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

Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#191

Post by ouid »

nomdep wrote: post #183
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #131

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people p…

A pure democracy, a direct democracy, is no different than government though Facebook likes, everything becomes a popularity contest. You know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". "The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.

I think that the parlance has ruined the discourse here. There's nothing "pure" about simple majority direct democracy. We should say that a pure democracy is one in which all governance is established with unanimous support. A social contract signed by everyone. First past the post representative democracy leaves ~75% of the signatures off of the final form. That's pretty bad.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#192

Post by simonh »

nomdep wrote: post #183
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #131

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people p…

A pure democracy, a direct democracy, is no different than government though Facebook likes, everything becomes a popularity contest. You know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". "The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.

The problem with direct democracy is that nobody implementing popularly mandated policies has a stake in successfully implementing them. There's no personal commitment. In contrast if a politician or party proposes policies and gets elected, everybody knows who is responsible for implementing those policies successfully, and the electorate can and will hold them accountable for it. In an ideal direct democracy where all decisions are made by popular vote, the leaders implementing those policies are reduced to functionaries. Even if they supported some measures, they're still going to be expected to implement other measures they disagree with. We had that here in Britain recently and it's a recipe for political paralysis.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#193

Post by s1artibartfast »

asdff wrote: post #52
jagtesh wrote: post #41

Skimmed through. Here’s a thought: What’s the alternative to philanthropy? If the answer is “democracy“, what does it mean in this context? To me, that means an elected body that decides through representation what is the best use of funds. It does so with no direct oversight, or “unacceptable paternalism”. Sounds an awful lot like a government, doesn’t it? How does a government raise funds? Through taxes (simplified…

If you want to voluntarily engage in a 'public' philanthropy ran by the government, you can just buy a government bond.

Alternatively, the fed and every state accepts donations.

The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High.

Meanwhile, the state of California just celebrated a record tax year collecting a hundred billion dollars (30%) over the budget, and is struggling to find programs to squander it on.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#194

Post by terr-dav »

User23 wrote: post #171
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #131

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people p…

The fundamental problem with democracy is, to not put too fine a point on it, that most people are idiots who really have no business having a say in how a city should be run, let alone a continental scale empire. You may see that as an "attack," but it's an observable pattern that has held everywhere and always in human history. Even the provably fair ancient Athenian method of sortition produced catastrophically in…

>The fundamental problem with democracy is, to not put too fine a point on it, that most people are idiots who really have no business having a say in how a city should be run, let alone a continental scale empire. >Meanwhile modern "democracy" is a propagandic plutarchy that observably prioritizes the interests of the plutocrats so highly above those of the general population that the latter have, effectively, no say whatsoever.

The former is a consequence of the latter. At least in modern times. Also don't forget that our notional foundations for democracy are rooted in a slave-society. I don't know how that's 'fair' unless you disregard the slaves.

And of course most people have no business in running a government: most people have no experience governing! Most people are subjects in mini-dictatorships (employees of employers).

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#195

Post by coastflow »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #186
nomdep wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pure democracy, a direct democracy, is no different than government though Facebook likes, everything becomes a popularity contest. You know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". "The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.

That's why Switzerland is such a poor country and disappeared from the face of the Earth. The people who want you to believe other people are dumb and direct democracy is a bad thing are the ones benefiting the most from the current inbalanced form of government. I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad…

Assume everyone in a population governed by direct democracy is not "dumb." Then, there is still a need for checks against what political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of the majority."

From the United States National Endowment of the Humanities [0]: "In America, [Tocqueville] saw and praised a people who enjoyed an unprecedented equality of conditions and political and civil liberty without endangering order or prosperity. But he also saw and criticized the way white majorities supported the institution of slavery and the unjust treatment of free blacks and Native Americans. In fact, the greatest danger Americans faced was inherent in their treatment of unpopular minorities."

"The power of the democratic majority arises from the fact that every individual is assumed to be competent to guide his own life and is politically the equal of every other individual. In this situation, the greatest legitimate power will always be with the majority."

