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

Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

haydenplanetarium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#61

Post by Jach »

tlb wrote: post #43
Jach wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno man, Frederick the Great was pretty great, as was Augustus Caesar. So clearly there are "right leaders". It seems the problem is more about when one gets a good leader, how to keep getting good leaders afterwards when the good one dies or retires. Corporations have solved this pretty well--IBM has lasted longer than many governments, and there are plenty of other examples.

FtG was effective -- at starting wars and killing people to further his own dynastic ambitions. People who wanted to live in peace and prosperity would not agree he was the "right leader"

Well sure, George Washington was a very violent fellow as well but I usually don't see that levied against him. Same with Winston Churchill. You might want to learn more about Frederick, here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_The_Great

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#63

Post by Jach »

bdunbar wrote: post #46
Jach wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno man, Frederick the Great was pretty great, as was Augustus Caesar. So clearly there are "right leaders". It seems the problem is more about when one gets a good leader, how to keep getting good leaders afterwards when the good one dies or retires. Corporations have solved this pretty well--IBM has lasted longer than many governments, and there are plenty of other examples.

Funny how both the guys you mentioned are remembered for being leaders of men during war.

Is that the only thing? Regarding Augustus in particular, the Pax Romana is very strongly associated with him. Funny how with strong leaders who wield power and hold responsibility, even given some initial violence things can turn out pretty swell. Dr. Francia is an interesting smaller-scale example. http://books.google.com/books?id=-yeaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA547#v... By the way, is it funny how many fairly popular (considering none have been extremely popular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_president...) US presidents there are whose prior claim to fame is more or less being a victorious fighter?

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#64

Post by bloaf »

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

Certainly there are no perfect leaders, but if our government's structure is so perfect, then why does it matter which people are involved at all? The point is that who we elect matters, because if it didn't, there would be no point in electing anyone.

The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good system is irrelevant if no one bothers to implement it, or if the electorate seeks to undermine it.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#65

Post by bennyg »

cynicalkane wrote: post #50
liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

I think you're reading a false dichotomy in NDT's comment that wasn't actually intended.

Exactly.

He's saying a smarter public trends towards a better government system in place - by the majority of people using logic, reason and rationality to vote in someone worth their salt for each position.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#66

Post by gyardley »

marshallp wrote: post #60
gizmo686 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also gives us some slack to spew on about civil liberties and other constitutional tomfoolery.

Like no other country has civil liberties. What does Canada or Western Europe have.

A 'notwithstanding' clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that lets the government override it, as long as it's 'reasonable and justified'? The somewhat amusingly named Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can regulate what can and cannot be said publicly?

Canada's a pretty free place, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have the well-thought-out constitution that America has, which means every once in a while you get things like the October Crisis - where habeas corpus was suspended, thousands of warrantless searches were conducted, and almost five hundred people were arrested in nighttime raids and held without charges, in some cases for weeks.

Americans really don't appreciate what they've got. Historically, civil liberties are the exception, not the rule, and there's certainly no guarantee they'll stick around in the future.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#67

Post by lefthansolo »

subsection1h wrote: post #59
lefthansolo wrote: post #45

I think Neil is wrong, unfortunately. It does matter who is in power, but not for the reasons that the media and political campaigns focus on. Other than the ability to veto, presidents don't legislate, they don't have that much control over the economy- although if they are ignorant enough (Bush) or obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama) that doesn't help things but we can't reasonably blame them and even the effe…

obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama) What elements of the progressive agenda is Obama obsessed about?

I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y.

X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy

Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

Despite going off-the-rails during the primaries trying to sound uberconservative and building fences, and strong talk of military strength during the debates which would indicate the typical Republican massive $$$$$ sunk into the military, Romney's page appears to be more economy focused. Do I believe it will really be like that? Probably not. They both have their problems and so does everyone else.

Back to the OP, the answer is not that our voters are uneducated. Uneducated voters vote for both parties. People make fun of Palin and tea partiers, but I heard an Obama supporter answer "1" to how many senators there are in the U.S. government this morning and didn't know the VP's name, so let's call it even. The problem is that there is no incentive for real leaders to lead; there is only incentive for politicians to schmooze. That incentive doesn't change if the voters become educated. They can't vote for the right person when the right person won't run. You may disagree and think that we have strong leaders, but I've not had that much respect for a president in recent years.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#68

Post by vellum »

cynicalkane wrote: post #50
liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

I think you're reading a false dichotomy in NDT's comment that wasn't actually intended.

This. NDT's saying that leaders are a product of their base. If you want better leaders, do something to change the minds of the people who elect them.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#70

Post by brabram »

liber8 wrote: post #28

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key: As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so…

"The greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time" were probably the Athenians that, out of the same conclusions on human nature, concluded that if you want political equality for all, your political system must only allow small, non-renewable and other controlled mandates taken by randomly chosen citizens (yes, they have considered elected but have rejected it). The key point being that those randomly chosen people don't have the power, it the assembly of all the citizens that have the power.

And it's based on that that they have created the first (and only, for some people) democratic system ever. Ironically, the person that have created our current democratic system knew exactly this Athenian system but explicitly rejected it because it was ... democracy, and that is was a system were the people really has the power. It's only since Tocqueville has started to call it democracy that we think about it has democratic, Tocqueville who explicitly said that he wasn't afraid of election because people would vote what we told them to vote, something impossible in the Athenian system.

Post reply on HN