3 ms·

Yes, things will be very different. We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there. One is obviously worse than

Yes, things will be very different. We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there. One is obviously worse than the other, but neither are for the benefit of the American people. The polarizing antagonism between our political parties is a symbiotic relationship that keeps either one from having to own the consequences as both continue to feed off their common host. The party that gets elected determines which group of ultra-rich interests gets preferential treatment in looting the economy.

lisper 8y ago
That's because the advocates of corporate feudalism and fascism are out there working to promote their agendas, while the advocates of alternatives are wasting time whining on HN about the poor menu of choices instead of getting out there to fight for better choices. Good choices do not get handed to you on a silver platter any more than anything else in life. That doesn't change the fact that in a democracy, if enough people get together and FUCKING VOTE instead of sitting at home gazing at their navels and feeling sorry for themselves, they can change the world. BTW, love him or hate him, Donald Trump is the poster child for democracy in action. He did not get to be president because some shadowy Powers That Be decided to make him president. He got to be president because he convinced tens of millions of people to FUCKING VOTE for him.
- philipov 8y ago
  Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? Voting just doesn't happen to be very effective at doing that if you don't first make sure there are good candidates to vote for. Telling people to just vote is as good as believing in the power of markets to solve all ills; neither are a magic bullet. Getting people to understand that problem is part of the fight. If you would like to support a good candidate, you should consider donating to Ross Barkan for NY State Senate: http://rossbarkan.com/ http://rossbarkan.com/
  - lisper 8y ago
    > Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? You certainly left me with that impression when you wrote, "We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there." > Ross Barkan ... is a Democrat. So now you're asking me to donate to a corporate feudalist? (BTW, if you want to respond to that, I suggest you look up my donation record in the FEC database before you do.)
    - philipov 8y ago
      Ross Barkan is running as a Democrat, but he is not a Machine candidate; he is an independent who needs to edge out the person preferred by party leadership [so that he can take on the Republican incumbent without splitting the vote]. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a corporatist through and through. Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat, but look at the kind of games party leadership played against him to make sure their preferred candidate got the nomination. Don't pretend you don't understand the difference between running under a party and being part of party leadership. I happen to have a productized campaign contributions and expenditures database at my fingertips, so maybe I'll take you up on the offer to check. What state are you in? EDIT: Your donations are probably to candidates in California, and we don't have that normalized and loaded yet.
      - lisper 8y ago
        > Hillary Clinton Is not running AFAIK. > Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat No, he's an independent. > Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Elizabeth Warren already holds elected office and is not up for re-election this cycle. > Your donations are probably to candidates in California, Don't make assumptions. > we don't have that normalized and loaded yet. And what exactly do you expect me to do about that? I appreciate the fact that you are actually trying to move the needle, but you need to focus. Words matter.
        philipov 8y ago
        You were talking about about the Trump election. Please don't constantly move the goalposts on me.
jancsika 8y ago
> That only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice. Illusion of choice strongly implies that the choice does not matter in reality. Yet you go on to say this: > One is obviously worse than the other, but neither are for the benefit of the American people. If X predictably scrapes me up very badly but Y mortally wounds me, can you please explain how is choosing X over Y "an illusion of choice?" Edit: let me abstract out the question to avoid digressions. If X bad but Y is worse, can you please explain how is choosing X over Y "an illusion of choice?"
- philipov 8y ago
  The illusion of choice is caused by vested interests having strong influence over who can be elected, in order to exercise aggregate control over the economic outcome, by using their market-maker advantage. The illusion is that voting 'correctly' leads to better economic outcomes for the public, but while it is possible to obtain individual differences, in aggregate the effect is still going to be the rich getting richer. Of course, we would prefer it if the rich don't get richer so quickly that it kills the host, but that's not the choice people think they're making. It's like trying to beat the house at gambling. Individual losses are possible, but the house wins anyway.
- philipov 8y ago
  Here's a direct counterexample for your abstracted question: Consider getting forked in chess. The choice between losing a rook and losing a queen is illusory, even though the outcome is not the same. The choice is illusory because the fork is actually a forcing move aiming to take the rook. The choice was prepared so that your opponent knows what you will pick, with the intent that you pick it and they gain an advantage. Our two-party system functions as such a fork, multiplied by 100 million. Whether you think the Republicans or Democrats represent the queen or the rook is where Pick-Your-Own-Propaganda becomes a more effective tool than the easy-to-spot state-sponsored propaganda used in single-party socialist regimes such as the USSR or PRC.
  - jancsika 8y ago

