4 ms·

Total nonsense. While it's true that in a liberal democracy the judiciary is supposed to be a check against the power of the legislative and executive branches,

Total nonsense. While it's true that in a liberal democracy the judiciary is supposed to be a check against the power of the legislative and executive branches, its mere existence doesn't give them carte blanche to ignore basic principles of sound democracy. These people are representatives. They are supposed to represent the interests of all their constituents. Deliberately redrawing the electoral map in an attempt to help voters only of their own party is a gross violation of basic democratic norms. It is putting party before country in the worst possible way.

fortythirteen 9y ago
Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101. What you're missing is that the laws being overturned here are themselves directly concerned with the democratic process.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? What do you think a constitutional amendment is?
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      >Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
      - dang 9y ago
        Please don't do flamewars on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        unclebucknasty 9y ago
        I didn't. At least, I don't believe I did. The GP was consistently ignoring the salient point that I and others repeatedly made; instead pursuing the same line of attack as if we hadn't pointed out the inconsistency. Hence, it seemed to me that he was not interested in engaging in honest dialogue, so I pointed to his approach to the discussion. There was no personal attack.
    - roywiggins 9y ago
      Well, constitutional amendments aren't laws, for a start.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Yes, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and amendments to that law are themselves laws. They aren't statutes, which are a lesser and more-common form of law.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please not do flamewars on Hacker News? especially political flamewars? We're hoping for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
indubitable 9y ago
All political systems with a modicum of success, including ours, have worked to align interests without relying on a moral compass. Magnetic north tends to wobble quite a bit more in politics. The idea of our republic is that the only responsibility of people would be to elect congressmen they feel will represent them, or continue doing so. And similarly, to not reelect people that do not represent them. This thus coerces representatives into representing the people for fear of finding themselves without seat come next election campaign. That this has failed is in fault a part of the system, but largely our own fault. You can see this very thread degenerating into partisanship. And this partisanship ensures that representatives don't actually need to worry about representing the people that put them into office. All they need to do is make the people scared enough of the alternative that they'll vote against their self interest 'because it's better than the alternative.' The most recent election was quite a radical example, which I suspect will only get more extreme in elections to come. How many people genuinely felt Hillary was the sort of person that would truly represent them and their beliefs? How many people voted for her because they were terrified instead of Trump? And vice versa for those that voted for Trump and their terror of Clinton as opposed to those voting with belief Trump would effectively represent them? It's also the same reason our 'representatives' pander left and right to corporations and special interests. We do a pretty awful job at being swayed by anything resembling merit, but massive advertising, attack ads, and other stuff is what really gets us going. Corporations and special interests provide the "donations" to fund those campaigns. The average voter does not. They simply go out and emotionally, or tribally, cast their votes, get their sticker and 6 pack, and go home and root for their team like a sports game - much to the benefit of the 'players.'
- stupidcar 9y ago
  > All political systems with a modicum of success, including ours, have worked to align interests without relying on a moral compass. I would agree with most of what you said, particularly your diagnosis of the dysfunctions of the US system, but this part simply isn't true. There are plenty of successful democracies (almost all in central and northern Europe, admittedly) where political partisanship exists within a moral framework, and politicians adhere to certain moral and democratic norms, even when it is against their immediate interests to do so. I think it's easy to overgeneralise the problems of the closest example to hand as being representative of all, and being fundamental and unavoidable limitations of human nature. But there are always counter-examples. There are always places where government actually delivers to people, and where the political system avoids the worst systemic dysfunctions that plague other regimes. I'm not sure the US will ever reform its political system to achieve the same results, but, at the very least, we shouldn't let politicians (and the people who elect them) off the hook for underperforming vs. what we know is possible.
dang 9y ago
Would you please stop posting political rants to HN? Assuming you're 100% right, it doesn't justify the damage of taking HN threads into flamewar red. Moreover such discussions are always all the same, which means they don't gratify intellectual curiosity, which means they're off topic here. It's complicated, of course, when the topic is itself politicized. But it's possible—and because possible, necessary—to discuss it without getting either generic or uncivil. You've posted some excellent comments but I also see quite a few in which you've taken swipes at the person or comment you're replying to. That's against the rules here. We have these rules because of long experience with what fosters discussion quality and what degrades it. If you'd read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart going forward, we'd really appreciate it.
- stupidcar 9y ago
  I'm sure I've crossed the line into personal swipes before — who hasn't, at one time or another? I get emotional about this stuff because I care about it, and I'll admit it angers me to see people spreading ideas that I consider not just wrong, but dangerously so. When that happens, its difficult to respond like some perfect critical-thinking debate bot. But I'm somewhat baffled that you consider what I posted in this case a "rant". Fair enough, saying "total nonsense" was probably unnecessary, but it is still a comment on the quality of the argument, not upon the person, and as such seems to be within the rules. As for the rest, what exactly is uncivil about it? I absolutely would make these same arguments face-to-face if somebody made the original argument. In fact, I'd be probably be rather less civil about it in person. I consider the post I responded to to be spreading a genuinely dangerous idea. Such ideas need to be rebutted, and, practically speaking, the force of the rhetoric needs to be increased commensurate with the dangerousness of the idea, in order to avoid giving an impression of false equivalence between it and other, more harmless ones. If it isn't commensurate, then surely that is what the community moderation is for? But in this case you seem to have acted unilaterally to hide my post. I'm all for HN to be a bastion of constructive discussion. But that shouldn't be an excuse to allow toxic ideas to go unchallenged, or to be treated with a degree of respect that they do not deserve. The failure of intellectuals to vigorously contest destructive ideas, confining their criticism to a passionless and academic vernacular, has been a recurring historical problem. In the long term, it contributes directly to the rise of situations and movements that curtail any debate, anodyne or otherwise. HN does not exist in a political vacuum. The type of discussion you say you want to foster is only possible because of a set of political principles and circumstances that are by no means "normal", historically speaking. Failing to defend those principles, or censoring those who do, helps those who would destroy them, and will harm HN eventually.

