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

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#111

Post by afarrell »

mistermann wrote: post #103
LoSboccacc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

Indeed, there are many obvious shortcomings and risks with DD and any other system - pointing them out is about as difficult a shooting fish in a barrel. But I find this style of argument utterly unconvincing of the popular truism that it would inevitably result in a clusterfuck. Not only that, any time I read such criticisms, they seem to overlook the fact that DD would change the landscape. Perhaps people are "igno…

> To know with any level of confidence whether DD could work, it would have to be tried

No, you can also build up a set of ideas of how people behave in response to desires, norms, and stimuli. Those ideas let you make predictions of how people would act.

Can those ideas be wrong? Totally. So they should be tested. But at what scale do they need to be tested?

If you've seen a 20-person student group engage in a long wankerous meeting for 6 hours until 1:30am, does that experience provide valid information about what can happen in a Direct Democracy the size of Singapore (pop: 5.6 million)?

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#112

Post by [deleted] »

buzzkillington wrote: post #101
eklavya wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

If the British empire was as evil as the Nazis there would be no Indians left.

[deleted]

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#113

Post by afarrell »

nl wrote: post #105
ben_w wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For this it needs to offer a credible and legitimate path towards political changes. This, but it also needs to be trusted. The losers need to feel that they lost, not just be told they have by the winners. This is why American democracy was stable after GWB’s initial election. Also, one of the reasons the UK voted to not change its voting mechanism in a recent referendum was that STV was portrayed as too “complica…

This is why American democracy was stable after GWB’s initial election. I don't understand this comment. I agree American democracy was stable after GWB (George W Bush)'s election (although I'm unclear if you mean the end of the vote counting or the judicial process here?). But I don't think the Gore camp felt they had legitimately lost at all. recent referendum was that STV was portrayed - what is STV? while FPTP ha…

Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#114

Post by danenania »

Aeolun wrote: post #70
humanrebar wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about non-violent protests? Seems like they often exist to expose systemic violence that is underappreciated, undocumented, forgotten, etc. That is, show what the violent are really willing to do to get them to alienate themselves.

That’s great for showing people that the violent people are bad guys, but the violent ones aren’t going to get any less violent by being exposed. It’s the threat of reprisal from the entire population that does that.

It's partly that, but it also serves to fracture and de-motivate the "violent people". A ruler cannot necessarily count on blind obedience from the military and the police if they start ordering them to attack their fellow citizens.

While some regimes get overthrown by mass uprisings, many more lose power because they either lose support from the security state or create an insurrection inside of it. Of course the lines here are often fuzzy.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#115

Post by mistermann »

corford wrote: post #104
DubiousPusher wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I neither believe or disbelieve in this hypothesis. Given an absence of evidence upon the issue I see no reason to believe either way.

Perhaps consider leveraging Occam's razor while you accumulate more evidence to satisfy a firm position. Or do you adopt a similarly ambivalent approach to everything you encounter if it lacks immediately presented evidence?

A potential problem I see in this approach is that many people seem to mistake Occam's Razor conclusions, aka intuition as far as the common man is concerned, as the truth.

I would argue that widespread adoption of explicit acknowledgement that in fact, many (if not most) of the the current Top 100 Disputes in the public sphere actually have an answer of UNKNOWN (as opposed to what 95% of politicians, intellectuals, and thought leaders would have us believe), would go a very long way towards kicking off a process whereby global society could start towards reaching consensus compromise on all issues.

I fully realize this belief is amazingly naive if considered within the context of objective reality and history, but I also believe it is absolutely true (if perhaps unachievable given our current state of affairs).

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#116

Post by mistermann »

afarrell wrote: post #111
mistermann wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, there are many obvious shortcomings and risks with DD and any other system - pointing them out is about as difficult a shooting fish in a barrel. But I find this style of argument utterly unconvincing of the popular truism that it would inevitably result in a clusterfuck. Not only that, any time I read such criticisms, they seem to overlook the fact that DD would change the landscape. Perhaps people are "igno…

> To know with any level of confidence whether DD could work, it would have to be tried No, you can also build up a set of ideas of how people behave in response to desires, norms, and stimuli. Those ideas let you make predictions of how people would act. Can those ideas be wrong? Totally. So they should be tested. But at what scale do they need to be tested? If you've seen a 20-person student group engage in a long…

> No

Implying you disagree with me, but then:

> ...you can also build up a set of ideas of how people behave in response to desires, norms, and stimuli. Those ideas let you make predictions of how people would act.

