3 ms·
Oh, if that's all that is required then it shouldn't be such a big problem.
by blahi 10y ago
Oh, if that's all that is required then it shouldn't be such a big problem.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoGlad you agree.
- blahi 10y agoHave you been involved in any political decision? Even just at a company level?
- ZenoArrow 10y agoYes. Why?
- blahi 10y agoYou definitely don't sound like you hqve.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoLooks like you were mistaken then. If you want to make a substantial point, you'll need to address the content of the points I raised rather than wasting our time with ad hominems. Why do you find it far fetched that people can choose to vote for those that will represent their best interests?
- blahi 10y agoI already addressed what needed addressing. I told you that "people to choose democratic representatives that stick up for the interests of the masses" is an impossible task. You prefer to ignore that and/or pretend that it is not true. So I told you that your idea cannot be put in practice because we don't live in a perfect world but you don't acknowledge that. What is left there to say?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago> I told you that "people to choose democratic representatives that stick up for the interests of the masses" is an impossible task. You prefer to ignore that and/or pretend that it is not true. You made a large claim that was completely unsubstantiated. ZenoArrow didn't ignore the claim; he/she didn't believe it. On HN, that's your cue to provide some evidence to back up your claim. That's what's left to say. Provide some evidence that "people to choose democratic representatives that stick up for the interests of the masses" is an impossible task.
- blahi 10y agoOh god this is embarrassing to be honest. There is no one "interest of the people". There is no "people". There are different groups with different interests. Or are you proposing dictatorship of the proletariat? Because we know how that turned out, don't we? If you want evidence of the above you need to look no further than a couple of weeks back to the Brexit vote. You have it there all. - There is no disproportionate political influence by the rich. The majority of the rich said "don't do it! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T DO IT!". - There is no rich vs. poor. One of the richest, most influential people on Earth, Rupert Murdoch, used his media influence to sway the vote in favor of leaving. - People unable or not interested in forming a balanced opinion. The decision was made because of demagoguery and blatantly false claims. - Power-hungry, opportunistic politicians riding the wave, no matter what the wave is and then back tracking on their promises and claims. Same thing happened in the Greek elections. A politician came, promised all sort of things, and in the end did exactly the opposite of what he promised. So in the end people acted against their self-interest. Because they don't know what their interest is and because politicians tricked them. Story as old as mankind itself. There should be no need to "prove it". If it wasn't self-evident, then you are just out of touch with reality. But here you go, I spent 10 minutes explaining things that should be self-evident, to people who claim that they understand the politics and science of reconciling interests and opinions.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago> "So in the end people acted against their self-interest. Because they don't know what their interest is and because politicians tricked them." You fix that by having a more informed population. You can do this in multiple ways, but primarily the fight is in breaking the stranglehold of the mass media by popularising news outlets with more in-depth and clear analyses of the issues we face. It's not an impossible fight, it's one we can make a difference in. If you don't believe things will change, then step back and let people who are willing to make a difference put in the work to do it for you.