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

91–100 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#91

Post by pjc50 »

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.

Apple pretty much bought Ireland's tax authorities.

But, as people keep forgetting, Europe has giant multinationals and lobbyists of its own. I wouldn't presume to know who's on top politically in Sweden, but I imagine Saab (for example) have some influence.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#92

Post by taffer »

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…

> Electricity is free

That's hard to believe. Can I just go there (as an EU citizen) and mine bitcoins for free?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#94

Post by rjtavares »

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.

Both can coexist, but you can do it in a more capitalism or more socialist way.

Take e.g. healthcare. You can have all private healthcare (capitalist), a public and private sector coexisting (mixed), or exclusively public provider (socialist).

And that's just a sector. You can have socialist healthcare but capitalist manufacturing. Every economy is mixed, but it can balance to one side or the other.

(btw, all modern economies tend to be capitalist, but social democracies in Europe are definitely less capitalist than the US)

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#95

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

cies wrote: post #58

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…

> I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying.

Also to add, centralized political systems cannot be truly "democratic". The middle ages were far more democratic than our modern enlightened times. Canadian historian Francis Dupuis-Déri writing in the book "Démocratie: Histoire politique d’un mot aux États-Unis et en France":

"During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, thousands of villages had an organized assembly where communal decisions were made. The 'community of inhabitants', which even had legal status, functioned for centuries by a process of self-management. Kings and nobles were content to manage affairs related to wars or their own private property, to administer justice, and to now and then mobilize their subjects for common chores. The hierarchical or aristocratic authorities did not interfere in the affairs of the community, which met to deliberate on political communal, financial, judicial and parochial issues. They discussed the sharing of the harvest and sale of the surplus, the cutting of wood on communal land, the repair of bridges, wells and mills, and the hiring of instructors, shepherds, watchmakers, forest guards, sometimes even parish priests, and guards when brigands, wolves or epidemics were rampant. They designated those who would serve in the militia, debated the obligation of lodging the royal court should it visit, or the utility of sending a notable to submit to the court of grievances in the nature of community."

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#96

Post by hypertele-Xii »

taffer wrote: post #92
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Electricity is free That's hard to believe. Can I just go there (as an EU citizen) and mine bitcoins for free?

Free to a point. The government has a (supposedly) reasonable ceiling for electricity consumption. I actually hit that ceiling a while back, but got the decision overturned by complaining about it. I'm running a fair bit of tech 24/7 including electric heating (given Finland winters), no bitcoins though.

I've yet to study the exact nature of the EU with regards to social support, so I don't know if you could just come here and collect welfare.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#97

Post by hypertele-Xii »

morceauxdebois wrote: post #89
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please indicate which of these policies are presented by the extremely capitalist US, which I compared Finland to.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#98

Post by enriquto »

notahacker wrote: post #78
enriquto wrote: post #65

For the same reason, smallish countries seem to be much more democratic and closer to the people (e.g., Switzerland). The "sweet spot" seems to be between 5 and 10 million people maybe?

The list of countries between 5 and 10 million includes more countries noted for human rights violations or recent civil wars than liberal democracies. Even success stories in maximising their geographic advantages like Singapore hardly qualify as 'more democratic' The factor Switzerland seems to have in common with other liberal democracies of that size is being based in Europe, something it also shares with a large…

> The list of countries between 5 and 10 million includes more countries noted for human rights violations or recent civil wars than liberal democracies.

Citation needed? Anyhow, the interesting measure is the total number of people living in small vs. large countries noted for human right violations or wars, not the total number of countries with that condition.

I agree that Singapore is a hellish dystopia, but Switzerland's referenda and its strong stance on not going to war (but keeping a strong army for defense) are undeniable attractive points.

These are the European countries with population between 4 and 9 million: Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Serbia, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Norway, Ireland, Croatia. That's quite a "dream team" in my view!

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#99

Post by cies »

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.

nope, they cannot. in the real meaning of the words: capitalism protects unlimited capital accumulation and socialism forbids it.

they are at odds.

currently most nations have capitalism, often with some social policies in place (mainly to prevent uprisings).

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#100

Post by xupybd »

cies wrote: post #58

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Lobbying is much easier in a centralized power structure. See how much lobbying goes on in and around the power centers of this world: DC, Brussels, London. Lobby is power for money, democr…

I think the problem is with the concentration of power. The fewer people that hold the power the more likely they are to diverge from serving the people into serving their own interests. I think it has more to do with accountability than anything. If you have power over people you never have to see or hear from you have little empathy for them.
Post reply on HN