5 ms·

> Rather than begging an elite to help us, we work for collective wealth and take care of each other. Good idea. Perhaps we should vote for a group of people t

> Rather than begging an elite to help us, we work for collective wealth and take care of each other. Good idea. Perhaps we should vote for a group of people to coordinate this action.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Are you mocking me? Why?
- abeppu 8y ago
  I don't want to mock this idea, but I do think the question of how people should coordinate their efforts to directly help each other, and how to use their resources is an important one. How should the people attempt to ensure that their efforts to help each other are comprehensive, efficient, fair, etc? How should we attempt to make sure our help is targeted at the needs that are most important? For people raised in a society where government plays a large role, it's hard to imagine a solution which we wouldn't perceive as government.
  - RealityVoid 8y ago
    All long history, there have been many leaders who were not elected but became leaders through their initiatives, deeds, efficiency, strength. So assuming that leaders are always voted is, in my opinion, wrong. Just to clarify, I do not have a bone to pick with democracy, but it obviously is not the only source of leadership, nor the only source of positive leadership.
    - abeppu 8y ago
      To be clear, my question about Taylor Alexander's suggestion is not about alternatives to democracy (of which I'm sure we're all aware of examples), but alternatives to "government". > I believe we must solve them ourselves directly, not indirectly through government. And perhaps to refine the question for a HN audience, I'll note that game theory, social choice theory etc, offer opportunities for technical insights to potentially play a part in answering this. But only a part.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  1. Yes, angostura is mocking you. 2. Because your idea is unworkable for running a nation of 300 million people. It's not even workable for running a medium-sized town. You need coordination. That thing that coordinates winds up being a government. Now, you are right that the answer isn't going to come from government. We need something more. But we still need government.
- pas 8y ago
  Division of labor, specialization. People don't cry for help, they want efficiency. Healthcare, infrastructure (transportation), education and social services (nursery, kindergarten, school), research, disaster relief, environmental protection, consumer safety standards (from food to communications and financial services), etc. are all best done on a larger level. And all of it needs coordination. And of course there are hundreds of millions of people that don't accept this. Are they stupid? Maybe. Are they ignorant? Maybe. Do they have serious counter-arguments? Maybe. Are they constructive? Well, not really, it seems. We seem to be facing a rather serious regression toward tribal "standards" (old conservative values like purity, respect for authority, might makes right as only the strong survives, and we're in very hard times, we need to follow the strong, etc) via populism. Why? Because the social psyche is very susceptible to this, because there are real problems (growing inequality, serious changes due to globalization, automation clearing the middle-jobs, global warming).

> Rather than begging an elite to help us, we work for collective wealth and take care of each other. Good idea. Perhaps we should vote for a group of people to coordinate this action.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

Are you mocking me? Why?

abeppu 8y ago
I don't want to mock this idea, but I do think the question of how people should coordinate their efforts to directly help each other, and how to use their resources is an important one. How should the people attempt to ensure that their efforts to help each other are comprehensive, efficient, fair, etc? How should we attempt to make sure our help is targeted at the needs that are most important? For people raised in a society where government plays a large role, it's hard to imagine a solution which we wouldn't perceive as government.
- RealityVoid 8y ago
  All long history, there have been many leaders who were not elected but became leaders through their initiatives, deeds, efficiency, strength. So assuming that leaders are always voted is, in my opinion, wrong. Just to clarify, I do not have a bone to pick with democracy, but it obviously is not the only source of leadership, nor the only source of positive leadership.
  - abeppu 8y ago
    To be clear, my question about Taylor Alexander's suggestion is not about alternatives to democracy (of which I'm sure we're all aware of examples), but alternatives to "government". > I believe we must solve them ourselves directly, not indirectly through government. And perhaps to refine the question for a HN audience, I'll note that game theory, social choice theory etc, offer opportunities for technical insights to potentially play a part in answering this. But only a part.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
1. Yes, angostura is mocking you. 2. Because your idea is unworkable for running a nation of 300 million people. It's not even workable for running a medium-sized town. You need coordination. That thing that coordinates winds up being a government. Now, you are right that the answer isn't going to come from government. We need something more. But we still need government.
pas 8y ago
Division of labor, specialization. People don't cry for help, they want efficiency. Healthcare, infrastructure (transportation), education and social services (nursery, kindergarten, school), research, disaster relief, environmental protection, consumer safety standards (from food to communications and financial services), etc. are all best done on a larger level. And all of it needs coordination. And of course there are hundreds of millions of people that don't accept this. Are they stupid? Maybe. Are they ignorant? Maybe. Do they have serious counter-arguments? Maybe. Are they constructive? Well, not really, it seems. We seem to be facing a rather serious regression toward tribal "standards" (old conservative values like purity, respect for authority, might makes right as only the strong survives, and we're in very hard times, we need to follow the strong, etc) via populism. Why? Because the social psyche is very susceptible to this, because there are real problems (growing inequality, serious changes due to globalization, automation clearing the middle-jobs, global warming).