fortythirteen 9y ago

Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101.

unclebucknasty 9y ago
>Do you have any idea how many laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional? It's U.S. Government 101. What you're missing is that the laws being overturned here are themselves directly concerned with the democratic process.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? What do you think a constitutional amendment is?
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    >Are you surprised that the legislature creates laws about how the democracy functions? You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
    - dang 9y ago
      Please don't do flamewars on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - unclebucknasty 9y ago
        I didn't. At least, I don't believe I did. The GP was consistently ignoring the salient point that I and others repeatedly made; instead pursuing the same line of attack as if we hadn't pointed out the inconsistency. Hence, it seemed to me that he was not interested in engaging in honest dialogue, so I pointed to his approach to the discussion. There was no personal attack.
  - roywiggins 9y ago
    Well, constitutional amendments aren't laws, for a start.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Yes, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and amendments to that law are themselves laws. They aren't statutes, which are a lesser and more-common form of law.
dang 9y ago
Would you please not do flamewars on Hacker News? especially political flamewars? We're hoping for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

indubitable 9y ago

All political systems with a modicum of success, including ours, have worked to align interests without relying on a moral compass. Magnetic north tends to wobble quite a bit more in politics. The idea of our republic is that the only responsibility of people would be to elect congressmen they feel will represent them, or continue doing so. And similarly, to not reelect people that do not represent them. This thus coerces representatives into representing the people for fear of finding themselves without seat come next election campaign. That this has failed is in fault a part of the system, but largely our own fault. You can see this very thread degenerating into partisanship. And this partisanship ensures that representatives don't actually need to worry about representing the people that put them into office. All they need to do is make the people scared enough of the alternative that they'll vote against their self interest 'because it's better than the alternative.' The most recent election was quite a radical example, which I suspect will only get more extreme in elections to come. How many people genuinely felt Hillary was the sort of person that would truly represent them and their beliefs? How many people voted for her because they were terrified instead of Trump? And vice versa for those that voted for Trump and their terror of Clinton as opposed to those voting with belief Trump would effectively represent them? It's also the same reason our 'representatives' pander left and right to corporations and special interests. We do a pretty awful job at being swayed by anything resembling merit, but massive advertising, attack ads, and other stuff is what really gets us going. Corporations and special interests provide the "donations" to fund those campaigns. The average voter does not. They simply go out and emotionally, or tribally, cast their votes, get their sticker and 6 pack, and go home and root for their team like a sports game - much to the benefit of the 'players.'

