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

81–90 of 200 posts

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#81

Post by goatlover »

sovietcattle wrote: post #54
wbronitsky wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 advocati…

They certainly don't work for me. I have to pay something between 20-80% of all my income and financial gains to governments despite the fact I don't agree with anything they do, or with their existence. I never signed a contract with them agreeing on that sort of taxation, and if I don't pay the taxes the government imposes on me I can have my property taken away from me, get arrested and even be assassinated. I als…

And who prevents the criminal or military leaders from taking over once the governments fail in your scenario? Are you saying there won't be anyone around who attempts to seize power? That isn't how things have played out in areas of the world where central governments have failed.

The more likely scenario is that we're headed toward a world state. That's the direction civilization has been heading since nation states and regional trade became a thing.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#82

Post by mcadenhe »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #57
incompatible wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article discussed, people generally want free speech for the things they approve of, and restrictions on speech about things they think are bad. There are some things that seem to have overwhelming public support, like bans on child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation. I'm thinking of specific events like the Christchurch shootings, where there was a lot of public outcry along the lines of "such th…

> child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation One of these is not like the others. > "such things shouldn't be allowed on the Internet" This is why people created things like Tor in the first place. The internet is not a country. Nobody should get to decide what is and isn't allowed on the internet.

> "The internet is not a country."

While technically true, the reality is every first world country's internet backbone is controlled by the state.

But I think your comment touches on a deeper philosophical question that is, should information be allowed to flow freely?

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#83

Post by incompatible »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #56
incompatible wrote: post #12

If you support unrestricted speech, then you support legalisation of lies, fraud, vilification, threats, child abuse pornography, yelling "Fire!" in crowded theatres, abandonment of copyright, spreading of state secrets, insider trading, you name it. It's not surprising that few dare to advocate it.

> abandonment of copyright > spreading of state secrets Nothing controversial about this.

I can't think of anything less controversial in international main-stream politics than copyright. Pretty much every country in the world has signed up to at least the Berne Convention, even certain so-called rogue states. When was the last time any country reduced the length of its copyright terms? Are there any large political parties, anywhere, that even advocate it?

Countries step out of other treaties occasionally, even major things like the EU, climate change and weapons limitation, but copyright is sacred.

I suspect that some form of state secret law is also found in practically every country, and any political controversy is only in the details of how its used and misused, not in the concept.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#84

Post by LoSboccacc »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #74
Aeolun wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give consent for a given group of people to govern you, not for every decision they make. That would be direct democracy (and probably a clusterfuck).

> probably a clusterfuck Why do you believes this? I'm not an advocate of direct democracy but I have no idea why this valuation is so ubiquitous.

understanding the world is a full time job. not saying the current crop of politicians are doing a great job of it, but the chances for Joe Random to understand the ramifications of his voting in direct democracy are slim

Moreover the risk of unmitigated populism storming the masses into voting some real shit is ever present; while a populist leader still have to work within the framework of the houses it would be extremely easy to con the people into, say, voting xenophobic measures during circumscribed but substantial crisis like the Syrian war.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#85

Post by incompatible »

mcadenhe wrote: post #82
matheusmoreira wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation One of these is not like the others. > "such things shouldn't be allowed on the Internet" This is why people created things like Tor in the first place. The internet is not a country. Nobody should get to decide what is and isn't allowed on the internet.

> "The internet is not a country." While technically true, the reality is every first world country's internet backbone is controlled by the state. But I think your comment touches on a deeper philosophical question that is, should information be allowed to flow freely?

There's obviously tension between the typical belief that not all information should be allowed to flow freely, and the limited tolerance of "safe spaces" like Tor, encrypted chat channels and sites like Sci-Hub where information does indeed flow freely.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#86

Post by redis_mlc »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #51
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.

Agreed. One of the best features of small "d" democracy is that it lends the government a pretty powerful argument for legitimacy. Which is perhaps the most important feature a government needs to last. Edit: Consent of the Governed is probably the most powerful legitimacy arguments there is beside maybe Divine Right.

Very cogent.

The Chinese emperors all sought ways to appear mandated to rule.

And the purpose of royal portraits in Europe was to show the lineage of throne inheritance.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#87

Post by matheusmoreira »

incompatible wrote: post #83
matheusmoreira wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> abandonment of copyright > spreading of state secrets Nothing controversial about this.