A lack of "intermediary institutions, [makes a country have] “no lasting obstacles” in the way of the opinions, prejudices, interests, and momentary passions of the majority and tends towards an unthinking despotism over unpopular minorities."

[0] https://edsitement.neh.gov/closer-readings/alexis-de-tocquev...

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#196

Post by rhn_mk1 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #188
ryandrake wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the key downside of philanthropy is the "without democratic oversight" part. It's all fine when the billionaires are funding homeless shelters or schools: things everyone can agree are a public good. We are extremely lucky that guys like Bill Gates suddenly got a soft spot for fighting malaria after amassing their fortunes. But nothing exists to stop these billionaires from donating to causes against the publi…

But that's not true. The people and the democratically-elected government are the ones that Define what qualifies as a charity. We have said through our Democratic process that these are good things. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

That's an impediment, yes, but it's not a barrier. There's nothing preventing billionaires from putting their money into causes which are not charitable. There's only a disincentive in the form of lowered efficiency.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#197

Post by bluefirebrand »

simonh wrote: post #192
nomdep wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pure democracy, a direct democracy, is no different than government though Facebook likes, everything becomes a popularity contest. You know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". "The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.

The problem with direct democracy is that nobody implementing popularly mandated policies has a stake in successfully implementing them. There's no personal commitment. In contrast if a politician or party proposes policies and gets elected, everybody knows who is responsible for implementing those policies successfully, and the electorate can and will hold them accountable for it. In an ideal direct democracy where…

> the electorate can and will hold them accountable for it

In theory. In practice is this what we're actually seeing?

In Canada at least, I don't think political parties are being held accountable for the promises they make during election campaigns. There is a huge tendency to promise the moon and deliver the status quo.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#198

Post by s1artibartfast »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #196
s1artibartfast wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not true. The people and the democratically-elected government are the ones that Define what qualifies as a charity. We have said through our Democratic process that these are good things. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

That's an impediment, yes, but it's not a barrier. There's nothing preventing billionaires from putting their money into causes which are not charitable. There's only a disincentive in the form of lowered efficiency.

Sure, but now you are arguing that the rich shouldn't be able to spend money as they choose, and not against deductible philanthropy.

That is a different beast entirely.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#199

Post by simonh »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #186
nomdep wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pure democracy, a direct democracy, is no different than government though Facebook likes, everything becomes a popularity contest. You know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". "The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.

That's why Switzerland is such a poor country and disappeared from the face of the Earth. The people who want you to believe other people are dumb and direct democracy is a bad thing are the ones benefiting the most from the current inbalanced form of government. I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad…

It clearly isn't impossible for direct democracy to work, but equally there is no guarantee that a measure that gets passed in that way will ever get implemented, or will be implemented in the way intended.

For a start, once the legislation hits reality and needs to be interpreted who decides how it was intended to be implemented? Who chooses which tradeoff should be made when measures conflict with each other? we had problems like this with Brexit in spades. We still have in the from of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic, our leaving the EU free trade zone creates direct conflict with out obligations under the Good Friday agreement. Fortunately we have a government lead by a Brexiteer so I'm sure he'll have all that sorted out in no time.

In 2014 the Swiss passed an initiative to introduce quotas on immigration from the EU, in direct conflict with a treaty between Switzerland and the EU on free movement. It was never implemented.

None of these are the end of the world, but they are problems with the model that need to be taken into account and that direct democracy advocates need to address.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#200

Post by Bubble_Pop_22 »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #186
nomdep wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pure democracy, a direct democracy, is no different than government though Facebook likes, everything becomes a popularity contest. You know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". "The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.

That's why Switzerland is such a poor country and disappeared from the face of the Earth. The people who want you to believe other people are dumb and direct democracy is a bad thing are the ones benefiting the most from the current inbalanced form of government. I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad…

> That's why Switzerland

Switzerland has the population of NYC, the city, not the metro area... and attracts the crème de la crème of a continent made of 740m people.

By the same token we should all swear by autocracy given how well are Singapore, UAE, Macao and Monaco faring.

Post reply on HN