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

You can fool some of the people, all of the time

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 229 posts

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#101

Post by magoghm »

CPLX wrote: post #69
repomies691 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compared to ruling by force, yes, democracy is inherently good for the people I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for ruling by a force. Democratic countries also rule by force in the end. Democratic countries also need polices, guns, armies, prisons, tax inspectors, prosecutors etc. Those same institutions are also the tools for dictatorships, they are just governed in a diffe…

The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”. All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force. The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.

I was born in a Democracy. Democracy was forced upon me. I never gave my consent.

Note: I'm not talking about whether Democracy is good or bad, just about my "consent".

edit: fixed typo

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#102

Post by excalibur »

1_person wrote: post #95
igorkraw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democracy is nothing more than a system that replaces swords/bullets with votes. That's it. > (...) >Democracy is more tolerable because no people die (in the open) when the landscape of power changes. Leaving rebuttal of your other points aside, can you see how that is not the same thing at all ? It's like claiming "a plane is nothing more than a system which can move through the air the same way a boat can move t…

I'll preface this with my bias. I'm a bit of an anti-authoritarian moral reductionist, an anarchist of the unhyphenated sort. I believe that you can express all moral statements that convey meaning solely in terms of the imposition of will, that the imposition of will for any reason other than to resist a greater imposition is the only immoral act, and that any framework which attempts to ascribe moral meaning to rea…

> A micro-imposition, if you will.

No sir, I certainly will not.

> If you do not resist an imposition of will, you consent.

Thousands of victims of date-rape drugs say you're wrong.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#103

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #79
CPLX wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relevant word isn’t “force” it’s “consent”. All forms of government to some extent or another have to maintain a monopoly on legal violence and use force. The distinction with democracy is that the government secures and maintains the consent of those being governed.

It's less rule by consent and more rule by mob. Just because 50.5% of people vote for something I disagree with, doesn't mean I suddenly consent to it being law. I still don't have a choice and must unconsentually comply, otherwise "men with monopoly on legal violence" come and kill me or take me to prison. The only other choices are 1. convince the 1% (literally millions) of people to change their mind and get that…

[deleted]

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#104

Post by kazagistar »

sputr wrote: post #26
buboard wrote: post #10

My pet theory is that democracy is more tolerable because it alternates between incompetent people fast enough to keep people's hopes alive.

Democracy is nothing more than a system that replaces swords/bullets with votes. That's it. The fight for power (aka. resources) it inescapable and the only thing that democracy did, was to change the field that this fight is fought on. Democracy is more tolerable because no people die (in the open) when the landscape of power changes. The only two benefits of democracy to "the people" are: (1) the fact that they hav…

That's only internally though. When the "wrong" faction wins in south america, another "democracy" sends armed forces and supports a coup and a dictator to protect its financial interests.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#105

Post by V-2 »

merpnderp wrote: post #66
repomies691 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compared to ruling by force, yes, democracy is inherently good for the people I don't understand why people here see democratic system as a replacement for ruling by a force. Democratic countries also rule by force in the end. Democratic countries also need polices, guns, armies, prisons, tax inspectors, prosecutors etc. Those same institutions are also the tools for dictatorships, they are just governed in a diffe…

Dictatorships rely solely on force. Democracies mostly rely on a common agreement to follow a social contract. There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy.

> Dictatorships rely solely on force.

Not necessarily. Some dictatorships do enjoy genuine support. (Obviously they make it easier for themselves it by controlling the media etc.)

> There’s not nearly enough police in the US to quell a rebellion of the people if they lost faith in Democracy.

By the same token it's also possible to topple a dictatorship. At some point even your security forces will say "no". A good example would be the failure of "Plan X" in East Germany, when Stasi agents boycotted the orders, since they realized the cause was lost anyway.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#106

Post by Jeff_Brown »

aww_dang wrote: post #36

Is it too much to ask the author to define his terms? The nature of truth is subject to an ongoing epistemological debate. The author's unspoken presumption is that fallible humans can even approach truth. Is it not more honest in a way if a politician or a criminal accepts that he can not do truth justice, and proceeds with the sausage making? Like an actor winking into the camera, self-irony becomes an important pa…

> Is it not more honest in a way if a politician or a criminal accepts that he can not do truth justice, and proceeds with the sausage making?

No. It's not better. That way lies Russia.

If you already believe all politicians are liars, how is it at all helpful for a politician to tell you something you already know -- that he or she is lying?

Postmodernism is poison. Don't give up on the truth.

Even if it were true that all politicians play loose with the truth, there is an enormous variety to the spectrum. Some dodge uncomfortable questions. Some make unrealistic promises. Some quote out of context. Some exaggerate their accomplishments. Some make things up out of thin air.

Some politicians take none of those steps. We tend not to reward them for it. But an enormous number of politicians will not take that last step.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#107

Post by randcraw »

I think the rise of lies has little to do with humans being hardwired to resolve questions using emotions over reason. We prefer lies because we want a complex world to be simple, predictable, and manageable. Obviously it's not, so the only way that powerless people can believe their lives aren't spinning out of control is for authority figures to tell them what they want to hear: 1) every problem is simple and 2) a simplistic solution will fix any problem and return their world to the perfect Eden they believe it can and should be.

Happy fantasies are sustained only by lies. That's why we prefer lies.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#108

Post by Jeff_Brown »

jtbayly wrote: post #61

So... I’m skeptical of the claims that we automatically believe what we hear. Especially when they use Milgram as support.

The Milgram experiment is problematic, yes. It's the most narrative-friendly, but there's an enormous body of work on this question, and it seems largely to point in that direction. (Google Scholar claims 819,000 results for "confirmation bias".)

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#109

Post by kbutler »

claudeganon wrote: post #44
chadcmulligan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar theory, the right and the left each get to alternate so we stay sort of in the middle.

At least in the US, I think you’re mistaking controlled opposition in the form of a pseudo-left Democratic Party for things alternating. Post 1970s, the ideological continuity between the two parties (austerity for the people, largesse for the military, corporations, and ruling class) is quite obvious, but obfuscated in public discourse through various culture wars.

That is counterfactual.

Since the 1970s, military spending has decreased as a percentage of government spending and as a percent of GDP, while "for the people" spending - social security, healthcare, etc. - have risen dramatically in both measures.

See http://metrocosm.com/history-of-us-taxes/ and scroll down to the spending breakdown.

Re: You can fool some of the people, all of the time

#110

Post by 1_person »

excalibur wrote: post #102
1_person wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll preface this with my bias. I'm a bit of an anti-authoritarian moral reductionist, an anarchist of the unhyphenated sort. I believe that you can express all moral statements that convey meaning solely in terms of the imposition of will, that the imposition of will for any reason other than to resist a greater imposition is the only immoral act, and that any framework which attempts to ascribe moral meaning to rea…

> A micro-imposition, if you will. No sir, I certainly will not. > If you do not resist an imposition of will, you consent. Thousands of victims of date-rape drugs say you're wrong.

I believe in this case it's reasonable to interpret the past imposition as a statement of future intent and resist by proportional means. Discontinue consumption of substances offered to you by someone who has previously intoxicated you without your consent. Use violence as necessary to resist being coerced into consumption in proportion to the degree being intoxicated and used for gratification inhibits your survival and pursuit of objective truth.
Post reply on HN