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

261–270 of 275 posts

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#261

Post by jayajay »

tempestn wrote: post #105
jayajay wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you speak of is backwards. The answer to disagreement isn't for both parties to walk away in opposite directions, nor is it for one party to kill the other party. Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something. Your solution is to run away? That's seriously very sad, and I feel like crying that we still have people who think like this. The solution isn't crying, either.…

Where does he say his solution is to run away?

He doesn't say it explicitly. But what can I imagine when someone speaks of ethnic groups as if they followed some sort of inverse gravity law?

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#262

Post by ahartman00 »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #257
ahartman00 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A police officer or two killed" ... "Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face" Again, these are people who want to go home to their families. "acting like they are only increases popular resentment" Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails. Sniper fire appears to be a reaction to the riot gear... "How does can an officer covered head to toe in r…

> "A police officer or two killed" ... > "Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face" > Again, these are people who want to go home to their families. I said “or two” for a reason. Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa. > Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails. Reaction or not, it's not appropriate in many situations where it…

"Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa"

Sure, but their job is literally go find the most dangerous people in the country, and make them give up their freedom.

Imagine yourself outside the headquarters of a gang of meth cooks, known to be armed and high. Unfortunately, yeah, people get shot. Lets not pretend like these are kind, innocent people. I know sometimes their relatives will say that on tv[1]. Imagine what its like to deal with hardcore criminals on a regular basis.

"it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed"

I agree. The problem is, how do you know in advance? Peaceful protests can turn violent in the blink of an eye. When they do need the gear, they needed it 5 minutes ago. I would love to hear a solution that doesnt involve the police running back to their cars, right at the moment that things get out of hand.

"They are a tiny minority of protestors"

Agreed. But again, how to know which ones? Now you can see why they want to monitor social media(not taking a position here). If 99 people are saying, "grab a coat and join us for a peaceful protest", and 1 is saying "grab rocks and head the park", well, now maybe we know who to watch.

1. http://wncn.com/2016/11/03/parents-of-pizza-hut-robbery-susp...

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#263

Post by kashkhan »

afarrell wrote: post #130
kashkhan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its solvable by using consensus democracy rather than majority democracy. The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be legitimate.

I've participated in such structures before. Honestly, very few people have the time to go to 5-hour-long meetings on a weekly basis.

sounds like you were in the majority.

i have been in it also, and it works just fine. i certainly do not like to be in a minority where the majority gets what it wants and the minority is steamrolled.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#264

Post by kashkhan »

maxerickson wrote: post #172
kashkhan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its solvable by using consensus democracy rather than majority democracy. The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be legitimate.

A significant role of government is to manage conflicts. Conflicts, by definition, lack consensus. Imagine Hal doesn't want Bill to build a fence (to make it fun, let's say Hal isn't even going to be impacted by the fence, he just doesn't like Bill). How does consensus handle this? Our current system tells Hal to sit down and shut up about what Bill does on his property. If consensus is the norm, Hal has a veto on Bi…

consensus works by give and take. Hal and Bill don't just have to deal only with the fence. They have many more items they need to negotiate if they are to live as neighbors.

our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#265

Post by OvidNaso »

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).

And most opiate addicts (heroin) get hooked from opiates supplied by their violent doctor and local pharmacies.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#266

Post by rixed »

zanny wrote: post #222
mzw_mzw wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sadly you have to have been a protester at least once to know that, otherwise you just cannot believe how prevalent (and effective) this tactic is.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#267

Post by wobbleblob »

visarga wrote: post #232
wobbleblob wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand the point of democracy. Democracy is not a mechanism for selecting the best ruler or the wisest policies. Democracy serves as a solution for the succession problem without revolutions and civil war. It is a mechanism that places the process, the system, above the ruler, and provides a strong and formal mechanism for replacing the old ruler with the new one. Totalitarian states nearly always…

