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

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#111

Post by zepto »

dvtrn wrote: post #110
zepto wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the press has a duty to expose conflicts of interest and hypocrisy they should investigate themselves. Let’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more. That isn’t necessarily avoidable in itself, but we get to decide what norms we expect them to follow.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more. "The press" is made up of tens of thousands of people making individual choices (within their individual editorial requirements) about what to cover, how and with what inflection towards a given topic or trend, are they all political actors? I suppose if one takes "the person is political" calculus far enough, they might be. It's been my experi…

people tend to like the news sources they've self-selected as trustworthy and reliable, and complaints about "the media" are usually borne out of a specific gripe, not anything that can actually be provably shown as an accurate generalization of every single outlet that generates news content

I’d say this is just a reflection of people choosing outlets that reflect their views which is politics.

No news organization is immune from this. That is my point. Pretending that news organizations are apolitical is the problem.

Also, the press simply isn’t made up of tens of thousands of people making individual choices.

It’s made up of people working for hierarchical corporations with owners whose direction they must follow in order to remain employed. You can certainly argue that the individuals are just doing their jobs and are not political actors per se, but they are definitely working towards the goals of politically driven organizations.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#112

Post by zepto »

someguyorother wrote: post #109
zepto wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can never be an absence of power relationships.

In that case, the anarchists would try to find/develop a society that minimizes the number of power relationships.

That’s exactly what an advocate of liberal democracy would say that they are doing.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#113

Post by dvtrn »

zepto wrote: post #111
dvtrn wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The press are political actors and nothing more. "The press" is made up of tens of thousands of people making individual choices (within their individual editorial requirements) about what to cover, how and with what inflection towards a given topic or trend, are they all political actors? I suppose if one takes "the person is political" calculus far enough, they might be. It's been my experi…

people tend to like the news sources they've self-selected as trustworthy and reliable, and complaints about "the media" are usually borne out of a specific gripe, not anything that can actually be provably shown as an accurate generalization of every single outlet that generates news content I’d say this is just a reflection of people choosing outlets that reflect their views which is politics. No news organization…

You can certainly argue that the individuals are just doing their jobs and are not political actors per se, but they are definitely working towards the goals of politically driven organizations.

I get this point, and I can't say I necessarily disagree with it, it just feels like the usual kvetching against "the media" which is such a broad and generalized gripe (even when it is sometimes specifically valid if we could point to specific instances of just terrible coverage of current event n) it feels kind of meaningless?

Like I said, I don't even really disagree it's just: what does one do with such a large and wide-reaching indictment of "the press"? I like solution oriented thinking, but I suppose that's more of a rhetorical question than anything else.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#114

Post by nybble41 »

zepto wrote: post #112
someguyorother wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, the anarchists would try to find/develop a society that minimizes the number of power relationships.

That’s exactly what an advocate of liberal democracy would say that they are doing.

The anarchist sees all power relationships as a problem, and would eliminate them all given a chance. The non-anarchist advocate of liberal democracy sees some power relationships as legitimate (if only to prevent other, presumably worse ones) and is seeking an "optimal", rather than minimal, level of power relationships. The difference between "anarchist" and "minarchist" lies mainly in what you consider to be the "minimum"—it is perfectly possible to be both, if you define the minimum as zero.

The difference is academic, of course, so long as the current level of power relationships in society is well above what even the liberal democracy advocate would consider "optimal".

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#115

Post by zepto »

dvtrn wrote: post #113
zepto wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people tend to like the news sources they've self-selected as trustworthy and reliable, and complaints about "the media" are usually borne out of a specific gripe, not anything that can actually be provably shown as an accurate generalization of every single outlet that generates news content I’d say this is just a reflection of people choosing outlets that reflect their views which is politics. No news organization…

You can certainly argue that the individuals are just doing their jobs and are not political actors per se, but they are definitely working towards the goals of politically driven organizations. I get this point, and I can't say I necessarily disagree with it, it just feels like the usual kvetching against "the media" which is such a broad and generalized gripe (even when it is sometimes specifically valid if we coul…

I think we fundamentally agree. Kvetching about the press is largely meaningless.

My position is that it’s meaningless because of the illusion that the press could be something that it is not, and that we would be better off if we just treated be it as what it is.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#116

Post by zepto »

nybble41 wrote: post #114
zepto wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly what an advocate of liberal democracy would say that they are doing.