lisper 8y ago

That's because the advocates of corporate feudalism and fascism are out there working to promote their agendas, while the advocates of alternatives are wasting time whining on HN about the poor menu of choices instead of getting out there to fight for better choices. Good choices do not get handed to you on a silver platter any more than anything else in life. That doesn't change the fact that in a democracy, if enough people get together and FUCKING VOTE instead of sitting at home gazing at their navels and feeling sorry for themselves, they can change the world. BTW, love him or hate him, Donald Trump is the poster child for democracy in action. He did not get to be president because some shadowy Powers That Be decided to make him president. He got to be president because he convinced tens of millions of people to FUCKING VOTE for him.

philipov 8y ago
Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? Voting just doesn't happen to be very effective at doing that if you don't first make sure there are good candidates to vote for. Telling people to just vote is as good as believing in the power of markets to solve all ills; neither are a magic bullet. Getting people to understand that problem is part of the fight. If you would like to support a good candidate, you should consider donating to Ross Barkan for NY State Senate: http://rossbarkan.com/ http://rossbarkan.com/
- lisper 8y ago
  > Who says I'm not fighting for better choices? You certainly left me with that impression when you wrote, "We get to choose between corporate feudalism and outright fascism. Great choices we have there." > Ross Barkan ... is a Democrat. So now you're asking me to donate to a corporate feudalist? (BTW, if you want to respond to that, I suggest you look up my donation record in the FEC database before you do.)
  - philipov 8y ago
    Ross Barkan is running as a Democrat, but he is not a Machine candidate; he is an independent who needs to edge out the person preferred by party leadership [so that he can take on the Republican incumbent without splitting the vote]. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a corporatist through and through. Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat, but look at the kind of games party leadership played against him to make sure their preferred candidate got the nomination. Don't pretend you don't understand the difference between running under a party and being part of party leadership. I happen to have a productized campaign contributions and expenditures database at my fingertips, so maybe I'll take you up on the offer to check. What state are you in? EDIT: Your donations are probably to candidates in California, and we don't have that normalized and loaded yet.
    - lisper 8y ago
      > Hillary Clinton Is not running AFAIK. > Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat No, he's an independent. > Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Elizabeth Warren already holds elected office and is not up for re-election this cycle. > Your donations are probably to candidates in California, Don't make assumptions. > we don't have that normalized and loaded yet. And what exactly do you expect me to do about that? I appreciate the fact that you are actually trying to move the needle, but you need to focus. Words matter.
      - philipov 8y ago
        You were talking about about the Trump election. Please don't constantly move the goalposts on me.

jancsika 8y ago

> That only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice. Illusion of choice strongly implies that the choice does not matter in reality. Yet you go on to say this: > One is obviously worse than the other, but neither are for the benefit of the American people. If X predictably scrapes me up very badly but Y mortally wounds me, can you please explain how is choosing X over Y "an illusion of choice?" Edit: let me abstract out the question to avoid digressions. If X bad but Y is worse, can you please explain how is choosing X over Y "an illusion of choice?"

philipov 8y ago
The illusion of choice is caused by vested interests having strong influence over who can be elected, in order to exercise aggregate control over the economic outcome, by using their market-maker advantage. The illusion is that voting 'correctly' leads to better economic outcomes for the public, but while it is possible to obtain individual differences, in aggregate the effect is still going to be the rich getting richer. Of course, we would prefer it if the rich don't get richer so quickly that it kills the host, but that's not the choice people think they're making. It's like trying to beat the house at gambling. Individual losses are possible, but the house wins anyway.
philipov 8y ago
Here's a direct counterexample for your abstracted question: Consider getting forked in chess. The choice between losing a rook and losing a queen is illusory, even though the outcome is not the same. The choice is illusory because the fork is actually a forcing move aiming to take the rook. The choice was prepared so that your opponent knows what you will pick, with the intent that you pick it and they gain an advantage. Our two-party system functions as such a fork, multiplied by 100 million. Whether you think the Republicans or Democrats represent the queen or the rook is where Pick-Your-Own-Propaganda becomes a more effective tool than the easy-to-spot state-sponsored propaganda used in single-party socialist regimes such as the USSR or PRC.
- jancsika 8y ago