> People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy. You say that like it's a good thing. Every 4 years we are called to legitimize the next crop of corrupt politicians sold to the financial interests. We can even choose who we like best between two corrupt candidates. Yay, democracy! I don't think voting is the greatest thing. Vo…

You know what happens when a ruler's legitimacy is widely questioned. See the legitimacy question as separate from the question whether the ruler is popular or good. In the past armies have been raised against perfectly fine rulers whose legitimacy was questioned, and armies have been raised in defense of horrible tyrants whose legitimacy was not in doubt. My enthusiasm for representative democracy is that it has largely done away with these internal conflicts, without a need for repression.

The vices of voting that you mention are more an artifact of a first past the post, two party system: over time, any idea that has a plurality will get all of the influence. Any idea that never has a plurality will never have any influence.

In a system with proportional representation and a tradition of coalitions, over time, an idea that has 20% of the vote will gravitate towards about 20% of the influence. With many parties to choose from, the choice for your educational platform may not be automatically bundled with a choice for a foreign policy.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#268

Post by maxerickson »

kashkhan wrote: post #264
maxerickson wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant role of government is to manage conflicts. Conflicts, by definition, lack consensus. Imagine Hal doesn't want Bill to build a fence (to make it fun, let's say Hal isn't even going to be impacted by the fence, he just doesn't like Bill). How does consensus handle this? Our current system tells Hal to sit down and shut up about what Bill does on his property. If consensus is the norm, Hal has a veto on Bi…

consensus works by give and take. Hal and Bill don't just have to deal only with the fence. They have many more items they need to negotiate if they are to live as neighbors. our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.

our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.

Of course not. My point was that it doesn't give Hal a veto over anything Bill might want to do.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#269

Post by _ofdw »

justicezyx wrote: post #213
_ofdw wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Democracy is interesting because it requires you to step outside your own head, understand that there are people who hold different values and different experiences from you, and then mentally engage with them, holding your own doubt and revulsion at bay, until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone. Objectively, it can be seen that this is completely untrue. No understanding or empathy is strictl…

No understanding or empathy is strictly required by democracy. Yes, it's required. Democracy is compromise. The people need to be highly intellectual to make their roles in the society balance between what they want and what society (other people) want them to be. Without understanding of difference, everything breaks down easily. See what happened when us bomb other countries with simply unbelievable execuses. You c…

Uneducated, ignorant people have always existed in democracies. Those democracies still exist.

Being "Highly intellectual" is therefore not a requirement to participate in a democracy.

Just look around you, man. There are stupid people everywhere.

Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)

#270

Post by wtbob »

jayajay wrote: post #258
wtbob wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume all questions are answerable by science? Science says that if you assemble materials in a particular way you will get a solar panel, and if you assemble other materials in a different way then you get a toaster; it can't say which you should do. Science says that a human being is a collection of genes which are formed at conception; it can't say anything about abortion, murder, capital punishment or…

I never actually assumed that. The scientific method applies to systems which have a set of observables. Social science is not a second class citizen to natural science, as both society and nature are systems which can be observed. Therefore, it seems more prudent to ask "why" (i.e. applying the scientific method, or some more general inquisitive process) Half A and Half B disagree rather than simply assuming one hal…

> Social science is not a second class citizen to natural science, as both society and nature are systems which can be observed.

I honestly think social science is only slightly more scientific than astrology.

But even were it not, science is not capable of answering questions like what one ought to do. Sure, A & B disagree; it's interesting why they do; maybe they're both wrong; maybe they're both partially-correct; but what should be done about it? Science can only say what is, not what ought to be.

You have to make some philosophical assumptions (e.g. utilitarianism) in order to even think that science can provide direction, and even then you will get bogged down in questions like, 'what is the greatest good for the greatest number?'

As an aside to the downvoters: don't downvote if you think I'm wrong; please share how you think science can answer a question like 'ought we execute murderers.'

Post reply on HN