The anarchist sees all power relationships as a problem, and would eliminate them all given a chance. The non-anarchist advocate of liberal democracy sees some power relationships as legitimate (if only to prevent other, presumably worse ones) and is seeking an "optimal", rather than minimal, level of power relationships. The difference between "anarchist" and "minarchist" lies mainly in what you consider to be the "…

A good distinction, and I agree over all, especially with your final paragraph, although I am not sure it’s completely academic.

I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man.

I think that anarchism is an idea that necessarily leads to minarchism. Once you get to minarchism, the debate is then back to ‘what is legitimate power?’ which is the perennial question.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#117

Post by dvtrn »

zepto wrote: post #115
dvtrn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can certainly argue that the individuals are just doing their jobs and are not political actors per se, but they are definitely working towards the goals of politically driven organizations. I get this point, and I can't say I necessarily disagree with it, it just feels like the usual kvetching against "the media" which is such a broad and generalized gripe (even when it is sometimes specifically valid if we coul…

I think we fundamentally agree. Kvetching about the press is largely meaningless. My position is that it’s meaningless because of the illusion that the press could be something that it is not, and that we would be better off if we just treated be it as what it is.

Hm. Yeah, I think we're very much aligned on this, if maybe for different but not necessarily competing reasons. Cheers

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#118

Post by nybble41 »

zepto wrote: post #116
nybble41 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anarchist sees all power relationships as a problem, and would eliminate them all given a chance. The non-anarchist advocate of liberal democracy sees some power relationships as legitimate (if only to prevent other, presumably worse ones) and is seeking an "optimal", rather than minimal, level of power relationships. The difference between "anarchist" and "minarchist" lies mainly in what you consider to be the "…

A good distinction, and I agree over all, especially with your final paragraph, although I am not sure it’s completely academic. I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man. I think that anarchism is an idea that necessarily leads to minarchism. Once you get to minarchism, the debate is then back to ‘what is legitimate power?’ which is the perenn…

> I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man.

I'm going to start out with the disclaimer that I am not personally opposed to all power relationships in the very broad sense used by some anarchists. I believe that there are universal natural rights, including both self-ownership and property, and that people have a right to enter into ongoing power relationships with others so long as they do so voluntarily of their own free will. So instead of "power relationships" the rest of this comment will use the term "force" or "aggression"—by which I mean power relationships involving violations of the individual's natural rights without their freely-given consent, except as a proportional defensive response to actual or imminent aggression by the other party. This is more-or-less the standard libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, or voluntaryist definition of aggression.

With all that said, the answer depends on whether you're talking about the minimum amount which is actually present or the minimum amount which can be considered "legitimate". It would be nice for both to be zero, of course, but I think we both agree that some amount of aggression is inevitable in practice—we aren't likely to eliminate all violent crime, for example, no matter how hard we try. The minimum amount of "legitimate" power, however, is trivial to simply define as zero. We are under no obligation to consider any act of aggression legitimate.

The distinction between anarchism and minarchism lies in how much aggression is deemed legitimate, not how much is present. The anarchist recognizes that aggression exists but does not consider any aggression to be legitimate, even when the goal is to reduce the overall level of aggression. The minarchist is willing to sanction a certain amount of aggression in order to achieve what they consider to be a greater good.

In my opinion the minarchist approach is neither principled nor pragmatic. It makes you an accessory to the aggression, normalizes it, and sets the stage for others to argue that ever increasing acts of aggression can be justified "for the greater good". Humans readily justify atrocities on the basis that a society organized "the right way" would somehow be free of violence or other ills. It doesn't work out well in practice. Better to aim for no aggression and consistently oppose such acts wherever you may find them rather than making exceptions.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#119

Post by Viliam1234 »

throwaway4666 wrote: post #90
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.

What does 'mob' mean and how does it differ from 'majority'? The fact that the speaker is not part of it, maybe?

In a city with million people, one can organize a mob of thousand people that will try to destroy things or kill specific victims. Despite the power to do harm, they are still a minority. It's just that hurting people is relatively easy, especially if you can quickly organize a large group.

Re: The death of the private citizen?

#120

Post by kortilla »

wasdfff wrote: post #108
anon_cow1111 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The noise is by design, signal is drown out, by design. The last thing the ruling class wants is for the working class to put down their idealogical arms against each other and unite around shared economic interests. A poor white Republican and a poor black Democrat have a lot more in common than either would like to admit, but the focus on things like stretching the roe vs wade debate out over the past 50 years, or…

Even if you take away the gun/abortion differences, the poor Republican isn’t suddenly going to be pro-union like be Democrat will.
Post reply on HN