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

The death of the private citizen?

spectator.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#51

Post by frequentnapper »

MR4D wrote: post #17
swayvil wrote: post #8

I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…

If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.

More like demagoguery

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#52

Post by mc32 »

logicchains wrote: post #45
MR4D wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.

Anarchy means "no ruler"; it's the opposite of mob rule.

There is never “no ruler”. Someone always emerges who sets the pace, etc.

True anarchy can only exist in very low density situations where population is very low and very sparsely settled. Let’s say fewer than 5 people per square mile actual (not average) on good land. One or fewer would be better. Rural Siberia -Yakutiya, Rural Mongolia. Colonial era trappers and such when they were not in town.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#53

Post by Spooky23 »

wahern wrote: post #30
briefcomment wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the solution numerous hyper localized governments, with highly limited federal government, so people can choose the policies they are subject to for the most part by changing where they live? In the situation where federal government has the clout it does, people feel slighted when they are not in the majority, and may find anarchy better than living under rules they don't like.

I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things. Anyhow, mobility is lower…

The south isn’t laissez-faire, its cheap due to the legacy of lesser working rights for workers, etc and government organization.

There’s downsides though. Toyota put a plant in Ontario because it would take too long to turn assembly instructions into LEGO like instructions. Literacy was too low in Mississippi or wherever.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#54

Post by mc32 »

anon_cow1111 wrote: post #25
swayvil wrote: post #8

I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…

As a counterpoint, I would say it is a conscious act... but on the part of those who enable and amplify the ideological friction as a for-profit business model. Providing a public forum by itself isn't bad, of course. The algorithms driving that infinite-scrolling news feed and recommendations list definitely are, at this point.

It’s like scientific communism where factions are set against each other and divisions crated where there were none with no other objective than to win.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#55

Post by perl4ever »

topkai22 wrote: post #47
perl4ever wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Decades ago moving around for a job was normal People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?

Personal geographic mobility has been declining for a long time in the us: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/... It’s reasonable to believe that an overall declining mobility rate means that people aren’t moving for jobs. One interesting note in that data- it appears intracounty moves declined much more quickly than inter-county moves. I suspect that the increasing ubiquity of personal autom…

According to the [curbed.com] link provided by the sibling comment, the proportion of people moving for work has increased significantly.

At the same time, it didn't provide detailed information.

So when you have trends going in opposite directions, you can't say a priori if they cancelled out.

People are clearly moving less; if the information posted is accurate, more of the moves are for work.

But why can't we start by examining the source of the opinion? My instinct was that it is ill-founded, but who knows if I am right, because I was guessing.

What is the reason that you believe people are moving less for work in the first place? It doesn't take research or debate tactics to simply say "this is what convinced me".

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#56

Post by BLKNSLVR »

MR4D wrote: post #17
swayvil wrote: post #8

I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…

If you’re correct, then democracy will devolve into mob rule, which means anarchy. That’s not a pretty thought.

Isn't mob rule what we have now? Isn't democracy effectively mob rule? Where the mob is the majority - being a majority is how they become the mob.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#57

Post by Spooky23 »

perl4ever wrote: post #38
wahern wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things. Anyhow, mobility is lower…

>Decades ago moving around for a job was normal People don't move for jobs any more? When did this happen, to what extent, and what's the source of the information?

Who can afford it? The price disparities between locales to too great, and the de-industrialization of the country eliminated the need.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#58

Post by st31naway »

wahern wrote: post #30
briefcomment wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the solution numerous hyper localized governments, with highly limited federal government, so people can choose the policies they are subject to for the most part by changing where they live? In the situation where federal government has the clout it does, people feel slighted when they are not in the majority, and may find anarchy better than living under rules they don't like.

I don't see how that would work any better than it has previously. For example, the American South has generally been the more laissez-faire region in the U.S. but the North has remained the industrial powerhouse, despite itself according to mainstream intuition. I think people misunderstand and chaff under many of the very same policies that make them wealthy. We want contradictory things. Anyhow, mobility is lower…

It's funny, I was thinking about this recently while reading a (slightly embellished) John Steinbeck memoir called Travels with Charley: in Search of America.

He wrote it when he decided to take a nationwide road trip in the early '60s, and it captured a lot of interesting anecdotes about the birth of modern American lifestyles.

One of those was Steinbeck's fascination with "mobile homes", which are the pre-fab houses that you see in trailer parks. When he took his road trip, they were starting to get popular with factory workers. If/when a town's factories shut down, the workers could easily move their homes to where there was work, and he mentioned seeing a lot of them being moved along the highways.

But you don't see that very much these days. It seems like people prefer to stay where they are and demand or wait for the work to come back to them, even when they live in mobile housing.

There's a lot to be said about the value of a community, but I think this sort of stagnation reflects a precipitous decline in the US' appetite for all sorts of risk over the past few decades. Look at how children are raised, at how strangers are treated, at how slowly new developments proceed.

I dunno. It's hard to argue against conservativism in these sorts of situations, because nobody wants to see more child abductions or worksite accidents. But it's hard to deny that we've collectively lost "It", or whatever you want to call that drive to create a city on a hill to provide a beacon of hope and improve humanity's general wellbeing.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#59

Post by _bxg1 »

swayvil wrote: post #8

I think that ideological groups "naturally" seek to quell all differing groups. Like dueling beehives. In decades past they could exist peacefully, insulated by a natural inability to communicate. An inability to rub against each other. But now we are in the age of communication. We have the internet. The sensitivity and power of the hive has grown vastly. It touches much that it never touched before. Various ideolog…

"Making the world more open and connected"

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#60

Post by BLKNSLVR »

mc32 wrote: post #52
logicchains wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchy means "no ruler"; it's the opposite of mob rule.

There is never “no ruler”. Someone always emerges who sets the pace, etc. True anarchy can only exist in very low density situations where population is very low and very sparsely settled. Let’s say fewer than 5 people per square mile actual (not average) on good land. One or fewer would be better. Rural Siberia -Yakutiya, Rural Mongolia. Colonial era trappers and such when they were not in town.

Beautifully demonstrated in Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...

ARTHUR: Yes.

DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

ARTHUR: Yes, I see.

DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Post reply on HN