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

Local rules instead of global censorship

redecentralize.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#81

Post by guywhocodes »

username90 wrote: post #76
notahacker wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying isn't easier in a centralised power structure. When Amazon wanted favours from municipal governments, it held a competition to get them to lobby themselves to cut taxes and bend rules to earn the patronage of the corporation that was bigger and richer and more important than them.

How come they failed to do just that in Europe? It isn't like some random multinational company can come to Sweden and demand special rules from their national government to do something there.

Isn't Sweden openly looking for special deals with data centers?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#82

Post by notahacker »

username90 wrote: post #76
notahacker wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying isn't easier in a centralised power structure. When Amazon wanted favours from municipal governments, it held a competition to get them to lobby themselves to cut taxes and bend rules to earn the patronage of the corporation that was bigger and richer and more important than them.

How come they failed to do just that in Europe? It isn't like some random multinational company can come to Sweden and demand special rules from their national government to do something there.

Sweden is a lot larger than the average US municipality. Still, Ireland (population 6m) is so determined to continue collecting tiny amounts of tax from Amazon so long as it continues to base its EMEA HQ there, its government appealed an EU court ruling that Amazon owed it more tax...

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#83

Post by emptysongglass »

krysp wrote: post #75
morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Seems like you and everyone in the replies to your comment may have misconstrued what the parent meant; if he's from Europe, socialist isn't a dirty word like the US. In most of Europe it's quite a positive thing to say your government is more socialist, or has more socialist policies

It should be mentioned that Denmark, which has often been pointed to as an example of a successful socialist country is not socialist. The country's politicians vociferously protest against this label and going by Engels' own definition, the country is not at all socialist.

It is extremely capitalist with classical hierarchies of business ownership. High tax, free healthcare and free schooling does not make a country even remotely socialist.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#84

Post by fsflover »

arcticbull wrote: post #48
non-cotton wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I should have said: what's the advantage of democracy over some more authoritarian scheme, if not a higher degree of "power to the people" as you put it? If diffusion of power isn't fundamentally worthwhile (and there's certainly a defensible position that it isn't) it seems the important question is whether Western liberal democracy is worth the trouble in the first place.

Oversight.

So who performs the oversight over the tech monopolies?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#85

Post by kwhitefoot »

username90 wrote: post #76
notahacker wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying isn't easier in a centralised power structure. When Amazon wanted favours from municipal governments, it held a competition to get them to lobby themselves to cut taxes and bend rules to earn the patronage of the corporation that was bigger and richer and more important than them.

How come they failed to do just that in Europe? It isn't like some random multinational company can come to Sweden and demand special rules from their national government to do something there.

Because the EU has rules against exactly this kind of thing. But companies do exactly what you have described in the EU, take a look at the financial shenanigans that Ireland and several big companies have been involved in.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#86

Post by hypertele-Xii »

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack , on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", t…

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Finland maintains a healthy distance to the west's extreme capitalism. Healthcare is free. Education is free (and mandatory). Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free. The government owns the only railroad. Many governments, including the current one, consist of majority Social Democratic Party. Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army. Newborns receive a free package of baby products. Taxes are among the highest in the world (wealth redistribution). There is a sizable political national-socialist sentiment (a little worrying even).

I'll grant you, the communist-leaning powers did lose the civil war in 1918 though.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#87

Post by pjc50 »

morceauxdebois wrote: post #69
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack , on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", t…

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

It hardly invalidates it, but it does point out how weird US political labelling is. The widespread use of "socialist" and "communist" for bits of extremely mild social democrat public policy.

No wonder there are so many twitter tankies when the right has been spending years saying that communism == free healthcare.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#88

Post by hypertele-Xii »

emteycz wrote: post #79
rjtavares wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist". If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.

It's a false dichotomy. Both can coexist.

The central philosophy in capitalism is competition. The world is currently very acutely seeing the second and third order effects of such "winner takes all" philosophy, ranging from consumer-harming monopolies to environment-destroying profit-seeking. If we set socialism as an opposition to capitalism, it rises naturally to represent cooperation; The idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of creature comfort regardless of accumulated capital, and that in coming together to solve problems, rather than trying to one-up each other, problems can be solved more effectively and with less harm.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#89

Post by morceauxdebois »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #86
morceauxdebois wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.

Finland maintains a healthy distance to the west's extreme capitalism. Healthcare is free. Education is free (and mandatory). Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free. The government owns the only railroad. Many governments, including the current one, consist of majority Social Democratic Party. Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army. Newborns receive a fr…

None of those are policies exclusive to a socialist system. But what do i know about Social Democracy, im just Swedish.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#90

Post by pessimizer »

username90 wrote: post #57
Pfhreak wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that system, how do you care for folks who experience rare but serious difficulties. The tyranny of the majority gets real complex when dealing with massive populations.

Empathy works as long as you don't create a us vs them situation. > The tyranny of the majority Has that ever happened or is that just an argument to let politicians keep their power?

Are you asking if minorities have ever been oppressed by majorities?

Does the Holocaust or Jim Crow count?

Post reply on HN