stupidcar 9y ago
> All political systems with a modicum of success, including ours, have worked to align interests without relying on a moral compass. I would agree with most of what you said, particularly your diagnosis of the dysfunctions of the US system, but this part simply isn't true. There are plenty of successful democracies (almost all in central and northern Europe, admittedly) where political partisanship exists within a moral framework, and politicians adhere to certain moral and democratic norms, even when it is against their immediate interests to do so. I think it's easy to overgeneralise the problems of the closest example to hand as being representative of all, and being fundamental and unavoidable limitations of human nature. But there are always counter-examples. There are always places where government actually delivers to people, and where the political system avoids the worst systemic dysfunctions that plague other regimes. I'm not sure the US will ever reform its political system to achieve the same results, but, at the very least, we shouldn't let politicians (and the people who elect them) off the hook for underperforming vs. what we know is possible.

dang 9y ago

Would you please stop posting political rants to HN? Assuming you're 100% right, it doesn't justify the damage of taking HN threads into flamewar red. Moreover such discussions are always all the same, which means they don't gratify intellectual curiosity, which means they're off topic here. It's complicated, of course, when the topic is itself politicized. But it's possible—and because possible, necessary—to discuss it without getting either generic or uncivil. You've posted some excellent comments but I also see quite a few in which you've taken swipes at the person or comment you're replying to. That's against the rules here. We have these rules because of long experience with what fosters discussion quality and what degrades it. If you'd read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart going forward, we'd really appreciate it.

stupidcar 9y ago
I'm sure I've crossed the line into personal swipes before — who hasn't, at one time or another? I get emotional about this stuff because I care about it, and I'll admit it angers me to see people spreading ideas that I consider not just wrong, but dangerously so. When that happens, its difficult to respond like some perfect critical-thinking debate bot. But I'm somewhat baffled that you consider what I posted in this case a "rant". Fair enough, saying "total nonsense" was probably unnecessary, but it is still a comment on the quality of the argument, not upon the person, and as such seems to be within the rules. As for the rest, what exactly is uncivil about it? I absolutely would make these same arguments face-to-face if somebody made the original argument. In fact, I'd be probably be rather less civil about it in person. I consider the post I responded to to be spreading a genuinely dangerous idea. Such ideas need to be rebutted, and, practically speaking, the force of the rhetoric needs to be increased commensurate with the dangerousness of the idea, in order to avoid giving an impression of false equivalence between it and other, more harmless ones. If it isn't commensurate, then surely that is what the community moderation is for? But in this case you seem to have acted unilaterally to hide my post. I'm all for HN to be a bastion of constructive discussion. But that shouldn't be an excuse to allow toxic ideas to go unchallenged, or to be treated with a degree of respect that they do not deserve. The failure of intellectuals to vigorously contest destructive ideas, confining their criticism to a passionless and academic vernacular, has been a recurring historical problem. In the long term, it contributes directly to the rise of situations and movements that curtail any debate, anodyne or otherwise. HN does not exist in a political vacuum. The type of discussion you say you want to foster is only possible because of a set of political principles and circumstances that are by no means "normal", historically speaking. Failing to defend those principles, or censoring those who do, helps those who would destroy them, and will harm HN eventually.