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

251–260 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#251

Post by 392c91e8165b »

vacri wrote: post #250
LyndsySimon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So, Australia, despite it's reputation, as of a few years ago, had 28% of it's population born overseas. Remove the brits (6%) and the kiwis (1%), and the figure becomes 21%. Compare to 14% for the US, and 12% for the UK (without any groups removed). The last few years, the #1 source of migrants was China. Australia also has only around the replacement birthrate, and yet has increased it's population from 19M in 1999…

They were homogeneous for centuries, then non-homogeneous for a few decades. Maybe it takes a few decades for the adverse effects of the non-homogeneity to become apparent.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#252

Post by cortesoft »

zanny wrote: post #215
cortesoft wrote: post #210

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...

Yes, but there have been many other protests that did NOT end in violence.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#253

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #245
wyager wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> non-capitalist types of institutions Common trusts and co-ops are both "capitalist institutions". They both rely on private ownership and voluntary transactions. Not sure what you mean by "democratic confederations of localities".

To be fair, he means "capitalist" in a different sense than you do. If you take what he said but use a different interpretation of the words, of course nonsense will result. But I do think that despite the above your underlying point is fundamentally correct here; both commons trusts and co-ops work perfectly well under existing rules. It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb…

> It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb wants is not a different system of rules, but rather to kick the existing system into a different equlibrium. (It really seems like these socialist types tend not to distinguish between these...)

Well, I'd love to know where you draw the conceptual boundaries between systems. Lemme guess: it's only not-capitalism when the state controls everything?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#254

Post by dredmorbius »

happy-go-lucky wrote: post #132
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…

That's helpful. I'm curious to know of a system (like democracy) that is/was enjoyed by its people and if so, it's a success IMO. I incline to the view that democracy is the best form of government, although I cannot corroborate my own statement because my knowledge of politics is poor.

I have a similar inclination, though I strongly suspect a cultural and familiarity bias. I've been trying to go through the literature of political philosophy and dynamics, which is ... complicated. As with economics, a key point to remember is that virtually everyone writing on the topic (and most especially those who've been promoted to cultural consciousness) are promoting a model that benefits ... someone.

I've found William Ophuls to be an interesting point of entry. His topic is politics within a context of ecological limits, but he has classic training (he's strongly influenced by Plato), direct experience (positions in the US foreign service), and an excellent grasp on modern (mostly 20th & 21st century) thought on ecology, limits, and the interactions of these with polity. His bibliographies are excellent, and worth publishing on their own right. I'd recommend his 1977 Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity and his more recent Plato's Revenge. The former focuses more on the ecological case, the latter more on the questions (with very few answers suggested -- he's really exploring the problem space) of how you'd construct a polity, given environmental, psychological, and social limits.

I'm also starting to form some new thoughts on the role of religion as something of a social glue in vast empires over which communications might take weeks, months, or years, but in which a plausibly predictable level of trust would be found. Religion-as-trust-glue strikes me as a fundamental aspect. Curiously, instantaneous communications (and the monitoring and management that entails) allows for a near-total breakdown in such trust.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#255

Post by dredmorbius »

douche wrote: post #182
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…

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 pe…

Actually, Egypt did come up when I was researching that question as another instance.

The Ship of Theseus is a profound question.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#256

Post by zkhalique »

Democracy isn't a failure, you just need a better voting system.

If people could rank their preferences then people like Bernie and Bloomberg would actually run without fear that they might "take away votes from Hillary" and therefore help Trump. In fact, the two-party syste would give way to something better. Only the party elites would NOT want this... but after this election, even they probably do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#257

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

ahartman00 wrote: post #249
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"A police officer or two killed" ... "Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face" Again, these are people who want to go home to their families. "acting like they are only increases popular resentment" Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails. Sniper fire appears to be a reaction to the riot gear... "How does can an officer covered head to toe in r…

> "A police officer or two killed" ...

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

> Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.

I said “or two” for a reason. Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa.

> Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails.

Reaction or not, it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed.

> How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?

They are a tiny minority of protestors.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#258

Post by jayajay »

wtbob wrote: post #196
jayajay wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"WAIT GUYS! Half A has 1 more vote than Half B. Looks like we don't need to do any science, let's just assume the people from Half A were right". Democracy and religion share beds, occasionally, I might even say they were married on upon a time. Barbarism indeed.

Why do you assume all questions are answerable by science? Science says that if you assemble materials in a particular way you will get a solar panel, and if you assemble other materials in a different way then you get a toaster; it can't say which you should do. Science says that a human being is a collection of genes which are formed at conception; it can't say anything about abortion, murder, capital punishment or…

I never actually assumed that. The scientific method applies to systems which have a set of observables. Social science is not a second class citizen to natural science, as both society and nature are systems which can be observed. Therefore, it seems more prudent to ask "why" (i.e. applying the scientific method, or some more general inquisitive process) Half A and Half B disagree rather than simply assuming one half is correct and moving on. In the latter case, there is no learning.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#259

Post by jayajay »

wav-part wrote: post #106
jayajay wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you speak of is backwards. The answer to disagreement isn't for both parties to walk away in opposite directions, nor is it for one party to kill the other party. Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something. Your solution is to run away? That's seriously very sad, and I feel like crying that we still have people who think like this. The solution isn't crying, either.…

> Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something. Please stop. I dont want to have disagreement. I dont want to have this endless debate. I want to be left alone. I dont want people to make descision for me. I want to spend my brain cycles in my work. Not this. Please stop.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Disagreement is the way a society grows. If everyone agreed on everything, we'd be stuck in the dark ages. It's very simple. This happened with pretty much every advancement in science, most notably with Galileo. Strive to disagree. Don't strive for agreement, for then we are stuck in some sort of pseudotopia.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#260

Post by urza »

andrepd wrote: post #166
urza wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed we should be afraid of modern advertisers. They exploit the nature of human mind, to manipulate us into decisions that are often not in our best interest. Politicians then use advertisers to manipulate masses to ensure power for themselfs. In my country people in last elections elected an Olygarch, multi billionair, who controls whole agriculture, all main media, medical and other industries and now he is writ…

Which country are you referring to?

Czech republic
Post reply on HN