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

191–200 of 229 posts

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

#191

Post by slg »

kbutler wrote: post #172
slg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure spending numbers are a little misleading. One reason is that spending is often dictated by need. Military spending, for example, is hugely influenced by the current political environment so a reduction in military spending from the levels of the 40s-80s is not really a "for the people" change as it is more a "we don't need to fight the Axis/Soviets anymore" change. Similarly spending on social security and healt…

So your position is that post 1970s increases in government transfer payments are "not a huge benefit to the middle and lower classes" and represent "austerity", and that major reductions in spending are "largesse for the military". Interesting.

I don't agree with OPs entire point and certainly wouldn't use such extreme language, but I also don't think you can dispute that point while only looking at spending like you did in your response.

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

#192

Post by disintegore »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #145
disintegore wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also much of the consent is, as Chomsky would put it, manufactured.

Don't invoke Chomsky for this nonsense. > What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly…

I'll invoke him if he's relevant.

It is possible for both the government and the private sector to be corrupted, especially if the latter exerts corrupting pressure on the former.

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

#193

Post by matheusmoreira »

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.

There is no consent. There is not even a choice.

Even in anarchy, humans form groups because it's better than being alone. Every group has rules. Members can choose to follow them and enjoy the benefits or leave the group and lose the benefits.

Governments don't follow this logic. Nobody consciously decides that they want to be governed, they just happen to be born on a particular territory. Most people can't just reject the laws and leave, and those that can are really just choosing between other governments. They can't simply create another country with their own laws and invite people over.

The social contract isn't really a contract, it's an imposition.

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

#194

Post by [deleted] »

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #108
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".)

[deleted]

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

#195

Post by Jeff_Brown »

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).

You're right.

I get only 5 hits for "default to truth" -- which is so few that I think there must be a better keyword to search for.

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

#196

Post by anoncake »

magoghm wrote: post #101
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.

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

If you don't consent to democracy, you implicitly consent to non-democracy. That means you consent to being ruled without your consent. And that's what you got.

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

#197

Post by malandrew »

V-2 wrote: post #105
merpnderp wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

If you've never seen it, this is a good watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

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

#198

Post by TrackerFF »

chrisco255 wrote: post #186
TrackerFF wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to be political, but as one Trump supporter said, when asked on Trump and his lies: "I think what most liberals are missing is that this isn't about right and wrong, it's about winning and losing. I've attached my entire worldview to this man and I am going down with the ship. Not one of you is going to convince me otherwise." Some people are simply willing to accept lies, if it resonates with their beliefs. A m…

That may be one guys opinion, but you understand the other side is lying, correct? What I didn't fully appreciate until Trump was how much of politics is theater.

More than just one guy - seems pretty systemic, if you ask me.

https://www.axios.com/monmouth-poll-trump-approval-a05b8144-...

(But, yes, all political parties lie to some extent - some are just more brazen and outlandish than others)

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

#199

Post by aglavine »

leppr wrote: post #180
brutt wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Differences are astonishing. It's Ok for a despotic country to murder their property, or property of some other country when net effect is positive for them. For them, it's like a plantation: if we cut some trees, or cut grass, then net yield from field will increase, so lets do it. If you are good plant and in good place, you will be left. If not, you will be cut. For example, it's Ok for Russian Federation to kill…

Are you positive western democratic republics don't murder and/or start wars for profit ? Last I heard the USA's army and secret services were pretty active. What's different about their armies and ours ? I mean when was the last time citizens of a democratic republic gave their input on what assassination to carry out or war to wage ? There is definitely a point about overt, extreme abuse against their own citizens…

A lot of differences:

- No eternal leaders. - Freedom of expression - Separation of powers that limit each other

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

#200

Post by excalibur »

1_person wrote: post #140
excalibur wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you do not resist an imposition of will, you consent. > Discontinue consumption of substances offered to you by someone who has previously intoxicated you without your consent. So you agree there wasn't consent the first time. Sounds like refuting yourself to me.

I do not assert the dichotomy. If the option to resist the imposition is not presented, the question of consent has not been called. The act occurs without consent but also without dissent. When likely future intent is made known by past actions, the question of consent has been called and may be answered. You raise an interesting challenge and it is a scenario I haven't considered before. I am happy to discuss it an…

Okay, speak for yourself. Do you stand by the statement "If you do not resist an imposition of will, you consent," or do you wish to revise it?
Post reply on HN