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

Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

tsangchungshu.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#71

Post by unishark »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #70
unishark wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not OP, but I would guess the simplest formula is to total up (Heath care - gun violence). i.e. the more likely you are to have health care for whatever happens to you, and the less likely you are to get shot, the better. What in the world does that formula have to do with freedom? If anything, you are trying to maximize for security with it, which is generally in opposition to freedom. As for bankruptcy, it depend…

> you are trying to maximize for security with it, which is generally in opposition to freedom. So you're saying that employees who don't dare leave the corporate job because they really depend on the company's healthcare plan are more free. Cool. > medical bankruptcy ... was nonsense too. I think you're just trying to shoehorn zingers Great zinger yourself, bro. You're welcome to equate a growing precariat who are v…

Mine was a meta-zinger, apparently. Though I have no idea what you are trying to say with that multi-fragment quote

So if I read between the lines it seems your ideal is some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare. You're still cool with needing a corporate job for food, clothing and shelter? And you left out the other factor in your equation, which was gun-related stats. I'm still not seeing a coherent definition of freedom there. Still sounds like you want security to me.

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#72

Post by rualca »

barry-cotter wrote: post #42
rualca wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US's appalling lack of basic social safety nets, specially regarding healthcare, coupled with its poverty rate (over twice of Brazil's) and violence epidemic don't make it a shining beacon of a functioning society. Just because STEM graduates in the US can aspire to live in a comfort bubble due to their access to a cushy job, that does not make it an example of a well-functioning society by no means. It makes abs…

> It makes absolutely no sense to claim that a country has a well-functioning society if it happens to have a hand full of ultra-rich billionaires while the whole population suffers to barely make ends meet, let alone have a shot at a decent life. The US is much, much richer than any remotely comparable entity. Americans do not live the lives of grinding poverty you imagine. The only country or region that consumes m…

> The US is much, much richer than any remotely comparable entity.

The US is 5th in the ranking of median income adjusted to PPP.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

> Americans do not live the lives of grinding poverty you imagine.

Some people in the US might live well-off, but more than 10% of its population struggles below the official poverty rate.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...

Over 40% of the US population isn't even capable of supporting an emergency 400$ expense.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-americans-struggle-cover-400-em...

I suggest you try to take a look outside your bubble to learn how a high percentage of the US population struggles with poverty on a good day.

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#73

Post by donw »

omegabravo wrote: post #47
Iv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been disappointed by both the French and Japanese education. I'd love to give Montessori and Freinet style of education a try. But I find it weird that education can't reinvent itself radically. The system we have was based around a scarcity of books and a need for the production of standardized workers. I suspect the education system's main constraint is not the needs of kids but the possibility/will of the c…

The education system is a complex organisation. Having the will to change means little if everyone wants to change differently. Education reinventing itself radically needs a goal. The current (public) system has evolved to be frugal, which is a real consideration.

> The current (public) system has evolved to be frugal

Oh no it hasn't.

California averages $12k per student on an annual basis. Illinois averages $15k per student. Both are more than the median for private schools, and in a private school, you're getting a smaller classroom size as well (average of 19 vs 25 students).

Now, this wouldn't be a problem if the results were in-line with costs, but they aren't, not by a country mile -- public schools drastically underperform, and by a wide margin.

I know why, but find that immaterial next to the outcome, which is this weird sort of social Darwinism which sorts students into roughly two buckets: "wealthy with a largely successful peer-group" and "poor with a largely unsuccessful peer-group".

