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

Is democracy a failure? (1861)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#161

Post by douche »

pessimizer wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that's verifiably not true if you look at the statistics. A majority of prisoners are not in for drug crimes. The ones that are are overwhelmingly in for drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people). You can argue that consent should make the act legal, but that doesn't make it non-violent.

> drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people). Only if selling sugar, rifles or skateboards is violent.

Distributors of those legal products are rarely gunning each other down over the monopoly on distribution on a particular street corner. Driving it underground and making it illegal forces people to return to older, more traditional forms of conflict resolution...

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#162

Post by lisivka »

gragas wrote: post #23
y80 wrote: post #22

Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democra…

>Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

> Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life;

Yep, but you have exact same right to control life of others, so things are balanced.

> the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.

Constitution and court protects us from abuse, so don't worry about minorities in Constitutional Democracy.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#163

Post by douche »

Eupolemos wrote: post #113
saretired wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that cases are hardly rare where a small minority party becomes crucial for forming a government and winds up wielding power far beyond its numerical support among the population. And its not rare for countries to be unable to form a government for months or even years.

That's probably because their system is flawed. In Denmark, we never have to wait for long. Whenever those in power want to pass something big or important in parliament, they seek a broad support - otherwise, it'll just get repealed whenever they lose power. Everything certainly isn't perfect here (yes, it can be darn annoying when center parties hold too much power - but then again, it is a stabilizing factor), but…

Part of the problem with the US is that it is just so damned big and so diverse. I' not sure democracy scales well.

To take your example of Denmark; Denmark has less population, and half again as much area as Massachusetts. Comparisons between the US as a whole, and individual European countries don't always make the most sense; the more appropriate comparison would be to the EU, to have the same kind of multitudes of disparate people under a common banner.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#164

Post by eevilspock »

erikbye wrote: post #122
urza wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary. However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.

It is often said that Huxley's Brave New World prediction was more accurate than Orwell's 1984, but Orwell actually got the boot-stomping-your-face prediction right: even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull. Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised. The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most…

Aldous Huxley vs George Orwell:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/huxley-or...

(The creator, Stuart McMillen, felt compelled to remove it from his own website. He explains: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...)

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#165

Post by spydum »

hal9000xp wrote: post #64

Centralized democracy is indeed a complete failure. I really hate an idea that minorities must live as majority wants. The assumption that majority is always smart and able to make wise decisions is completely wrong. Unlike others, I actually think that some form of democracy exist even in authoritarian countries. I lived 22 years in Uzbekistan, then 9 years in Russia. I can say for sure that almost every dictator ap…

I think many people like the idea of decentralized in principle, but when the centralized power shares consequences for the decentralized mismanagement, people tend to get pissy (see EU financial crisis woes with Greece and friends, or USA state/municipal budget problems of past few years..). Perhaps these are problems solved with policy though?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#166

Post by andrepd »

urza wrote: post #137
mseebach wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, read "lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats". Making you afraid of mere advertisers (demanding evermore protection from - you guessed it! - lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats, with the help of their soldiers and policemen) is a great act of mind-manipulation that harks back to the aristocratic and academic disdain for trade.

Indeed we should be afraid of modern advertisers. They exploit the nature of human mind, to manipulate us into decisions that are often not in our best interest. Politicians then use advertisers to manipulate masses to ensure power for themselfs. In my country people in last elections elected an Olygarch, multi billionair, who controls whole agriculture, all main media, medical and other industries and now he is writ…

Which country are you referring to?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#168

Post by muad »

justinsingh wrote: post #25
capkutay wrote: post #11

I really think the movie Idiocracy nailed the scary potential future of democracy. If elections continue and build on this trend of featuring reality tv show style candidates and media that lives off hyperbole, eventually we'll just start electing the most popular celebrities.

I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this trend?

Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, Arnold...

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#169

Post by zigzigzag »

wyager wrote: post #52
roenxi wrote: post #18

We haven't yet found a decision making process that works better than democracy, and a lot of people have tried. At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are. Either that person is the average voter, or it is a minority group. If it is a minority group, they are in a position of extreme moral hazard to funnel societies resources to their benefit and lo…

> At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are. Technically true, but you're glossing over another way to approach this fact; we can reduce the number of "decisions being made by the political apparatus" as close to zero as practical.

The decision as to how many decisions to make is itself a decision that must be evaluated somehow, at some point.

But yes, I tend to agree, but this entire thread is largely just a restatement of the last few hundred years of left wing/right wing thought. Minimal regulation, markets, voting, these are all traditionally right wing positions. Regulation of markets by small groups of experts, distrust of the population, the desire for elites to keep a check on the people, these are traditional left wing positions. There's not much new under the sun.

Post reply on HN