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

The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

cryto.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#71

Post by socrates1998 »

dllthomas wrote: post #42
socrates1998 wrote: post #34

Everyone is talking about calling Congress or signing a petition, this is pointless. Congress is completely broke. We don't need Congress. Why can't we vote on budgets ourselves? We have the internet. We can devise a way to vote online a few times a year, once a quarter. You login, you look at the proposals, you vote on what you think is good for the country. Congress is the middleman that is poisoning our system. Th…

Specialization. I don't have time to research these things as deeply as someone we're paying full time. Which isn't to say that this concern should dominate - clearly, there are issues which this would ameliorate; any proposal has costs and benefits. Just pointing out a (potentially significant) cost.

I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about?

The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#72

Post by sjs382 »

bguthrie wrote: post #17

In the world of grand political change, three or four years is nothing. Don't give up hope yet. The Demand Progress folks are committed and have a good sense of what it takes to bring about political change in a democracy. Please support them. And believe it or not, legislators do watch those calls and emails––especially calls. All of them of them will tell you that the perception of a groundswell of support or oppos…

In the world of grand political change, three or four years is nothing.

It isn't even a full election cycle.

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#73

Post by dllthomas »

socrates1998 wrote: post #71
dllthomas wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specialization. I don't have time to research these things as deeply as someone we're paying full time. Which isn't to say that this concern should dominate - clearly, there are issues which this would ameliorate; any proposal has costs and benefits. Just pointing out a (potentially significant) cost.

I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about? The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.

You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn't work better, but your sophistry is unbecoming.

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#74

Post by jmccree »

__pThrow wrote: post #24

I would have loved to see an Occupy 2.0 like movement with marches or protests on the Mall, at NSA HQ, on the streets in front of their parking lot, at their freeway offramps, and at the AT&T building in San Francisco. (Hey! There is an event at the AT&T building. Good! https://www.facebook.com/events/614121478661276/ ) Protests in front of the White House. Protests on the steps of Capitol Hill. Protests wherever Pre…

Protests in front of your local federal court house does nothing. It annoys the residents when FPS brings out the dogs to sniff trash cans and the college newpaper camerman is blocking your front door, and the real news media couldn't give a crap. Voting is the only thing that actually matters.

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#75

Post by pankkake »

rch wrote: post #58
chroem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies there's a non-trivial number of candidates who are legitimately against the NSA.

That's fair, but it's perfectly alright to vote against the incumbent as a purely punitive, as opposed to corrective, measure.

Tell me when that ever worked.

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#76

Post by socrates1998 »

dllthomas wrote: post #73
socrates1998 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know more about the internet and web than the congressman who are regulating it, so why should they get to pass rules they know nothing about? The answer? They shouldn't. Congress is less than useless. They are harming us. They are not governing, they are parasites living off the work of others.

You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn…

>You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical.

You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?

It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles.

Because like you said

>I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on.

So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors.

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#77

Post by dllthomas »

socrates1998 wrote: post #76
dllthomas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues they work on. I'd wager a little that we can put a tighter bound. With direct popular vote, we'd be regulated by people around the median. This is not to say nothing else could be made to work, or mightn…

>You may know more about the internet and web than Congress, but you are not typical. You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more? It's a joke. A subversion of proper governance and democratic principles. Because like you said >I would wager heavily that the staffers involved with these issues are in the top 15% in terms of their familiarity with the issues…

"You are probably right about this, but why do the Senators WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF REGULATING not know more?"

... because they are also in charge of regulating workplace behavior and taxation and immigration policy and forestry and environmental protection and on and on... One individual cannot know more about everything than does a specialist in the field - that's why we have specialists! You're specializing in (I'm guessing) software and networking. They're specializing in legislating and management. If they're communicating well and properly doing their job, this is a better system than asking you to regulate the internet and treaties regarding overfishing off the Aleutians.

"So, did you elect these staffers? No. They are unelected and heavily corrupted by the influence of lobbyists and big corporate donors."

They are not themselves elected, but they are hired and managed by an elected official whose performance is - in large part - a proxy for the performance of the staffers. There is nothing inherently wrong with delegation and specialization - that's how we get shit done. Corruption - overt and otherwise - is certainly an issue. It is an issue whether it involves staffers or the politician directly, and it is probably a strong argument for a more democratized approach, but is unrelated to the question of domain knowledge.

Re: The Day We Do Nothing Of Consequence

#80

Post by calbear81 »

smacktoward wrote: post #16
smacktoward wrote: post #3

OK, so what do you propose we do instead? crickets

To avoid becoming part of the problem myself, here's my suggestion: Find one Member of Congress who's been vocally supportive of these programs, and run them out of their job. Throw down a challenge -- "we're coming for Representative X" -- then form a PAC (or piggyback on the PAC of a supportive org, like EFF or the ACLU) dedicated specifically to turning that person out of office, raise money, and use it to nail th…

I absolutely agree. I don't get why the tech industry is so afraid of throwing some more of their weight around to bring political change in ways that are more aggressive than what your average joe could do.

Politicians care about one thing - getting reelected and we all know the effects of money in politics. Let's put together a list of politicians we want to get out of office, fund their opponents aggressively and find leverage. By leverage, I mean find what makes these politicians uncomfortable, what they really don't want you to make a fuss about and do some convincing to get them to see the light.

We need an insider, a Frank Underwood to take care of things inside the beltway.

Post reply on HN