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#75

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

unishark wrote: post #71
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are trying to maximize for security with it, which is generally in opposition to freedom. So you're saying that employees who don't dare leave the corporate job because they really depend on the company's healthcare plan are more free. Cool. > medical bankruptcy ... was nonsense too. I think you're just trying to shoehorn zingers Great zinger yourself, bro. You're welcome to equate a growing precariat who are v…

Mine was a meta-zinger, apparently. Though I have no idea what you are trying to say with that multi-fragment quote So if I read between the lines it seems your ideal is some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare. You're still cool with needing a corporate job for food, clothing and shelter? And you left out the other factor in your equation, which was gun-related stats. I'm stil…

> some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare

Heathcare is a good example, but it's hardly the only want. It's worth raising when comparing countries, because it's a notable difference: different flavours of state run or state mandated healthcare is common in the developed world, USA being notable exception, and universal coverage gives people more ... "independence" if you like a different word to freedom.

I think you're assuming an entirely false dichotomy between "security" and "freedom". Along these lines https://www.adammcfarland.com/2017/10/18/would-universal-hea... https://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/why-medicare-for-a... Not to mention the entire notion of "precariat" - e.g. zero-hours contracts are means of control, yet they arise from lack of job security. So lack of security leads to lack of freedom, and presence of security (of healthcare, of income, of whatever) leads to freer choices in these cases.

The original question was "Why would you give up on freedom" not "define freedom!" and I'm not going to focus on a debate on parsing the definition of "freedom", or drawn back into the assumption that there is a single definition, which I rejected above. As far as I am concerned, that is a nonsense-making, derailing tactic.

But losing or gaining healthcare will be a consideration when I decide where to live. Regardless of a "coherent definition of freedom", that is a big Quality of life factor that I will look at. As I mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660947

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#76

Post by Dracophoenix »

Iv wrote: post #39
donw wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, absolutely. It does prompt the question: what education systems do you favor?

I have been disappointed by both the French and Japanese education. I'd love to give Montessori and Freinet style of education a try. But I find it weird that education can't reinvent itself radically. The system we have was based around a scarcity of books and a need for the production of standardized workers. I suspect the education system's main constraint is not the needs of kids but the possibility/will of the c…

What's wrong with the French system?

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#77

Post by unishark »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #75
unishark wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine was a meta-zinger, apparently. Though I have no idea what you are trying to say with that multi-fragment quote So if I read between the lines it seems your ideal is some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare. You're still cool with needing a corporate job for food, clothing and shelter? And you left out the other factor in your equation, which was gun-related stats. I'm stil…

> some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare Heathcare is a good example, but it's hardly the only want. It's worth raising when comparing countries, because it's a notable difference: different flavours of state run or state mandated healthcare is common in the developed world, USA being notable exception, and universal coverage gives people more ... "independence" if you like a…

I haven't posed a definition, just questioned yours. For example, as for healthcare not being the only "want", that is indeed my point. Yes one might twist a definition to make freedom about the ability to freely spend the wealth of other people in a country, without working for it (hence no one in a undeveloped country or primitive lifestyle is ever free, apparently). But the rest of the safety net is obviously more important to that agenda than the difference between voluntarily buying health insurance versus being forced to pay for it. Lack of more basic needs will kill most people much faster. But what is unusual about the need for healthcare is of course the fact that it is unpredictable. Just as with guns and crime (which again, you haven't given an alternative explanation for how it fits in). This is an equation based on fear of danger, i.e. a desire for security. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#78

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

unishark wrote: post #77
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some kind of "freedom from want" ...but only when it comes to want of healthcare Heathcare is a good example, but it's hardly the only want. It's worth raising when comparing countries, because it's a notable difference: different flavours of state run or state mandated healthcare is common in the developed world, USA being notable exception, and universal coverage gives people more ... "independence" if you like a…

I haven't posed a definition, just questioned yours. For example, as for healthcare not being the only "want", that is indeed my point. Yes one might twist a definition to make freedom about the ability to freely spend the wealth of other people in a country, without working for it (hence no one in a undeveloped country or primitive lifestyle is ever free, apparently). But the rest of the safety net is obviously more…

> Yes one might twist a definition to make freedom about the ability to freely spend the wealth of other people in a country

I honestly don't know where this "freely spend the wealth of other people" thing came from. If it's about heathcare, then it's a particular extreme political framing, to which I strongly disagree, but that seems to be missing the point.

