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

221–230 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#221

Post by mzw_mzw »

zanny wrote: post #216
nathanvanfleet wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention if you are just protesting the wrong thing, you get arrested, pepper sprayed or worse. And somehow the media coverage is way less too.

Like the Dakota Access Pipeline protest right now . No mainstream network talks about it at prime time, despite it probably being the most significant US national political event right now next to the email leaks. Which they also ignore, beyond claiming they are Russia's fault.

> Like the Dakota Access Pipeline protest right now.

The one where they were shooting at cops, you mean? True, that part didn't get a lot of coverage.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#222

Post by zanny »

mzw_mzw wrote: post #220
zanny wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dakota Pipeline protestors have been getting maced and tear gassed this past week. There are also reports of protestors being locked in dog cages[1]. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/0...

The Dakota Pipeline protesters were actually shooting at cops , and committed millions of dollars worth of arson.

The Sioux tribe and other protestors claim he was a plant by the oil company to intentionally turn public opinion against the protestors[1].

[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-s...

That, and the other incidences of protestors using firearms is something anyone managing a protest of this scale cannot control. As long as the leadership involved condemns the gun violence, and the protestors do what they can to stop people from escalating the situation, they cannot be themselves in the wrong.

It is a very common tactic to plant radicals in peaceful protests who will use violence as an attempt to ruin the reputation of the movement, mainly by distraction - "oh, someone shot at the police, they are all violent monstrous scum now, and nobody should listen to their grievances anymore" was used constantly during the occupy protests, and many of those offenders were later found to be plants by either private or even police agencies to break up the protests and destroy their message.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#223

Post by api »

abandonliberty wrote: post #201
hairy_man674 wrote: post #91

"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans…

If you would like to elevate your thinking on this subject in order to understand what's going on, I recommend: 1. Iron law of oligarchy (1911 - 1700 words on wikipedia): "all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies." 2. Dictator's handbook (2011) - Or CGP Grey's summary: rules for rulers (2016 - 18 minutes): "Bad behavior" is emergent from power…

"The problems with the world are not user error." - wow. This is why HN is mostly the only forum I hang around.

If you really want to go deep study game theory. IMHO it offers very satisfying hard mathematical explanations for at least some of these things.

I consider it and its related fields (evolutionary informatics, complexity) to be among the greatest intellectual achievements of the 20th century. These fields are grossly under-taught. You generally won't hit them unless you study economics, ecology, or evolutionary biology.

If there is an answer to any of these awful paradoxes, it is going to be found in these subjects rather than in any form of conventional or even unconventional politics, religion, philosophy, etc. These are just rearrangements of the deck chairs.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#224

Post by ericHosick »

rayiner wrote: post #186
narrowrail wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the non-violent use of a rifle that is important? I sold pot in college in the 90s, and there was no violence. Perhaps it is the ilegalization of various plant materials that causes violence in the distribution process?

Hunting, pest control, etc. Pot isn't that harmful, but contrary to popular belief most people are not in prison for possessing or even distributing pot. Heroin, meth, etc. definitely are harmful and addictive, and destroy lives. Selling them would be violent even if those products were legal (like cigarettes).

> Heroin, meth, etc. definitely are harmful and addictive, and destroy lives. Selling them would be violent...

Unless you can personally claim ownership of those people, among other things you're claiming ownership* of, there is no aggression (initiation of violence) taken upon your person or things when someone is destroying their life.

If you can personally claim ownership of those people, and society as a whole, then you are correct and the selling of the drugs would be an act of aggression towards yourself.

* The act of withholding something from others.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#225

Post by stale2002 »

y80 wrote: post #30
stale2002 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life. What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.

> Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life. Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society. There is no other system of decision making which even attempts to reconcile these two adversarial relationships (individual vs. society). >What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressi…

Democracy is voting. It is majority rules.

A voluntary system is basically the opposite. Every who wants to participate in something, can choose to do so. Or choose not too. You don't vote on what should be done, and then force everyone to go along with it.

Majority rules is force. You go along with the decision of the group or else. Whereas voluntaryism is zero force. No matter what the group decides, how many people vote for it, you never ever use force on anyone to make them go along with the group.

Thats fine if you think that using force is necessary for the greater good of making society better.

