Hacker News Reader

Comment by defrost | Hacker News Reader

> I do not believe democratic governments would ever be willing to take the needed steps

Dysfunctional bicameral faux democratic governments such as the system that holds sway in the US at present will struggle - but they don't properly represent the will of the people at large.

Every survey I've seen on health care or gun regulation for example shows the will of the public at odds with the actions of the government.

THe founders were not fans of party politics .. and yet that became the emergenant behaviour, pandering to self interest and the highest bidders for attention and not to broad opinion.

View on HN

>Every survey I've seen on health care or gun regulation for example shows the will of the public at odds with the actions of the government.

counterpoint: https://twitter.com/davidshor/status/1355186871354200066

The proposed ballot measure asked a different question from what was represented by the heatmap. It wouldn't have reduced other forms of taxation like the question posed for the heatmap, it would have instead redistributed the collected taxes to government programs. I probably wouldn't have said no because of that, but I know plenty of people who would.

Based on the principles the country is founded on, these assumptions breed a First Past the Post which bifurcates individual principles and defaults to a binary system at large. Very emergent imho.

Yep.

That was my introduction 40 years ago to iterative dynamics and voting systems - FPthePost converges to a non representative duopoly.

I believe that to be an unintended outcome unforeseen by the US founders.

I think it's because capitalism perverts everything into repeating the mantra "don't fuck with the money". You need to fix the economic system along with the government.

Why does capitalism have to be your scapegoat? Why not go to the root—the lust for power. In essence that’s what money is anyway, it’s just a means to an end.

Would you also fix the endless human desire for more? If you can, then you’ve got a shot. Otherwise, you don’t.

>Would you also fix the endless human desire for more?

We could call it the New Soviet Man or something like that

>I think it's because capitalism ...

That's why communist countries are known for their carbon neutral economies, and being excellent stewards of the environment, right?

Yeah and human rights and happiness, etc, etc.

Source: product of 2 former commie countries. The after effects probably take 50+ years to undo

No communist country exists, and most likely one will never exist. Calling countries "communist" is supposed to be a capitalist joke on communism being a unreacheable utopia.

Suppose thats true. Then what explains the behavior of "communist" (but not True Communist) countries? They're polluting just like capitalist countries. Are they just undercover capitalists?

What explains the "communist" countries behaviour is "Animal Farm". The "communist" countries are just a variant of Monarchies. They have replaced some of the birth-rite of monarchies but it is still the same with all the behind the scenes power plays and purges.

> Suppose thats true.

A communist society would entail the absence of private property, social classes, money and the state. No stable, large scale "society without state" exists in the modern world.

Well then a planned command-style economy instead of a free market using Marxism as it's motivating principle. I'm guessing most of the western critics of capitalism aren't tankies, so they probably have in mind some sort of democratic ownership of production where people choose degrowth over profit. To the extent that's doable at the scale of nations is unproven. Potential problem is someone like Stalin or Mao will always subvert the movement for their own personal power.

I'd remark that it has less to do with capitalism and a great deal more to do with a lack of strong guard rails separating policy making (from elected offials) from undue influence (lobbyists and money).

Have distinct silos for military, civil service, law (trials, not police or writing), etc. with harsh penalties for stepping out of line good rewards for duty are things that I rate highly in a government system.

The case can be made that the US took a turn for the worse when the Supreme Court was allowed to go outside its remit of "do the least required" and wrote policy by making Citizens United legalise directly bribing officials.

That was at least a two guard rail jumping systemic failure (IMHO).

>The case can be made that the US took a turn for the worse when the Supreme Court was allowed to go outside its remit of "do the least required" and wrote policy by making Citizens United legalise directly bribing officials.

1. "legalise directly bribing officials" is a gross misrepresentation of Citizens United v. FEC. As per the wikipedia article, the ruling "prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations"[1]. In other words, it means the government can't prevent corporations from donating to groups that run political ads. "Bribing" has a specific meaning, which involves quid quo pro, and "corporations being able to spend money on political ads" is nowhere near that.

2. at the risk of starting another flame war, the "turn for the worse" happened decades before with roe v. wade, when they ruled that abortion was under the "right to privacy". Regardless of whether you think women should be allowed the right to abortion, justifying it under the 14th amendment is much more egregious than the supreme court ruling that the government can't restrict the speech of groups of people (ie. corporations).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The case can be made, and there is no shortage of articles from the US that purport to make that case, it's a subject still hotly contested.

Also, I carefully wrote a turn for the worse as there has been many twists and turns on the path between past and present.

I admire your gumption in insisting upon the turn for the worse as if there has been only one and that Roe V. Wade was that moment.

Popular opinion by the numbers within the USofA appears to disagree with your assessment.

>I admire your gumption in insisting upon the turn for the worse as if there has been only one and that Roe V. Wade was that moment.

>Popular opinion by the numbers within the USofA appears to disagree with your assessment.

The full quote from you was:

>The case can be made that the US took a turn for the worse when the Supreme Court was allowed to go outside its remit of "do the least required" and wrote policy

You seem to be claiming that the supreme court "took a turn for the worse" when it engaged in judicial activism (ie. "Supreme Court was allowed [...] to [write] policy"). Given that, I fail to see how "popular opinion" is a relevant factor in this, unless you think that judicial activism is only bad when it doesn't align with "popular opinion"?

> "Bribing" has a specific meaning, which involves quid quo pro, and "corporations being able to spend money on political ads" is nowhere near that.

Market dynamics of supply and demand bridge this gap with the same vigor they bring to any other kind of "investment."

Politicians need monetary support, they figure out what kinds of positions are likely to secure that support, they adopt those positions, and the support appears. Do they meet with corporate executives in the graveyard at midnight and sign a contract with blood squeezed from the homeless? No, but it's a bit weird to point to the absence of silly midnight rituals as exonerating evidence when it's pretty clear that the exchange happens without the need for any such nonsense.

I'm not claiming that activities that were allowed by the ruling has no influence on politicians, just that "legalised bribery" is objectively false. You might argue that the two are kinda the same thing, so equating them for rhetorical effect is fine, but this presents a problem: what the supreme court actually legalizes bribery? What would we call it then? We already established that they "legalized bribery", so we can't say that again.

Oh, it's not legalized bribery, it's mandatory bribery. The need to finance a campaign means that every option must be approved by wealthy interests before the people are even allowed to see the options.

Call it what you will. Playing with definitions does not fix the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com