> rest of the safety net is obviously more important to that agenda than the difference between voluntarily buying health insurance versus being forced to pay for it.

If you're saying that healthcare access isn't an important issue in the developed world today - in the midst of a pandemic and given the disparities - then again, hard disagree; to the extent that IDK, maybe something is very wrong with your thinking. Maybe it isn't important for you and you can't extend your view past that?

> no one in a undeveloped country or primitive lifestyle is ever free, apparently

My first issue with that is the binary framing, "free or not", no shades or grey or qualifiers, no degrees or kinds.

Then, I have the ability to contemplate changing jobs, changing locations, taking holidays in faraway places, so if you're asking "is this more free than a person in undeveloped country who doesn't have those choices?" It's self-evidently: yes of course.

Access to healthcare is not that different really. Nor is access to education. Or if (true story) you're relatively well off, in a third-world country, and you're going to live with private security, electrified fences, alarm systems etc. You're getting security, but you're less free to come and go. You feel it, constantly. You'd be freer if the crime rate was lower, and the crime rate would be lower if there was less abject poverty. Join the dots.

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#79

Post by vidarh »

zhdc1 wrote: post #44
School-Cotton wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is the only country I know of where you’re asked if you want to register as a member of whatever party you like, for free, when registering to vote. Indeed, it’s meaningless to compare party “membership” in the US to being a real, card-carrying, dues-paying member of an organization in another country.

Voting patterns in the states are very polarised by party membership, so I don't know if the comparison is completely ill warranted. European parties can probably count on a higher level of active participation, but when it comes time to vote or donate, party membership definitely matters.

Voting parties in many European countries are also highly polarised, but party affiliation and membership are very distinct in terms of commitment.

Party meetings in European political parties often involve checking you off against a membership register that in many cases is secret (not shared with the government in any way), and often e.g. requires you to be up to date with membership dues to have access to the meetings. Membership subjects you to rules, including behavioural, and commitment to a shared aim, restrictions on support for other parties, and the like. You can be subject to disciplinary hearings, and can be expelled. For many parties e.g. publicly expressing support for another party can be an expulsion ground. Some parties will do things like check your social media in advance of granting membership. Many have rules that requires a waiting time from you have been a member of another party before you can be admitted, etc.

You would not get more than a tiny fraction of the people who are registered Republicans or Democrats to subject themselves to that.

At the same time many of these parties certainly reach far outside their membership for donations, and none but the very smallest rely only on their members for votes.

Re: Building a Functional One-Party Democracy (2019)

#80

Post by unishark »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #78
unishark wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't posed a definition, just questioned yours. For example, as for healthcare not being the only "want", that is indeed my point. Yes one might twist a definition to make freedom about the ability to freely spend the wealth of other people in a country, without working for it (hence no one in a undeveloped country or primitive lifestyle is ever free, apparently). But the rest of the safety net is obviously more…

> Yes one might twist a definition to make freedom about the ability to freely spend the wealth of other people in a country I honestly don't know where this "freely spend the wealth of other people" thing came from. If it's about heathcare, then it's a particular extreme political framing, to which I strongly disagree, but that seems to be missing the point. > rest of the safety net is obviously more important to th…

As for the tradeoff between security and freedom with the guy in the third-world country, absolutely. This is key. To make this point you implicitly agree that the ultimate metric is freedom, however. Crime is just a proxy variables that may or may not relate via second-order effects like the choice to hide behind fences. Sure, if all things were equal a desire for the same level of security as a safer country may lead you to live a life with less freedom. But it also may not. It has been pointed out multiple times here that you don't need to live in a electric-fenced compound in the inner city, you can just move to a safe suburb across town. And all things are not equal. Japan can have lower crime yet be different in enough other variables that, at the end of the day, you still have less freedoms. Hence the parent poster's argument must be addressed with a direct definition of freedom.
Post reply on HN