Is democracy a failure? (1861) • Hacker News Board

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#181

Post by ozy » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

There are two perspectives on democracy. You can compare it to some ideal world that has never been, and easily see it falls short, by a lot.

Or you can look back on history, and look at countries who have done things differently, and realize it is by far the best system we have had.

If you want to live a full lifetime in peace and security and health. Be born in a democratic and capitalist country somewhere in the past 70 years, and you maximize that chance. Any other time and place and the chance of a good life drops quickly.

To other commenters in this thread, describing democracy or capitalism with words like "disastrous" or "complete failure" or "elite rule", please some perspective.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#182

Post by douche » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #112

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…

I'm not sure it is really accurate to lump 3000 years of Chinese history under a single political system. That would be roughly analogous to saying the the Egyptian political system was continuous from Thutmose to Cleopatra, because the ruler still called themselves Pharaoh. Or perhaps saying that the Western Roman Empire was continuous with the Franko-German Holy Roman Empire that followed it.

There are extensive periods of discontinuity intermixed there, whether it be fracture and civil war, invasion and synthesis with various steppe peoples, the taking on of Buddhist Chakravartin mantles, etc.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#183

Post by happy-go-lucky » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

zigzigzag wrote: post #173

happy-go-lucky wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow! Yes it's social stability and wealth. I know my wording was poor and/or ambiguous. I'm working and at the same time sneaking a glance at this discussion, so it shows that I can't multitask.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#184

Post by wav-part » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

y80 wrote: post #142

wav-part wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 str…

Why does anyone (minority/majority) have to control anyone ? Do you any problem with live and let live.

> 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.

The problem is not minority. The problem is overreaching government. Keep government specific and small.

But your vindictive like attitude is what makes government overly powerful. Your "union-infested economy" solution is worse than what we are facing.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#185

Post by narrowrail » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #174

pessimizer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What is the non-violent use of a rifle that is important? I sold pot in college in the 90s, and there was no violence. Perhaps it is the ilegalization of various plant materials that causes violence in the distribution process?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#186

Post by rayiner » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

narrowrail wrote: post #185

rayiner wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is the non-violent use of a rifle that is important? I sold pot in college in the 90s, and there was no violence. Perhaps it is the ilegalization of various plant materials that causes violence in the distribution process?

Hunting, pest control, etc. Pot isn't that harmful, but contrary to popular belief most people are not in prison for possessing or even distributing pot. Heroin, meth, etc. definitely are harmful and addictive, and destroy lives. Selling them would be violent even if those products were legal (like cigarettes).

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#187

Post by minor_nitwit » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:56 PM UTC

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…

The Athenians would say that we do not have a democracy but an oligarchy. The only way that they saw to actually make the government the will of the people was to select representation by sortition, i.e. drawing by lot, like jury selections.

I don't think that they were wrong in this regard. If we look at the demographics of the house of representatives, they do not come close to making a parallel of the demographics of the country. If representatives were selected at random, we'd have 51% women in the house, we'd have people from all economic backgrounds according to the current wealth disparity instead of only the wealthy. We'd need to actually focus our resources on education if we agreed that really anybody can be selected for representation. If the pool of representatives was large enough (larger than we have now, which is a limitation put in place to make party control easier), then random selection should always result in a representative body that is actually representative.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#188

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 2:59 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #175

erikbye wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 narrativ…

A police officer or two killed says nothing about police brutality.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#189

Post by ezequiel-garzon » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 3:00 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #108

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?

USA since at 1776, no contest: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=United+States+...

Thanks, that's what I always thought, having found it always puzzling as "an American from Argentina" :) That's why I always surprised this usage in a NYT piece, and before: https://books.google.es/books?id=pVdDAQAAIAAJ .

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#190

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 3:02 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #188

humanrebar wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 narrativ…

A police officer or two killed says nothing about police brutality.

It says a lot actually. Police officers are humans who want to go home to their kids. Hence the riot gear. We can blame them for being too fearful, but we can also recognize that they have reasons to be afraid.

These reasons don't fit into "because The Man" narratives without some explanation.