There are lots of good arguments for why the government threatening people with guns, in order to get them to pay taxes, for example, is needed in order to get anything done at all in society.

But don't dress it up in pretty words and call it "voluntary". Voluntary is the absence of force. It is the idea that no matter what I do, as long as I don't directly harm another people, noone should use force against me.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#226

Post by kobeya »

ozy wrote: post #214
kobeya wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When encountering a shortcoming of the world, there are two responses: You can compare it to what has happened before and console yourself that of observed past histories, this situation ain't so bad. Or you can imagine what has never been, and try to create a society better than has ever existed before. There was once a time when democracy of modern form had never been tried, outside of some rugged mountain towns in…

We do not have democracies because people had the "gall to try something new". We slowly grew into it because people demanded better and used opportunities to move us closer. And this is what we should continue doing. In no way did my comment indicate we should just be quiet and think it is not so bad. But at the same time, this is the best we ever had. Calling it a failure is like calling an olympic gold medallist t…

Failure does not mean "worst in history."

Failure simply means "my standards are higher than this."

There's nothing wrong with being so audacious as to have standards unmeetable by any past accomplishment. I call that a progress-oriented mindset.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#227

Post by Sniffnoy »

marcosdumay wrote: post #208
Sniffnoy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're quietly assuming a lot there. Let's stop after the first sentence -- "At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are." Ah! So you're proposing monarchy? But no, you're…

Well, that futarchy replaces hired experts with a panel of future bets. Future bets aren't very reliable, but well, it's something that could be tried - who knows, it may work. Anyway, on this context you are just begging the question. There's no novelty in there for the democratic process, just for the technocratical one.

I mean, the point is that it's a different sort of aggregation mechanism. It's not one that makes sense for everything, though, so yes there is still a democratic component. Regardless, like I said, it's just an illustration -- there are other sorts of aggregation mechanisms one could use, that are more universally applicable. For instance, there's quadratic voting (not something I actually endorse, but an interesting idea). Again, this is just an illustration.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#228

Post by dmoy »

wtbob wrote: post #193
erikbye wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull. Is it more likely that a police baton ends the peace, or a protester's stone? Is riot gear offensive in nature, or do the police wear it to defend themselves from violent attack? > Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised. While that has certainly happened, you are refer…

I was assuming he was talking about Philando Castile, who was shot to death while putting his hands up.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#229

Post by Sniffnoy »

damptowel wrote: post #109
pyrale wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anarchy (and some of its branches) value very much the values of democracy, with the added benefits of stressing the search of compromise. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.

Isn't anarchocapitalism a contradiction in terms? Capitalism is perhaps the most statist of all forms of society. It's development coincided with the birth of the nation state. Markets have been a part of human societies since the birth of agriculturalism, but it was the state that created the large scale market systems required for capitalism to flourish. Historically markets were established in conquered areas to s…

You're reasoning based on a name. Names are not necessarily accurate descriptions. From what I've read of theirs, it doesn't seem that anarcho-capitalism would support capitalism in the sense you describe.

Remember, "capitalism" is an overloaded term. Sometimes it means what you describe, and sometimes it means the free market. Make sure you know what sense it's being used in in a given context, or you can't have a meaningful discussion! In the case of anarcho-capitalism, it refers to the free market. (But even though that works out in this case, you really should be wary of reasoning based on names.)

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#230

Post by tptacek »

zanny wrote: post #218
tptacek wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in prison are not there for victimless crimes. This is well studied, and what you just said is a canard. Ranked, reasons for incarcerations go: 1. Violent crime 2. Property crime 3. Everything else Where "violent crime" is comprised of those crimes we all agree are violent --- particularly: domestic violence, which accounts for a plurality of all incarcerations in major metro areas. The overwhelming major…

Depends on your definition of "overwhelming" 1 in 5 convicts are in prison for drug related offenses[1]. Almost four hundred thousand US citizens behind bars for plant byproduct possession or distribution is heinous. There are around 320k prisoners for property crime, by comparison, so no, nonviolent drug offenses are #2 in terms of incarceration blocks, though the numbers are close, and violent offenses are over twi…

It is not my argument that because drugs account for only 15% of incarcerations, our drug policy is OK.
Post reply on HN