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

The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#51

Post by DubiousPusher »

Iv wrote: post #5

I'll restate something that's often misunderstood about democracy. The use of elections is not to find the "best" leader (for any definition of "best" that you have) but to prevent civil unrest. It offers an alternative to pushing for opinions violently in order to be heard. For this it needs to offer a credible and legitimate path towards political changes.

Agreed. One of the best features of small "d" democracy is that it lends the government a pretty powerful argument for legitimacy. Which is perhaps the most important feature a government needs to last.

Edit: Consent of the Governed is probably the most powerful legitimacy arguments there is beside maybe Divine Right.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#52

Post by [deleted] »

ajna91 wrote: post #7

"If we substitute the word indifference for the word liberty, we shall come much closer to the real intention that lies behind the classic argument. Liberty is to be permitted where differences are of no great moment. It is this definition which has generally guided practice. In times when men feel themselves secure, heresy is cultivated as the spice of life. During a war liberty disappears as the as the community fe…

[deleted]

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#53

Post by _8j50 »

> We all use absolutes, because an ideal which seems to exist apart form time, space, and circumstance...

A 100 year old typo!

I always understood that the terms liberty,freedom,independence,slavery,bondage and servitude must imply a subject to have meaning. Two persons can talk about liberty but they presume the other person agrees the subject of the term in the listener's understand is the same as theirs. I think that's what the author means. But also, it's not just an ideal that is the subject but specific person(s).

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#54

Post by sovietcattle »

wbronitsky wrote: post #46
sovietcattle wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracies can't work, as they're managed by politicians with low time preferences, which means that in order to get elected they'll promise and pass laws and regulations that make the government always spend more than what they make through taxes, disregarding long-term effects. That process generates debt. Democracies inevitably end up achieving state bankruptcy through excessive debt. Regardless, that debt has to…

I’m very curious as to how you define “work[ing]” in the context of a currently operating government. It would seem that democracies all over the world “work” for quite a few more people by ratio than other forms of government. I’m also quite curious as to if you have alternatives; it’s all well and good to bash democracy, especially in the current moment, but are there better realistic alternatives? Are you advocati…

They certainly don't work for me. I have to pay something between 20-80% of all my income and financial gains to governments despite the fact I don't agree with anything they do, or with their existence. I never signed a contract with them agreeing on that sort of taxation, and if I don't pay the taxes the government imposes on me I can have my property taken away from me, get arrested and even be assassinated. I also have to comply with laws that are created out of some old man's ass, "respect" the police and the military otherwise they will kidnap, torture, or kill me, etc.

That said, I don't advocate for anything, nor I think revolutions or reforms would "fix" a centralized system that persists on the basis of the monopoly of force, such as the so-called "democratic" governments we have all over the world.

What I think, however, is that those centralized systems will inevitably and progressively fail due to their own inefficiencies, and as the transaction costs [1] diminish. As that happens, the centralized state's functions will leak into the decentralized market, until the state loses its ability to hold a monopoly of force.

I think we're a few decades away from seeing the end of the governments and states as we have today. The "alternative" will be a free, decentralized market that will emerge progressively as the governments disappear. We don't have to do anything "special" for that to happen. Just sit down and observe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#55

Post by incompatible »

incompatible wrote: post #12

If you support unrestricted speech, then you support legalisation of lies, fraud, vilification, threats, child abuse pornography, yelling "Fire!" in crowded theatres, abandonment of copyright, spreading of state secrets, insider trading, you name it. It's not surprising that few dare to advocate it.

As the article discussed, people generally want free speech for the things they approve of, and restrictions on speech about things they think are bad. There are some things that seem to have overwhelming public support, like bans on child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation. I'm thinking of specific events like the Christchurch shootings, where there was a lot of public outcry along the lines of "such things shouldn't be allowed on the Internet", and 8chan was eventually kicked off Cloudfare. I guess when people want something banned, they want it gone for good, including from the likes of Tor hidden services. But that won't stop them from going to the same kinds of services to access some information that they think has been unfairly banned.

