Hacker News Reader

Comment by titzer | Hacker News Reader

Let's start with basic accountability, like swift and just punishment when those in power break the law.

I would say let’s start with accountability for politicians in general. It’s pretty common for idiots mess up locally and then self promote upwards to state and federal levels.

Paging Sarah Palin, you are wanted at the ticket counter. Paging sarah palin…

Accountability absolutely starts at the top. If we expect to re-establish accountability for rubes first while turning a blind eye to those in power, then we are just playing into their hands.

People at the top will generally be able to dismantle mechanisms of accountability, since they are at the top.

They wouldn't dare if they thought revolution was a credible threat. The people have become too tame.

This is what we are not supposed to talk about. The people outnumber the ruling class, and, operating all the means of production, could wield power by simply going on strike, bringing them to heel long before revolution is necessary.

People won't do it today because they are both comfortable and too chained to their current jobs. They are increasingly divided by culture war bullshit that is not at all relevant to the important parts of society, like accountability for leadership.

Not unique to politicians, any large organisation who doesn't have a strong single leader sees this. It's nothing new either, with the Peter principle, the Dilbert Principle, even the Gervais Principle, recognising the symptoms.

Politicians can't just appoint themselves to Congress or state legislatures. You may think they're idiots but citizens are voting for them. Is it possible that some of those "idiots" aren't as stupid as you think but rather just have different priorities and values?

People are ecoring for them and others (include you, whoever reads this) don't compete with them and challenge them.

I don't think I'm ecoring for anyone. I don't even know what that is.

Politicians are optimizing for one objective: to be re-elected.

This is very different one from the objective I want them to focus on: improving the lives of their constituency.

In an ideal world, politicians who don't work on improving the lives of their constituency wouldn't get voted for.

As that is not the case and improving the lives of their constituency doesn't necessarily get them voted for again AND whatever good they did may get undone before it really shows its effects: of course they only care about being reelected... Even if they had ideals and morals to begin with.

Information and investment assymetry means there will always be election-winning rewards for dirty politicking. An actually effective politician, who has morals must balance the two. And they must try to be more skillful in general at politicking than their unscruplous rivals.

This sounds much more like "Please Don't Hold My Politicians Accountable" than "I favor accountability", FWIW.

I know decorum here disfavors talking about specific parties and actors, and this thread is 100% sideways. Nonetheless this kind of attitude is at best only a stepping stone to recovery. You can't both-sides your way through a constitutional crisis.

If we can ban congress trading somehow…

and who gets to decide that? now you've concentrated power again.

You’re downvoted because it appears cynical about something that appears to have no reasonable alternative but you’re correct

Having the authority to sanction a president does not necessarily mean that person has the power to overthrow a president. And the people with the most direct power (military and secret service) lack the authority to use it. Mostly these factors can balance out so that power is not concentrated as much as it seems.

IIRC Atatürks' turkish constitution demanded that the military overthrows the government if it devolves into tyranny.

Ever heard of voting?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com