7 ms·

Hacker News, can we come up with clever ways to undermine this growing trend toward authoritarianism? How effective are ear plugs as a countermeasure? Parabolic

Hacker News, can we come up with clever ways to undermine this growing trend toward authoritarianism? How effective are ear plugs as a countermeasure? Parabolic mirrors? How can we divest from organizations employing these anti-populist, anti-democratic measures?

whamlastxmas 9y ago
We need a better voting system than we do now. I strongly believe we'll see much better representation when we can vote outside the two party system without throwing away a vote.
- OCASM 9y ago
  That presumes people wouldn't vote in favor of authoritarian practices.
chillingeffect 9y ago
the key is the u.s. is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy (only in certain elections). the strategy is to support representatives whose opinions you trust and speak persuasively to people to bring them on your side. To do this effectively, you must listen to them and understand their concerns. there is no quick-fix. you must perform this work at a slow and steady pace your entire life, never feeling confident others can handle it (that their angry facebook memes will stop a demagogue).
- emodendroket 9y ago
  When you're given a choice of two candidates and neither of them represent your interests, and this happens time after time, I think it's fair to question the efficacy of the tack you're proposing.
  - clort 9y ago
    In this situation, another person has to put themselves forward as a candidate. The failure of the society is when nobody else does.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      Then you run into the systemic failures of the current political and electoral systems in the US (and some other countries with electoral systems dating back to a similar period) - that voting for a third-party candidate is to throw away your vote for the most acceptable of the two "provided" candidates, and practically guarantee that the least acceptable wins due to the divide in votes. There are, of course, a variety of electoral systems that allow and encourage third-party candidates to have a chance, but it's very, very hard to change an electoral system that got everyone in the political system where they are, to one which provides them new competition. See parallels with regulatory capture.
- zo1 9y ago
  As much as I agree that people need to be persistent, steady and patient in their political participation. This doesn't work so long as you're importing foreign-voters en-masse that are largely voting for a specific party, or voting for politicians as a way to reward them for allowing such importation to occur. Or, have some sort of middle ground between the large gap of representative and direct democracy. Sort of what Switzerland is doing whereby any movement can force the government, by virtue of having enough votes, into having a nation-wide referendum. And it has to be binding for the politicians, to the spirit and letter of the referendum results. Unlike what we're seeing in the UK now.
mr_spothawk 9y ago
> How can we divest learn to grow your food
mirimir 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that motorcycle helmets with active noise control would help a lot. Also maybe padded bodysuits. But there'd be downsides for protest groups to show up wearing such gear, no?
- zo1 9y ago
  I think protesting is a largely useless endeavor. It's nothing but a "show of force" in meat-space, that allows the possibility of violent encounters between individuals that have opposing world-views/opinions. Rather, allow people to vote directly on issues that they are passionate about. This leads into direct democracy and is arguably a whole lot more ethical than what we have now.
  - specialist 9y ago
    Agreed. Time and place matters. My (minor) successes on policy work happened when my whole tribe showed up to testify at hearings, repeated. To see how this works, attend any public hearing regarding puppies, kittens, kennels, etc. Whereas most hearings have no audience, attendees, the kittens pack the chambers. And the advocates will get their way. (I've done the street level protests. It feels nice, validating to be around others who agree with you. But mostly it just makes you a target.)
zo1 9y ago
I've often suggested a form of "humble-bundle"-like funding model for government functions. An application of a bit of free-market capitalism to an otherwise involuntary system. So if you wished to punish or scale-back or defund the police because they were preventing protesting using means that are too-violent for your liking, then you can simply reduce the funding that you allocate to policing in the next cycle. You vote with your tax money. Sure, this raises issues in that it disproportionately lets people that pay more tax have a larger say in issues. But I'm sure you could allocate tax-funding in terms of vote-dollars. So (TOTAL_TAX_COLLECTED / POPULATION_COUNT = YOUR_ALLOCATABLE_FUNDING). Also, we would probably have to have a solid discussion regarding the granularity of the system. Heck, employ some sort of hierarchical ideas, too. This is, after all, 2017 so why not use more algorithmic/tech-based solutions to an institution that is still stuck in archaic times. Oddly, I suggest this as a Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. Because I think it could potentially strike a good balance between the state's arguable necessary functions, the involuntary nature of taxation and the problems with democratic representation.
- specialist 9y ago
  A positive step would be publish all expenditures, appropriations, contracts, etc. By default. Bypassing the sunlighting/FOIA charade.
- abecedarius 9y ago
  There is a mechanism design to make it easier to fund public goods voluntarily: dominant assurance contracts.
mr_spothawk 9y ago
DM me?

whamlastxmas 9y ago

We need a better voting system than we do now. I strongly believe we'll see much better representation when we can vote outside the two party system without throwing away a vote.