I also find it ironic to be censored when commenting on topics related to censorship, or at least greyed out to -4, which is about as much as can be achieved without moderator assistance, I think.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#56

Post by matheusmoreira »

incompatible wrote: post #12

If you support unrestricted speech, then you support legalisation of lies, fraud, vilification, threats, child abuse pornography, yelling "Fire!" in crowded theatres, abandonment of copyright, spreading of state secrets, insider trading, you name it. It's not surprising that few dare to advocate it.

> abandonment of copyright

> spreading of state secrets

Nothing controversial about this.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#57

Post by matheusmoreira »

incompatible wrote: post #55
incompatible wrote: post #12

If you support unrestricted speech, then you support legalisation of lies, fraud, vilification, threats, child abuse pornography, yelling "Fire!" in crowded theatres, abandonment of copyright, spreading of state secrets, insider trading, you name it. It's not surprising that few dare to advocate it.

As the article discussed, people generally want free speech for the things they approve of, and restrictions on speech about things they think are bad. There are some things that seem to have overwhelming public support, like bans on child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation. I'm thinking of specific events like the Christchurch shootings, where there was a lot of public outcry along the lines of "such th…

> child porn, terrorist videos, and copyright violation

One of these is not like the others.

> "such things shouldn't be allowed on the Internet"

This is why people created things like Tor in the first place. The internet is not a country. Nobody should get to decide what is and isn't allowed on the internet.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#58

Post by Iv »

Spooky23 wrote: post #40
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I note in this context that threatening to lock up either Hillary or Trump are not helpful. Say that in 2020, Trump loses the election, and feels that if he leaves office, his political enemies will find a way to imprison him. He therefore has very strong incentive to find a way to stay in power. That really might not be what you want...

I doubt it. Jailing Trump would be counterproductive. Taking such an extreme step would be destabilizing and make it more difficult to bury the whole affair of the Trump presidency. Would you really want a slow drip of Wikileaks about how compromised a US President was going public? If I were a victorious president-elect, I would offer to pardon him with the condition that he STFU, and appoint a special counsel to in…

On the other hand, normalizing corruption like has been done since the Iran-Contra affair, where people faced no consequences and were pardoned, is the reason why you end up with blatant corrupt administrations like we have today.

If Nixon or Cheney had served jail time, there would probably be more push back against Trump's actions.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#59

Post by Iv »

sovietcattle wrote: post #21
jampekka wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's telling of your bias that you lament imposing taxes but ignore imposing ownership. I guess the latter is included in "accepted naturally" for you but there's really nothing natural in ownership if you step outside the prevailing dogma.

Do you have "ownership" of your own consciousness? Do you "own" your own body? Is that dogma? Have some reading about argumentative ethics, it derives natural law based on private property through the means of logic: https://mises.org/wire/primer-hoppes-argumentation-ethics

Ownership is an abstract concept enforced by society. It recognize the right to "use and abuse" of a thing. Some societies will forbid you to do things to your body. Some will outlaw some opinions. It makes sense to say that in such cases, you do not own your mind or your body.

I am of the opinion that it is good that individuals have total ownership over their mind and bodies, but it is just that: an opinion. I can't demonstrate it.

If I could somehow infer it being a "natural law" it would not be a satisfying justification, it would just be a naturalistic fallacy. Most of human society's goals are to fight against "natural order" because we, collectively, aim at unnatural things like justice and fairness.

Re: The Basic Problem of Democracy (1919)

#60

Post by int_19h »

richk449 wrote: post #44
erichocean wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me of a truism I heard about protesting: The purpose of protesting is to demonstrate the need for violence to the fence-sitters. If protesting results in change non-violently, so much the better. But the purpose is to demonstrate that violence is absolutely necessary.

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?

One does have to wonder if MLK and Gandhi would have been successful, if they weren't alternatives to something much more violent.

Or if their opponents weren't willing to ramp violence up enough. The thing about Gandhi in particular is that he is famous precisely because he won. How many like him were there that didn't win, and we have no idea that they even existed, because their body was dumped into a ditch behind a prison tucked away in the middle of nowhere?

And sometimes we do know about them, because they did survive to tell the story - but it's not a very inspiring story when they lose, and so it gets eclipsed. This guy was a Gandhi to his people before Gandhi was even born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji - how many have heard of him?

Post reply on HN