Correct. But I'm sure you realize that there is a difference between predicting something and knowing something. Don't forget, "knowing* something is actually limited to under a certain set of unique circumstances - whenever human beings are involved, very few things are absolutes, there's just too much randomness and inconsistency (matters of opinion vs matters of fact, hypocrisy, etc).

> But at what scale do they need to be tested?

That's the thing: we don't know - once again, you can make a well-reasoned prediction (now we have nested predictions) about how well they need to be tested, but forget that you're making predictions at your peril (see: the current state of affairs on planet Earth).

> If you've seen a 20-person student group engage in a long wankerous meeting for 6 hours until 1:30am, does that experience provide valid information about what can happen in a Direct Democracy the size of Singapore (pop: 5.6 million)?

Yes, absolutely - the key phrase being "can happen". However, what else can happen?

- do we know?

- how would we know?

- does anyone actually care? Let's say, just for the sake of conducting a thought experiment, we could magically invoke an omniscient being who could provide us the answers to these and other questions. Based on your reading of political arguments on HN and elsewhere, what percentage of people do you believe are truly interested in discovering The Truth (the best approach to yielding the maximum benefit to all people on planet Earth)? Personally, I would put that number at about 5%, tops. To be clear, I'm not talking about people that truly desire the best outcome - that number would be much higher - but rather, I am talking about people who are willing and able to set their egos and axioms aside and truly open their minds to all opinions and reasoning in pursuit of maximizing the outcome for all people. Most everyone thinks this is what they're doing, but watch how they react to the slightest hint of criticism of that belief.

EDIT: I won't mention the dreaded d-word, but excluding "Let's say, just for the sake...." and onward, I would absolutely love to know any thinking on how one might disagree with what I've said? I say this in interest of improving my personal thinking, which I perceive to be sound, but have no actual way of knowing.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#117

Post by meowface »

Aeolun wrote: post #67
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…

It’s hard to fight a bonfire with a match.

It's hard to fight an eye-gouger if they aren't blind.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#118

Post by galangalalgol »

guerrilla wrote: post #48
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are the policies they use for this? Education loans? I know the tax brackets help keep well paid professionals from transitioning too easily to living off of assets, ( which is what I would call upper class). If every good doctor and lawyer graduated to idle rich, we'd have only bad ones, and a bigger wealth gap.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#119

Post by wavefunction »

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.

I feel Machiavellian theory is more that some times terrible acts are needed to bring about "good" or necessary or worthy outcomes and should be accomplished towards those ends, but that the terribleness of the actions is in no way cleansed or justified by a worthy outcome. You might murder someone to protect a bunch of other people but you're still a murderer. 'Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.'

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#120

Post by _0ffh »

Iv wrote: post #15
sovietcattle wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just one way to look at it. Another point of view is that elections are way to make people believe they are represented and therefore won't fight a state that maintains the monopoly of force, which can impose taxation, arbitrary laws, and a lot of other attacks to individual freedoms that people wouldn't be keen to accept naturally.

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…

I think Anarchism is ultimately but radical direct democracy with strong emphathis on the principle of subsidiarity.

A paraphrase of a bit from the Makhno article on Wikipedia:

""" The first Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups issued five main principles:

1) Rejection of all political parties

2) Rejection of all forms of dictatorships (including the dictatorship of the proletariat, viewed by Makhnovists and many anarchists of the day as a term synonymous with the dictatorship of the Bolshevik communist party)

3) Negation of any concept of a central state

4) Rejection of a so-called "transitional period" necessitating a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat

5) Self-management of all workers through free local workers' councils """

There may be a discussion to be had about these principles, but they certainly do not sound like "a railroad towards dictatorship" to me.

Edit: Minor fixups

Post reply on HN