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

151–160 of 221 posts

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#151

Post by jusssi »

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…

> Education is free (and mandatory).

Yes.

> Healthcare is free.

Not quite, but close. There's a token payment for using the services. Prescription meds are covered when they go over ~€500/year. Social services will cover for you if you can't pay.

> Housing is free. Water is free. Electricity is free. Internet is free.

No, unless you have no property (you need to sell or lose everything first) and no income, in which case the social services covers the basic necessities for you: housing, water, electricity, even internet access are considered basic necessities.

> Convicted criminals can still vote. All males are drafted into the army.

I don't see what either of these has to do with capitalist/socialist.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#152

Post by lr4444lr »

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…

Agree to everything you say, but also because of the tyranny of the majority. When the power to shape communities is pushed down and out, smaller marginalized groups are more able to shape their lives instead of being outvoted by people who share different cultural beliefs and morals in larger overarching dominions that apply regulations and resource management that isn't in fitting with smaller different interest groups.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#153

Post by max_ »

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 believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship.

Lobbying does hurt, societies more in centralized governments due to stronger trickle down effects. As the top of the organisation is linked to multiple parts of the system.

But, there is however another reason why centralized governments are really not as effective as we want them to be.

There is the notion that, a centralized system (top down) simply cannot process requests of a society as well as a ground up system (decentralized).

This Idea was articulated by F. A Hayek in his essay "The use of Knowledge in society" [0].

To summarize Hayek's case in point, his reason was that, as requests to process tasks make their way up to bureaucracy, information about the granularities and complexities of the needs are lost. The more bureaucracy the less effective the service delivery.

[0]: https://fee.org/articles/the-use-of-knowledge-in-society/

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#154

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

mdiesel wrote: post #148
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> broad statement covering a period of, what, 600 years not only was it long period but the Middle Ages are only ever brought up by people educated by a Western/ized idea of history. My point stands because we would never hear of systems that "worked" in a decentralized way because required power structures would have never been in place for them to leave any impact that people will feel should be noted in the histor…

That works if people's only businesses are what is needed by the small community/tribe. We've reached a point where thanks to a millenia of technological advance, a fraction of the populace works in agriculture. Instead I work in a business that sells a niche enough product that we might have a customer ever other week from somewhere in Europe. In order for that to work, we can't only have customers in our town or it…

yes I agree. IMO it looks to us like the only "natural" way for humans is a centralized system/power structure because we simply are unable to envision a world which is not. It also would require an unrealistic "deprogramming" of society which makes the idea just another utopia (at least not achievable without huge sacrifice to what we hold dear today). The more likely scenario in which this is more realistic is after a total collapse of anything we associate today with society/humans. Even after collapse we'd have probably lost everyone except the most brutal selfish individuals and therefore we'd have to again first go through similar phases of central power structure ...

To paraphrase Zizek's quote on the end of capitalism: We are so far down that road, that it's easier to imagine the end of the humanity than it is to imagine humanity living in a decentralized society.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#155

Post by mytailorisrich »

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…

Lobbying is often painted as wholly negative but in a democratic system this is actually something important: It brings different points of views and interests to the attention of governments and lawmakers in order to inform the law-making and government processes.

It is not only the "super rich" who lobby and benefit. All advocacy groups trying to make voices heard are lobbying.

The key in a democracy is that lobbying be conducted legally and transparently.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#156

Post by dekervin »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #95
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, thousa…

I would absolutely not call democratic a power system where the common has absolutely no legitimate say in deciding whether or not his polity is going to be at war with another ( with the consequences of having their crops, family,etc... wiped off the surface of the earth )

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#157

Post by coldtea »

>After all, nothing really changed in President Trump’s rhetoric, or in the wild substance of QAnon conspiracy theories

What "rhetoric"? A sitting politician complained for fraud. Such complaints are a dime a dozen in elections all around the world. Heck, that's what the other side complained about too, in 2016, and has a long history in US politics.

And if he "orchestrated" a walk-in into the Capitol (where nothing much happened, and politicians were up to business as usual the very same day), the other side has organized and lauded dozens of protests, including some with looting and even burning of police departments and areas of cities, throughout 4 years.

As a European, I see a lot of cant on both sides, and a lot of pearl clutching by the side that gets all the legitimacy offered by the mainstream media and the "polite society". In other words, it's partisanship 101.

Downvote freely, it's a partisan country anyway

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#158

Post by emptysongglass »

cygx wrote: post #126
taffer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it doesn't meet this definition, I wouldn't call it socialist. Otherwise, the word socialism would lose its meaning. California having high taxes does not make it socialist. Austria having free education does not make it socialist.

The socialst dream is the class-less, egalitarian, solidary society. The whole point of reformist socialism is that you should not try to get there in a single giant leap, but step by step, with the fully socialist society more of a Platonic ideal: There'll likely always be a next thing to fix. Austria having free education does not make it socialist - but it makes it more socialist .

I think we have to be careful here because none of these countries which we have thus far mentioned have any ambitions of attaining the socialist crown you speak of. They like it the way it is: capitalist with strong protections for and investments (education, healthcare) in their capital producing peoples.

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#159

Post by whatever1 »

coldtea wrote: post #157

> After all, nothing really changed in President Trump’s rhetoric, or in the wild substance of QAnon conspiracy theories What "rhetoric"? A sitting politician complained for fraud. Such complaints are a dime a dozen in elections all around the world. Heck, that's what the other side complained about too, in 2016, and has a long history in US politics. And if he "orchestrated" a walk-in into the Capitol (where nothing…

Comparing a deadly coup attempt and a direct attack against the representatives and the VP himself in the US capitol the day that the election results were certified by the Houses with random protests?

Re: Local rules instead of global censorship

#160

Post by kiliantics »

dekervin wrote: post #156
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, thousa…

I would absolutely not call democratic a power system where the common has absolutely no legitimate say in deciding whether or not his polity is going to be at war with another ( with the consequences of having their crops, family,etc... wiped off the surface of the earth )

Which is why I would not call the current power system democratic either. But at least they had say over shares in harvest and communal land and the likes, whereas I have no such things today.
Post reply on HN