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

231–240 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#231

Post by Sniffnoy »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #157
Sniffnoy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better re…

>(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".) One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".

So... cooperatives?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#232

Post by visarga »

wobbleblob wrote: post #98
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…

I think you misunderstand the point of democracy. Democracy is not a mechanism for selecting the best ruler or the wisest policies. Democracy serves as a solution for the succession problem without revolutions and civil war. It is a mechanism that places the process, the system, above the ruler, and provides a strong and formal mechanism for replacing the old ruler with the new one. Totalitarian states nearly always…

> People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy.

You say that like it's a good thing. Every 4 years we are called to legitimize the next crop of corrupt politicians sold to the financial interests. We can even choose who we like best between two corrupt candidates. Yay, democracy!

I don't think voting is the greatest thing. Voting silences the minority, instead of integrating it. Voting is blunt. Stamping a paper every four years don't make someone involved or responsible for a country.

Another vice of the voting election system is that one candidate might have a foreign policy I like but an educational platform I hate. That would force me to pick which is more important for me, say, education or world politics. It's sad to choose between two things when both are essential. My political will is so poorly expressed such by kind of voting, it's as if I am only allowed to say part of what I wanted to say.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#233

Post by wyager »

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…

> In essence it's where rather than a capitalist system of a small minority directing the production based off the market

False premise. This is simply not true in any way, shape, or form. The bottom 90% of people have drastically more control over production than the top 10%. That's why the single richest company in the world, Apple, is a consumer products company.

> it's the workers directing the production

There's a very obvious conflict of interest there, because the workers aren't the only ones who have things that need to be produced. "You know, Ivan, making bread is really tedious; let's go back to making AK-47s instead." This is why if you go on Ebay and type "soviet surplus", you can still buy crates of Mosin Nagants and Nixie Tubes to this very day.

Planned economies are terrible at producing what needs to be produced, and excellent at overproducing things that don't. Whether you think market economies are impersonal or not, they are undoubtedly extremely efficient at meeting people's needs; no more, no less. Deviating from optimum production levels costs companies money.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#234

Post by mzw_mzw »

zanny wrote: post #222
mzw_mzw wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Sioux tribe and other protestors claim he was a plant by the oil company to intentionally turn public opinion against the protestors[1]. [1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-s... That, and the other incidences of protestors using firearms is something anyone managing a protest of this scale cannot control. As long as the leadership involved condemns the gun violence, and the protestors…

I wonder if you were this generous towards the Bundy Ranch protesters.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#235

Post by wyager »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #157
Sniffnoy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point. This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better re…

>(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".) One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".

You understand that you are allowed to create such companies now, and they do exist? They don't appear to work much better, if at all better, than a traditional company. But you're free to join or start one if you think you'll like it better.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#236

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #231
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".) One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".

So... cooperatives?

Among other things, yes.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#237

Post by wtbob »

dmoy wrote: post #228
wtbob wrote: post #193

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. Is it more likely that a police baton ends the peace, or a protester's stone? Is riot gear offensive in nature, or do the police wear it to defend themselves from violent attack? > Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised. While that has certainly happened, you are refer…

I was assuming he was talking about Philando Castile, who was shot to death while putting his hands up.

That is definitely a much greyer case at the moment; I'm looking forward to the results of the investigation. It definitely sounds bad.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#239

Post by throwaway729 »

amelius wrote: post #180
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

Lots of US states use ballot measures. They don't seem particularly hard to game in the same way elections can be gamed, especially when there are too many ballot measures for a typical citizen to filter through in detail.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#240

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #238
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other things, yes.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Commons trusts would be another major pillar, and democratic confederations of localities. There are many non-capitalist types of institutions ready to use.
Post reply on HN