OCASM 9y ago
That presumes people wouldn't vote in favor of authoritarian practices.

chillingeffect 9y ago

the key is the u.s. is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy (only in certain elections). the strategy is to support representatives whose opinions you trust and speak persuasively to people to bring them on your side. To do this effectively, you must listen to them and understand their concerns. there is no quick-fix. you must perform this work at a slow and steady pace your entire life, never feeling confident others can handle it (that their angry facebook memes will stop a demagogue).

emodendroket 9y ago
When you're given a choice of two candidates and neither of them represent your interests, and this happens time after time, I think it's fair to question the efficacy of the tack you're proposing.
- clort 9y ago
  In this situation, another person has to put themselves forward as a candidate. The failure of the society is when nobody else does.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Then you run into the systemic failures of the current political and electoral systems in the US (and some other countries with electoral systems dating back to a similar period) - that voting for a third-party candidate is to throw away your vote for the most acceptable of the two "provided" candidates, and practically guarantee that the least acceptable wins due to the divide in votes. There are, of course, a variety of electoral systems that allow and encourage third-party candidates to have a chance, but it's very, very hard to change an electoral system that got everyone in the political system where they are, to one which provides them new competition. See parallels with regulatory capture.
zo1 9y ago
As much as I agree that people need to be persistent, steady and patient in their political participation. This doesn't work so long as you're importing foreign-voters en-masse that are largely voting for a specific party, or voting for politicians as a way to reward them for allowing such importation to occur. Or, have some sort of middle ground between the large gap of representative and direct democracy. Sort of what Switzerland is doing whereby any movement can force the government, by virtue of having enough votes, into having a nation-wide referendum. And it has to be binding for the politicians, to the spirit and letter of the referendum results. Unlike what we're seeing in the UK now.

mr_spothawk 9y ago

> How can we divest learn to grow your food

mirimir 9y ago

I'm pretty sure that motorcycle helmets with active noise control would help a lot. Also maybe padded bodysuits. But there'd be downsides for protest groups to show up wearing such gear, no?

zo1 9y ago
I think protesting is a largely useless endeavor. It's nothing but a "show of force" in meat-space, that allows the possibility of violent encounters between individuals that have opposing world-views/opinions. Rather, allow people to vote directly on issues that they are passionate about. This leads into direct democracy and is arguably a whole lot more ethical than what we have now.
- specialist 9y ago
  Agreed. Time and place matters. My (minor) successes on policy work happened when my whole tribe showed up to testify at hearings, repeated. To see how this works, attend any public hearing regarding puppies, kittens, kennels, etc. Whereas most hearings have no audience, attendees, the kittens pack the chambers. And the advocates will get their way. (I've done the street level protests. It feels nice, validating to be around others who agree with you. But mostly it just makes you a target.)

zo1 9y ago

I've often suggested a form of "humble-bundle"-like funding model for government functions. An application of a bit of free-market capitalism to an otherwise involuntary system. So if you wished to punish or scale-back or defund the police because they were preventing protesting using means that are too-violent for your liking, then you can simply reduce the funding that you allocate to policing in the next cycle. You vote with your tax money. Sure, this raises issues in that it disproportionately lets people that pay more tax have a larger say in issues. But I'm sure you could allocate tax-funding in terms of vote-dollars. So (TOTAL_TAX_COLLECTED / POPULATION_COUNT = YOUR_ALLOCATABLE_FUNDING). Also, we would probably have to have a solid discussion regarding the granularity of the system. Heck, employ some sort of hierarchical ideas, too. This is, after all, 2017 so why not use more algorithmic/tech-based solutions to an institution that is still stuck in archaic times. Oddly, I suggest this as a Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. Because I think it could potentially strike a good balance between the state's arguable necessary functions, the involuntary nature of taxation and the problems with democratic representation.

specialist 9y ago
A positive step would be publish all expenditures, appropriations, contracts, etc. By default. Bypassing the sunlighting/FOIA charade.
abecedarius 9y ago
There is a mechanism design to make it easier to fund public goods voluntarily: dominant assurance contracts.

mr_spothawk 9y ago

DM me?