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

171–180 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#171

Post by zigzigzag »

Houshalter wrote: post #33

Yes. Consider that attractive candidates get two and a half times as many votes as unattractive ones. Consider that most voters have very little or no knowledge of most policy and issues. Most voters can't name their representatives even. Most just blindly vote for one party or issue. It's still better than nondemocratic systems I guess. But that's a terribly low bar to pass. That's not something to be proud of. Ever…

Statistics show that even biased judges tend to become much less biased by the time they retire.

Citation needed.

If judges were so great and neutral then why does the US have a collective fit any time one needs to be replaced? It's taken for granted that the judges are all extremely biased and the decision making of the court can be (and should be) swayed by selection of appointees.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#172

Post by maxerickson »

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.

A significant role of government is to manage conflicts. Conflicts, by definition, lack consensus.

Imagine Hal doesn't want Bill to build a fence (to make it fun, let's say Hal isn't even going to be impacted by the fence, he just doesn't like Bill).

How does consensus handle this?

Our current system tells Hal to sit down and shut up about what Bill does on his property. If consensus is the norm, Hal has a veto on Bill's fence.

An answer about requiring people to be reasonable in a consensus government is not very satisfying, people aren't reasonable.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#173

Post by zigzigzag »

happy-go-lucky wrote: post #136
dredmorbius wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In a direct democracy, its citizens are the government and they've officials as their servants. My two cents :)

You have to define success.

If success is defined as social stability and wealth then there seems to be a direct correlation between localism+direct democracy and success, with Switzerland being the canonical example.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#174

Post by rayiner »

pessimizer wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that's verifiably not true if you look at the statistics. A majority of prisoners are not in for drug crimes. The ones that are are overwhelmingly in for drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people). You can argue that consent should make the act legal, but that doesn't make it non-violent.

> drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people). Only if selling sugar, rifles or skateboards is violent.

All of those things have non-violent uses much more important than their violent ones. Cigarettes are a better analogy--I think there is definitely a case to be made that is a violent activity.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#175

Post by humanrebar »

erikbye wrote: post #122
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.

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…

> even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull

...except the police officers murdered in Dallas this year didn't wear riot gear on purpose and the violence started when a sniper started shooting officers. Some crazy person executed two officers in Iowa three days ago.

I'm not advocating riot gear, but there are holes in your narrative.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#176

Post by douche »

ezequiel-garzon wrote: post #107

It's interesting to see that back then (I now checked that even before the Civil War period) the term United States of North America was used. To the history aficionados, was USNA more commonplace than USA? If so, when did USA become prevalent?

This may have been due to the brief existence of the Federal Republic of Central America[1] in the antebellum period, which was often called the United States of Central America[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_Am...

[2] If you play the Paradox Interactive video games Victoria or Victoria II, it is named the United States of Central America there as well.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#177

Post by humanrebar »

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 (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to any consensus that is acceptable to everyone...

To be fair to American democracy as originally described, supermajorities were required to make big decisions (Constitutional amendments). And power was decentralized between branches of government and layers of government (state and local governments had more authority than the federal government on some matters). This design was amended and eroded over the years. One of the consequences of the movement toward a simple-majority democracy is the 'battering ram' effect you're (justifiably) complaining about.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#178

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#179

Post by humanrebar »

muad wrote: post #168
justinsingh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this trend?

Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, Arnold...

Al Franken, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, Jerry Springer (though in reverse)

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#180

Post by amelius »

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…

This is why we need a participatory democracy [1], rather than a representative democracy.

Also, we need better ways to keep our leaders in check, i.e., more transparency.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

Post reply on HN