Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 200 posts

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#41

Post by kiterunner2346 »

I think it relevant to mention Lippmann's statement on Congressional investigations:

"So bad is the contact of legislators with necessary facts that they are forced to rely either on private tips or on that legalized atrocity, the Congressional investigation, where Congressmen, starved of their legitimate food for thought, go on a wild and feverish man-hunt, and do not stop at cannibalism. "

p. 6, PUBLIC OPINION (1921) by Walter Lippmann

http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2429/2487430/...

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#43

Post by dantheman »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #34

I find this discussion a bit pedantic and ivory-towerish. Fact is that democracy is constantly under attack say voter suppression etc. The question should be about what can be done in practice to make democracy work better, not whether it "is" a perfect system or not. Democracy can be made to work better if people get informed, there are proposals like " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy" and https://en.…

I think people being informed is actually part of the problem - you want democracy to do very little.

The more informed people are, the more willing to believe they can engineer the society that they want. This seems to always fail.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#44

Post by richk449 »

erichocean wrote: post #26
Iv wrote: post #5

I'll restate something that's often misunderstood about democracy. The use of elections is not to find the "best" leader (for any definition of "best" that you have) but to prevent civil unrest. It offers an alternative to pushing for opinions violently in order to be heard. For this it needs to offer a credible and legitimate path towards political changes.

That reminds me of a truism I heard about protesting: The purpose of protesting is to demonstrate the need for violence to the fence-sitters. If protesting results in change non-violently, so much the better. But the purpose is to demonstrate that violence is absolutely necessary.

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always?

You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#45

Post by guerrilla »

richk449 wrote: post #44
erichocean wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me of a truism I heard about protesting: The purpose of protesting is to demonstrate the need for violence to the fence-sitters. If protesting results in change non-violently, so much the better. But the purpose is to demonstrate that violence is absolutely necessary.

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?

It's a gambit that can be used as leverage. I think they were expecting those in power to cave to their demands when those in power realized that people realized that peacefully protesting wasn't going to work, which is ironically what made it work.

Furthermore, in other cases, people don't have to realize the purpose of the strategy that they're applying in order to apply it. Intention isn't function.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#46

Post by wbronitsky »

sovietcattle wrote: post #17
Iv wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's a common view among several schools of anarchism. Reading Makhno's criticism of democracy, and his alternate proposals, which to my eyes seemed to be a railroad towards dictatorship, made me realize that I was not an anarchist but a social-democrat. Which is often a slur in anarchist circles. A society where democracy can not work because it would be "corrupted by bourgeoisie" has even lower chances of ma…

Democracies can't work, as they're managed by politicians with low time preferences, which means that in order to get elected they'll promise and pass laws and regulations that make the government always spend more than what they make through taxes, disregarding long-term effects. That process generates debt. Democracies inevitably end up achieving state bankruptcy through excessive debt. Regardless, that debt has to…

I’m very curious as to how you define “work[ing]” in the context of a currently operating government. It would seem that democracies all over the world “work” for quite a few more people by ratio than other forms of government.

I’m also quite curious as to if you have alternatives; it’s all well and good to bash democracy, especially in the current moment, but are there better realistic alternatives? Are you advocating for revolution?

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#47

Post by buzzkillington »

richk449 wrote: post #44
erichocean wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me of a truism I heard about protesting: The purpose of protesting is to demonstrate the need for violence to the fence-sitters. If protesting results in change non-violently, so much the better. But the purpose is to demonstrate that violence is absolutely necessary.

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?

How well would have Ghandi fared if he were not in the British Empire?

If he was in the USSR or Nazi Germany he would have been quietly murdered one night.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#48

Post by guerrilla »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #30
erichocean wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also optimizes for leaders who will maintain a middle class. And yet, since the early 70s, the middle class in the US has continually eroded—with no end in sight. So much for theory.

Yes, but put that in perspective. The middle class in the US today is significantly larger and better off than in most dictatorships in the world, and there are structural reasons for that.

Exactly, they work to maintain it despite forces working to erode it.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#49

Post by DubiousPusher »

dantheman wrote: post #43
galaxyLogic wrote: post #34

I find this discussion a bit pedantic and ivory-towerish. Fact is that democracy is constantly under attack say voter suppression etc. The question should be about what can be done in practice to make democracy work better, not whether it "is" a perfect system or not. Democracy can be made to work better if people get informed, there are proposals like " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy" and https://en.…

I think people being informed is actually part of the problem - you want democracy to do very little. The more informed people are, the more willing to believe they can engineer the society that they want. This seems to always fail.

I see no reason to believe that ignorance decreases the human desire to act politically.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#50

Post by haimez »

dantheman wrote: post #43
galaxyLogic wrote: post #34

I find this discussion a bit pedantic and ivory-towerish. Fact is that democracy is constantly under attack say voter suppression etc. The question should be about what can be done in practice to make democracy work better, not whether it "is" a perfect system or not. Democracy can be made to work better if people get informed, there are proposals like " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy" and https://en.…

I think people being informed is actually part of the problem - you want democracy to do very little. The more informed people are, the more willing to believe they can engineer the society that they want. This seems to always fail.

Are the emergent properties of a near random system preferable to live alongside/underneath? I suspect your answer mostly depends on your current socioeconomic status and overall faith in “the system”.
Post reply on HN