzigzag »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #12
Aldo_MX wrote: post #4

I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same. I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one, but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the benefits and consequences of their decisions... Having a majority of the po…

The uneducated who cannot properly express their gut feelings in an intelligent manner have one day where they are equal to everyone and where they can escape from the tyranny of the experts and of the well researched individuals, who mistakenly think that they themselves act always within reason when that couldn't be further from the truth. This election shows more than any other that people will bend the facts to f…

The best argument against rule by 'experts' is the USSR's attempt to have academic and intellectual 'experts' set 21 million prices before the New Economic Policy.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#149

Post by zigzigzag »

Aldo_MX wrote: post #10
js8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I am not clear what you're suggesting. You don't want to value votes differently, so what do you want to do about those people who won't do their homework for some reason? You should also note that in most democracies this is already accounted for. The people who feel they didn't do their homework simply do not vote, and leave the decision on others. I lived in a communist country, and we had a system that was co…

I am not an expert in decision-making processes, and I have not an idea of which process would work better, since I understand the big picture: We want to give every person the ability to express their needs with their vote. I am just a concerned person, since most of the candidates spend too much time discrediting their opponents, rather than discussing about their proposals. The electoral process had became a reali…

The US Presidential elections are a curious thing, they're hardly about policies because presidents can't simply enact whatever laws they want. They aren't general elections as other countries have. Voters are basically selecting a figurehead who has some power, but not enough to really reshape the country as they see fit.

Given the relative pointlessness of the process is it surprising that it turns into a beauty/uglyness contest?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#150

Post by ZenoArrow »

gragas wrote: post #56
y80 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 countr…

> "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."

How is diversity diametrically opposed to equal opportunity and hard work? From what I can see you can have all of the above without any issues.

Post reply on HN