You can fool some of the people, all of the time • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by sputr » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

igorkraw wrote: post #37

sputr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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'm sorry, I'm really trying to understand your critique, but to me most of it just seems like a strawman, which leads me to believe I've not communicated my point all that well.

I've been in politics for close to 10 years - didn't get far, but far enough to accrued a lot of cynicism about humans and our organisational system.

>an you see how that is not the same thing at all?

My position is that a democratic system simply provides a proxy platform for the normal political struggle and it's only real effect is that less(no) people die when powers shift.

Most of everything else is propaganda as a weapon within this proxy war. As a result, my opinion is, that the only reason democracies do better economically is because it provides a safer, more stable, more reliable environment for more people to take risks and acquire extra resources they would otherwise be unable to.

> It also opened up the field for consent on all sides. There is not way to wage a war in such a way that all sides win, a way to fight in a way where noone gets hurt. Democracies with minority protections (aka one of the ways we differentiate democracy from mob rule) make true win-wins possible.

You will probably not be surprised if I state that in my opinion no one in power gives a sit about consent. Or about win-wins. Everyone within a democratic system is trying to win at the expanse of everyone else. But because participating in the struggle is safer and easier more groups do .. which leads to somewhat better results ... but only as long as there ARE more groups active. My critique is that we've become complaisant and are participating in the struggle less and less ... with predictable results.

> The first sentence describes the removal of democracy.

Only if you define democracy as anything more than I do. If that sentence is the removal of democracy ... than just about every democratic system is experiencing "removal".

> Compared to ruling by force, yes, democracy is inherently good for the people.

I agree and have said so myself. But my point is that democracy is good for people because people don't die AND nothing more. The problem is that people somehow believe that democracy will also, by it's very nature, provide social services, healthcare etc.

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

#162

Post by leppr » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

brutt wrote: post #142

magoghm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You gave your consent at democratic election, so now you have your representatives in government. In democracy, your country is your property, so you were given your share of your country at your birth, with corresponding benefits and obligations. In despotism, country, including citizens, is owned by despot, so citizens inherit obligations only.

Think about how many differences between those two abstract interpretations of citizenship manifest in real life.

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

#163

Post by lucian1900 » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

mbillie1 wrote: post #112

lucian1900 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the poor were truly in charge, why would they choose to remain poor?

I think you're missing what the parent is saying: since the majority are poor, they plainly don't rule (since then they wouldn't remain poor). If democracy is defined as "majority rule," and we plainly see that the majority in the US do NOT rule, then the US is not a democracy.

Oh yes, I was agreeing.

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

#164

Post by sputr » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

lexandstuff wrote: post #41

sputr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Getting a vote instead of a bullet to the head seems like a pretty significant upgrade to me.

Yeah, it is. But when you have that and start talking healthcare ... you should not relay on the system of democracy. But far too many people do.

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

#165

Post by lucian1900 » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #118

numinary1 wrote: post #89

Democracy is ostensibly majority rule (don't nitpick). The majority of people are poor. Therefore, democracy is the rule of the poor (Aristotle). We do not live in a democracy.

You'd have to define "poor". If you look at the progress of the poor in the US over the last 200 years, they're doing really, really well.

So well they can't afford homes, health care or even food? Despite working more than full time?

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

#166

Post by morelisp » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #122

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".)

But confirmation bias is very different than believing everything you hear automatically (by default).

Indeed, confirmation bias might be summarized as "hearing what you believe" - very nearly the opposite.

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

#167

Post by TimMurnaghan » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

lucian1900 wrote: post #91

numinary1 wrote: post #89

Democracy is ostensibly majority rule (don't nitpick). The majority of people are poor. Therefore, democracy is the rule of the poor (Aristotle). We do not live in a democracy.

If the poor were truly in charge, why would they choose to remain poor?

See Gramsci's work on hegemony. Or (slightly easier) Tressel's "Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" which makes exactly the point about how the poor become convinced that it's better to give more things to the rich.

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

#168

Post by Animats » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #157

randcraw wrote: post #107

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…

What is the evidence that lies and the believing of lies are increasing?

See current article on HN about Facebook leaks.

Lying at scale without consequences seems to be becoming more prevalent. The inventor of that is generally considered to be Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. He used radio and film technology, which were new at the time, plus large rallies, to present a consistent but bogus view of reality.

After WWII, that sort of thing had such a bad reputation that it was not used much until after the WWII generation died off.

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

#169

Post by aww_dang » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

thinkloop wrote: post #160

Isn't there an implied undercurrent with all this that genpop are idiots? I personally am not saying this, but if people say that "money buys elections", what do they mean exactly? They do not mean that massive election fraud exists, nor that people are being directly paid for their votes - there is no evidence of that. Everyone agrees that people are fairly voting based on their wants. What they are implying though…

If we accept those premises, is it advisable to allow the populace to vote on our lives and property?

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

#170

Post by pmikesell » Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

thinkloop wrote: post #160

Isn't there an implied undercurrent with all this that genpop are idiots? I personally am not saying this, but if people say that "money buys elections", what do they mean exactly? They do not mean that massive election fraud exists, nor that people are being directly paid for their votes - there is no evidence of that. Everyone agrees that people are fairly voting based on their wants. What they are implying though…

Sort of, I guess. But it’s also the idea that most people receive a lot of information passively as a result of whatever ads are shown to them on tv, YouTube, Facebook, etc - so all that money goes to the volume of propaganda pushed out promoting one result or another. Important concepts often have nuance, and that means some good and some bad, and if you’re on one side or the other you can tell the part of the story you wish to become the narrative.