I can't think of anything less controversial in international main-stream politics than copyright. Pretty much every country in the world has signed up to at least the Berne Convention, even certain so-called rogue states. When was the last time any country reduced the length of its copyright terms? Are there any large political parties, anywhere, that even advocate it? Countries step out of other treaties occasional…

Copyright was pretty much imposed on the entire world via trade agreements. Adopting US-style intellectual property laws is pretty much a requirement for trading with the US. They even put countries with lax enforcement on a watch list. It's sacred because the multibillion dollar copyright industry spends a lot of its money lobbying governments.

This doesn't change the fact that copyright infringement is so trivial copyright might as well be incompatible with the 21st century. Actually enforcing copyright requires sacrificing free computing and the free internet as we know it today. Humanity should sacrifice the entire copyright industry instead so that computers can remain free. Abolish copyright and let them die if they can't adapt.

My problem is not with state secrets but with how governments prosecute their revelation. Whistleblowers are treated like traitors when they reveal the abuses perpetrated by governments under the cover of national security. Of course, the governed doesn't have the privilege of keeping secrets by using encryption: authorities and judges feel disrespected when they can't get access to information and punish people without proof almost out of spite.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#88

Post by matheusmoreira »

mcadenhe wrote: post #82
matheusmoreira wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation One of these is not like the others. > "such things shouldn't be allowed on the Internet" This is why people created things like Tor in the first place. The internet is not a country. Nobody should get to decide what is and isn't allowed on the internet.

> "The internet is not a country." While technically true, the reality is every first world country's internet backbone is controlled by the state. But I think your comment touches on a deeper philosophical question that is, should information be allowed to flow freely?

> the reality is every first world country's internet backbone is controlled by the state

We need to move beyond this. Some kind of world-wide mesh network would be great. Perhaps phones will become this one day.

If we don't, the internet as we know it today will be destroyed. Every country wants to impose its own laws on it. This will lead to a regionalization of the internet: each country will have its own.

> should information be allowed to flow freely?

Yes. If some information is not meant to flow freely, it shouldn't exist at all. Laws must be enforced before the data is created. Instead of making information illegal, target the activity that generates the information.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#89

Post by Iv »

sovietcattle wrote: post #63
Iv wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ownership is an abstract concept enforced by society. It recognize the right to "use and abuse" of a thing. Some societies will forbid you to do things to your body. Some will outlaw some opinions. It makes sense to say that in such cases, you do not own your mind or your body. I am of the opinion that it is good that individuals have total ownership over their mind and bodies, but it is just that: an opinion. I can'…

I'd encourage you to read about the logic derivation of natural law based on private property through argumentative ethics, as described in the article I mentioned.

I have. I think they are bollocks. Have you read and understood them and are ready to defend steps and axioms of this thesis or are you just enamored with his conclusions?

Specifically, I think this is nonsensical:

"Second, it must be noted that argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property."

It is a well accepted rule in logic and debate that propositions have merit on their own, therefore the way they are stated is irrelevant, whether they consume scarce means or not.

The jump from scarce means to private property is laughable.

Actually I have a hard time charitably following his reasoning. It is obvious the conclusion he wants to reach, but it is hard to understand where he sees an unfolding of logic arguments.

Even if his claims were true, which are, if I understand correctly, that the mere fact of engaging in a moralistic discussion presupposes the speakers assume a kind of private property instinctively, it does not follow that this presupposition is correct.

That's a naturalistic fallacy. It can be used to justify domination, sharing, violence, death of the weak. Using it to defend something as obviously artificial as private property is news to me, and I think pretty hard to defend, but even if it did, it presupposes we should care about "natural law", something most philosophers learned to dismiss since the 19th century.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#90

Post by matheusmoreira »

int_19h wrote: post #64
incompatible wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article discussed, people generally want free speech for the things they approve of, and restrictions on speech about things they think are bad. There are some things that seem to have overwhelming public support, like bans on child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation. I'm thinking of specific events like the Christchurch shootings, where there was a lot of public outcry along the lines of "such th…

A very curious thing happened in Australia wrt the Christchurch shooting. In NZ, there was a law at the time that allowed the government to basically designate the video as illegal, forcing ISPs to take it down - or perhaps it would be better to say, allowing them to avoid making a choice either way. But that was not the case in Australia. So after NZ took it down, the Australian ISPs voluntarily censored the video -…

ISPs should be neutral information carriers. It should be illegal for them to try to influence society by censoring data flowing through their networks. What stops them from voluntarily censoring everything related to a political party they don't support?
Post reply on HN