Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

"Separation of powers" is such a bogus concept. We've got three groups of people in different office buildings with almost exactly the same set of incentives, and it's hammered into our heads that this somehow will cause government to police itself. I doubt anyone who didn't repeatedly hear the praises for separation of powers in school throughout their childhood would think that is even a remotely effective plan.

View on HN

Separation of powers was designed to prevent a few bad actors from seizing control of the whole system, as frequently happened in ancient republics. It's actually worked well for that purpose. It wasn't intended to defend against incentives affecting everyone who gets into any kind of office. No one foresaw that weakness.

People keep talking about separation of powers because it was once a good solution to a problem that no longer exists.

And the superior alternative is what?

Society refusing to tolerate any group of people having a legal monopoly on the use of violence.

This please.

The phrase "Democracy is terrible, but it is the best we've got" makes some sense.

But "American Democracy is terrible, but it is the best we've got"? That's a new one to me.

Transparency and the possibility for the people to review at least high level policy.

Separation of powers is a good concept. The problem right now is that all three branches of government have been taken over by the right wing; there is little disagreement about these things. Separation of powers tends to work best when there is more than one opinion.

I'm going to be EXTREMELY CHARITABLE and suggest that your opinion of the branches "being taken over" by the right wing is a statement which only really extends to the scope of their surveillance and antiterror operations, and that you are merely not thinking of certain things that do not affect you as a member of the left wing, like:

* IRS targeting of section-504 nonprofits

* the National Labor Relations Board's apparent failure to comply with rulings suggesting that their recess appointments were irregular and that they do not legally have a quorum

* the Department of Health and Human Services and its campaign to make Catholic institutions pay for birth control and abortions

* irregularities in the bankruptcy process around the auto bailouts

* et cetera.

Given that limitation, I believe it is possible for your argument to be regarded as meaningful. :)

Are you suggesting that the executive branch has been taken over by the right wing?

Does that suggestion surprise you? You are talking about an executive branch that is putting tanks, helicopters, and other surplus military equipment in the hands of local law enforcement. For decades, the executive branch has encouraged the use of plea bargains to avoid having cases go to trial. The soldiers who enforce our laws have been deployed against researchers who published the wrong books. Spies have been sent into peaceful anti-war groups. How would you describe the government that undertakes such actions, and then tries to amass even more power?

Classifying such things as right wing is part of the problem. "Left wing" governments are just as capable of all sorts of statist, authoritarian activity. But saying it is right wing annoys right wing people who are liberal, saying it is left wing annoys left wing folk.

Politics is more than a left right axis.

The soldiers who enforce our laws have been deployed against researchers who published the wrong books.

What?

Spies have been sent into peaceful anti-war groups.

That's been going on ever since the time of Martin Luther King Jr, and maybe before then.

What?

Probably in reference to the labs of an author of a well-known pair of oddly titled chemistry books being raided.

Even with these recent scandals, I find it somewhat difficult to categorize Obama's policies as right wing, but I was just seeking clarification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com