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

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#201

Post by abandonliberty » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

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…

If you would like to elevate your thinking on this subject in order to understand what's going on, I recommend:

1. Iron law of oligarchy (1911 - 1700 words on wikipedia): "all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies."

2. Dictator's handbook (2011) - Or CGP Grey's summary: rules for rulers (2016 - 18 minutes): "Bad behavior" is emergent from power structures rather than human weakness. From democracies to dictatorships, organizations select for Machiavellian and psychopathic behaviors.

I can't recommend these enough. This life altering perspective takes The problems with the world are not user error. How can technology help?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#202

Post by curried_haskell » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

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…

Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive... I think you are confused if you think they are. According to Wikipedia, "It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy."

Perhaps it's less of a democracy then we think it is, but it's not wrong to call the US a democracy.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#203

Post by TazeTSchnitzel » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #190

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face.

They're not fighting a war, and acting like they are only increases popular resentment.

How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#204

Post by diyorgasms » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #203

humanrebar wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face. They're not fighting a war, and acting like they are only increases popular resentment. How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?

The police act almost as an occupying force in some communities. It does not surprise me in the few instances where they are resisted like they are an occupying force.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#205

Post by tptacek » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 3:59 PM UTC

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.

Most people in prison are not there for victimless crimes. This is well studied, and what you just said is a canard.

Ranked, reasons for incarcerations go:

1. Violent crime

2. Property crime

3. Everything else

Where "violent crime" is comprised of those crimes we all agree are violent --- particularly: domestic violence, which accounts for a plurality of all incarcerations in major metro areas.

The overwhelming majority of incarcerated felons victimized somebody else. It's also worth considering that the majority of those incarcerated for property crimes victimized those people in society least able to absorb the harm: rich white people live in low-crime neighborhoods with 2x the police coverage.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#206

Post by na85 » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 4:00 PM UTC

794CD01 wrote: post #118

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

National borders will never be irrelevant. The meat and bones will always require a physical domicile.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#207

Post by kobeya » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

ozy wrote: post #181

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 p…

When encountering a shortcoming of the world, there are two responses:

You can compare it to what has happened before and console yourself that of observed past histories, this situation ain't so bad.

Or you can imagine what has never been, and try to create a society better than has ever existed before.

There was once a time when democracy of modern form had never been tried, outside of some rugged mountain towns in the Alps, and yet those in the face of tyranny had the gall to try something new. Isn't that an example we should emulate?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#208

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

Sniffnoy wrote: post #44

roenxi wrote: post #18

We haven't yet found a decision making process that works better than democracy, and a lot of people have tried. At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are. Either that person is the average voter, or it is a minority group. If it is a minority group, they are in a position of extreme moral hazard to funnel societies resources to their benefit and lo…

> At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are. Either that person is the average voter, or it is a minority group. You're quietly assuming a lot there. Let's stop after the first sentence -- "At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are." Ah! So you're proposing monarchy? But no, you're…

Well, that futarchy replaces hired experts with a panel of future bets. Future bets aren't very reliable, but well, it's something that could be tried - who knows, it may work.

Anyway, on this context you are just begging the question. There's no novelty in there for the democratic process, just for the technocratical one.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#209

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

jayajay wrote: post #54

unclenoriega wrote: post #15

The part that struck me the most: > We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound like sacrilege. Some things never change.

This, which is also ironic considering what happened in the late 1700's. No Government should ever program itself to be resilient to change. Such a thing is a virus, not a Government. "Ok kids, we're going to play a game called 'I get a unique power but you can never take it away no matter what!' starting now!"

> Such a thing is a virus

A badly adapted one. Every virus that gives us real trouble does that because it changes.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#210

Post by cortesoft » Sat, Nov 05, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

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…

Are you saying that peaceful protests in the US are met with baton-swings to the skull? That seems veritably untrue; there have been a large number of protests recently that have not ended in any violence.