Live data from Hacker News

Is democracy a failure? (1861)

nytimes.com

211–220 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#211

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…

This is great and all in words, but in reality a lot of democratic decisions end up with really close counts like 51% against 49%. If you look at it like this, a majority is forcing the minority into something even though there is actually a significant number of people it effects who are against the motion. This is far better than a dictatorship, but it is a flaw and something that human society still needs to find…

First, I think you might be overestimating the number of decisions that come down to 51% vs 49%.... there are countless actions that the government takes that have a much higher societal-agreement rate than 51%. It only feels like everything is 51v49 because those decisions are the ones people spend their time arguing about; we never talk about the things we all agree on.

Secondly, for spectrum decisions (e.g. what tax rate we should have, how much to spend on defense and education, etc) getting as close to 51v49 for the decision is probably the most equitable outcome.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#212

"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…

I'm glad to see CGP Grey being noticed here. His YouTube channel[1] is highly addictive, and I'm glad he's taken a foray into longer form narratives as well as the fast paced.

His videos on elections are particularly relevant these days!

[1]: https://m.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#213
post #200

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…

>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. Objectively, it can be seen that this is completely untrue. No understanding or empathy is strictl…

No understanding or empathy is strictly required by democracy.

Yes, it's required. Democracy is compromise. The people need to be highly intellectual to make their roles in the society balance between what they want and what society (other people) want them to be. Without understanding of difference, everything breaks down easily. See what happened when us bomb other countries with simply unbelievable execuses. You can see that people having no understanding of outside world basically do not afraid to use violence to make their thinking a reality...

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#214
post #207
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…

We do not have democracies because people had the "gall to try something new". We slowly grew into it because people demanded better and used opportunities to move us closer.

And this is what we should continue doing. In no way did my comment indicate we should just be quiet and think it is not so bad.

But at the same time, this is the best we ever had. Calling it a failure is like calling an olympic gold medallist the worst athlete in history. Even if this is the 1920 olympics and the times set there will be a laugh when compared to the 2020 olympics.

Someone with so little perspective will not be able to change the world for the better. "Imagine what has never been" does not do much unless it is well grounded in reality. (edit: "Someone" here was not directed at @kobeya, but to those refer to democracy/capitalism as failure)

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#215

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…

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.

The Dakota Pipeline protestors have been getting maced and tear gassed this past week. There are also reports of protestors being locked in dog cages[1].

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/0...

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#216
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.

Not to mention if you are just protesting the wrong thing, you get arrested, pepper sprayed or worse. And somehow the media coverage is way less too.

Like the Dakota Access Pipeline protest right now. No mainstream network talks about it at prime time, despite it probably being the most significant US national political event right now next to the email leaks. Which they also ignore, beyond claiming they are Russia's fault.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How so? The general public in the USA and Europe seem fairly docile, we've had massive political scandals on both side of the Atlantic over the past couple of decades, and the general public barely reacts at all (in any meaningful way at least, in terms of organising resistance).

You don't think the political events of 2016 count?

Consider what might happen if Clinton win and more corruption scandals appear about her, or if Brexit is halted somehow. Things are getting less stable over time.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#218
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.

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 major…

Depends on your definition of "overwhelming" 1 in 5 convicts are in prison for drug related offenses[1]. Almost four hundred thousand US citizens behind bars for plant byproduct possession or distribution is heinous. There are around 320k prisoners for property crime, by comparison, so no, nonviolent drug offenses are #2 in terms of incarceration blocks, though the numbers are close, and violent offenses are over twice drug offenses.

[1] http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#219
post #76
post #22

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. 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. How can we claim to live in a democra…

> Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies The countries with the highest quality of life are Social Democracies. Places like the nordic countries and the 'new world' anglo countries excluding the US. It's bizarre just how much the US has demonised the concept of socialism in its political dialogue.

Respectfully, I must point out that the countries you mention are also among the most homogenous societies on Earth, both ethnically and politically.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#220
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Dakota Pipeline protestors have been getting maced and tear gassed this past week. There are also reports of protestors being locked in dog cages[1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/0...

The Dakota Pipeline protesters were actually shooting at cops, and committed millions of dollars worth of arson.
Post reply on HN