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

91–100 of 200 posts

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#91

Post by Iv »

zxcmx wrote: post #78
DubiousPusher wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Have thought about this a bit. Moving towards DD used to seem like an obvious evolution to me, particularly with modern technology. Following recent political developments I see a lot more risks now. First of all is how do we choose what to vote on; a lot of power is rests on whoever drafts and sets the "framing" of votes. If we also do this "directly" in some manner then the filtering mechanism is vulnerable, and if…

I think liquid democracy is a reasonable proposition: delegate your vote to professionals, but take it back on any propositions you have a strong opinion about.

Having met some representative and politicians, I can confidently say that they are as vulnerable to misinformation, hubris and inadequate education than the average voter.

Switzerland has actually a system pretty close to DD with its petition-triggered referendums. I believe California has something similar?

DD is the possibility to vote, but it is fine to have representatives, as long as you can take your cote back when you want.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#93

Post by peterwwillis »

pdonis wrote: post #29
ajna91 wrote: post #7

"If we substitute the word indifference for the word liberty, we shall come much closer to the real intention that lies behind the classic argument. Liberty is to be permitted where differences are of no great moment. It is this definition which has generally guided practice. In times when men feel themselves secure, heresy is cultivated as the spice of life. During a war liberty disappears as the as the community fe…

The key thing to remember about Lippmann, though, is that when he says these "lucid" things, he is not actually complaining; he's describing what he and people like him intend to do to "manufacture consent". Lippmann actually had no problem telling the people lies if he thought it was in a good cause. His objection to the lies others told was not that they were lies, but that they were not in what he considered to be…

And this is basically Machiavellian political theory. Acting in an immoral or unethical way is not necessarily a bad thing if it is warranted to bring about a good thing.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#94

Post by incompatible »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #87
incompatible wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

The EU is pretty enthusiastic about copyright too, I don't blame solely the US.

> Humanity should sacrifice the entire copyright industry instead so that computers can remain free.

I agree, but I don't think it's likely to happen. Free computing would sooner be sacrificed to save copyright, and the other restrictions on information. At best, the current uneasy coexistence will continue.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#95

Post by eklavya »

buzzkillington wrote: post #47
richk449 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's not pretend British Empire was any bit less evil than the other ones. This seems to be a common theme everywhere including in India.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-milli...

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#96

Post by shaki-dora »

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.

I really don't understand how protests became conflated with violence (mostly in the US, as far as I can tell).

Protests are a basic right in every democracy. The vast majority of protests (as in: >99%) is peaceful.

Protests are among the basic set of methods and institutions that form the public sphere where democracy actually happens. They are no better or worse than newspapers, public libraries, TED talks, Trump rallies, call-your-senator-campaigns, Twitter, Sunday sermons, bumper stickers, the NAACP, triple-A, or, yes, even the Star Wars franchise.

Each of these forums has different strengths and weaknesses, and protests are somewhat unique in being basically free and accessible to everyone (as active participants, not just consumers). Not a single protest since the Civil Rights Movement got anywhere close to being large enough to threaten the sort of overthrow-the-system violence that would be required in an outright confrontation challenging the US government.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#97

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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.

Most of the middle class in the US is one serious health issue away from bankruptcy - and doing far less well than in many European countries.

The real trick is keeping the middle class in the US convinced that its situation and prospects are much better than they really are.

When that trick stops working, so will democracy.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#98

Post by galaxyLogic »

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #71
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.…

The other question to ask, is "What actually works better?". Precious few governments in the history of man have not been large-scale atrocity generating machines. Democracies generally seem to offer most, more of a chance than the others. There's always Trump... in democracies, the Trumps are constrained by law. In most other cases, the Trumps wield absolute power. Pick your poison.

That's the question, what works.

I assume access to computers and internet can have a big impact on democracies, so history may or may not be a good guide on what works and what not

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#99

Post by Digit-Al »

peterwwillis wrote: post #93
pdonis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key thing to remember about Lippmann, though, is that when he says these "lucid" things, he is not actually complaining; he's describing what he and people like him intend to do to "manufacture consent". Lippmann actually had no problem telling the people lies if he thought it was in a good cause. His objection to the lies others told was not that they were lies, but that they were not in what he considered to be…

And this is basically Machiavellian political theory. Acting in an immoral or unethical way is not necessarily a bad thing if it is warranted to bring about a good thing.

The end justifies the means?

The problem is that 'everyone is the hero in their own story'. Everyone who spreads falsehoods in service to some cause is convinced that they are doing the right thing and are trying to "bring about a good thing".

Is there any advantage in winning the war if by doing so you lose your soul?

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#100

Post by nl »

Digit-Al wrote: post #99
peterwwillis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is basically Machiavellian political theory. Acting in an immoral or unethical way is not necessarily a bad thing if it is warranted to bring about a good thing.

The end justifies the means? The problem is that 'everyone is the hero in their own story'. Everyone who spreads falsehoods in service to some cause is convinced that they are doing the right thing and are trying to "bring about a good thing". Is there any advantage in winning the war if by doing so you lose your soul?

The end justifies the means?

This is - of course - a very rough synopsis of Machiavelli's treatise - even if he never actually said that.

But the other way of looking at his work was that he was the first person to develop a code of ethics that led to the idea of "doing the greatest good to the greatest number of people"

I highly recommend the series from the blog of the this Renaicance scholar and specialist in Machiavelli which I discovered via HN the other day: https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-q-f/

He argues quite compellingly that Machiavelli's work led to classical utilitarianism ethics ("the greatest good to the greatest number of people") since he was the first to consider judging actions on their consequences rather than "what was in someone's heart".

Post reply on HN