5 ms·

It's purely democratic. Median age of Germans is 48 and most old people just want cheap gas to heat their houses. They are still offline and don't care about th

by rmoriz 8y ago

It's purely democratic. Median age of Germans is 48 and most old people just want cheap gas to heat their houses. They are still offline and don't care about the pyramid scheme /dba/ welfare state.

I_am_tiberius 8y ago
You mean "It's poorly democratic" and not "It's purely democratic", right?
- skrebbel 8y ago
  I'm seriously baffled about the amount of HN commenters, who I'd assume are highly educated, who think that democracy doesn't work if they don't agree with every law produced by it.
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    Education and intelligence don’t imply any particular insight into our motivations or feelings. It’s also true that an education focused on programming and tech in general is an extremely limited focus unrelated to politics. Then there’s just the reality that people understand on some level that “undemocrstic” is more emotive than “I don’t like this outcome and wish it hadn’t happened.” Finally a lot of people seem to hav a very warped idea about how the systems they live in really work, and when they find themselves on the wrong side of that system they assume the system isn’t working as intended. Now I hate this new law, I think it needs to die, but I recognize that a democratic process created it. I also recognize that “democratic process” includes cronyism, special interests, ignorant and venal politicians, and the rule of a minority of powerful people. What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. In short, people here should be given a free copy of The Dictator’s Handbook when they sign up, and s quiz on the contents before they’re allowed to comment on political threads.
    - anoncake 8y ago
      Democracy is rule of the people. If the democratic process leads to the rule of a minority of powerful people, isnt it valid to say its actually undemocratic, or at least insufficiently democratic?
      - Pharmakon 8y ago
        >What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. Again, this is where you’re running into problems. You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. The DPRK has “democratic” in the name, but so what? Even in less blatant departures from the spirit of the thing, democracy in practice takes many forms. No one (I hope) thinks they live in an Athenian democracy, so what kind of democracy are we talking about? Usually it’s a buzzword interchangeable with “free society” which is another buzzword. For example, the U.S. styles itself as the world’s leading democracy, but that’s branding again. In reality it is nominally a federated system of indirect representative republics. The U.K. also considers itself a leading democracy, but in practice we’re a constitutional monarchy where power mostly rests in a parliamentary system and civil service. In short, talking only in terms of buzzwords means that we can project whatever desires we want on “democracy” or “freedom” when the reality is complex.
        anoncake 8y ago
        > You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. I have no idea how you got that idea considering I just wrote that the systems we call democracies may not be all that democratic in reality.
        Pharmakon 8y ago
        That’s not what I’m saying. Rather it’s a problem that “democratic” is largely an unhelpful term which obscures rather than reveals anything about a political system.
  - I_am_tiberius 8y ago
    If you're referring to me, I don't think like you described. However, I think representative democracy like we have it now is not suitable for a law like the one we're discussing. I want to be represented by experts and not by people who are ~50 years old and who are barely using the Internet.
  - natch 8y ago
    Who’s saying it doesn’t work? It works, poorly. As in, with poor results. Which is exactly how it does work when it is working. Almost invariably the results are poor because so many of the voters are ignorant.
  - philpem 8y ago
    The difficulty is when the elected representatives decide unilaterally to pursue their own goals and aims, putting party before country and constituents. As evidenced by Merkel and Voss's reported comments (which were in the Wired article on this): "The protesters are a bunch of people Google paid off to protest. Every one of them has a pay cheque". Which to me sounds a lot like the oft-quoted line from the other side: "George Soros is bankrolling this".

by rmoriz 8y ago

It's purely democratic. Median age of Germans is 48 and most old people just want cheap gas to heat their houses. They are still offline and don't care about the pyramid scheme /dba/ welfare state.

I_am_tiberius 8y ago

You mean "It's poorly democratic" and not "It's purely democratic", right?

skrebbel 8y ago
I'm seriously baffled about the amount of HN commenters, who I'd assume are highly educated, who think that democracy doesn't work if they don't agree with every law produced by it.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  Education and intelligence don’t imply any particular insight into our motivations or feelings. It’s also true that an education focused on programming and tech in general is an extremely limited focus unrelated to politics. Then there’s just the reality that people understand on some level that “undemocrstic” is more emotive than “I don’t like this outcome and wish it hadn’t happened.” Finally a lot of people seem to hav a very warped idea about how the systems they live in really work, and when they find themselves on the wrong side of that system they assume the system isn’t working as intended. Now I hate this new law, I think it needs to die, but I recognize that a democratic process created it. I also recognize that “democratic process” includes cronyism, special interests, ignorant and venal politicians, and the rule of a minority of powerful people. What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. In short, people here should be given a free copy of The Dictator’s Handbook when they sign up, and s quiz on the contents before they’re allowed to comment on political threads.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    Democracy is rule of the people. If the democratic process leads to the rule of a minority of powerful people, isnt it valid to say its actually undemocratic, or at least insufficiently democratic?
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      >What I find many times here is a belief in pure systems ruled by logic and strict interpretations of language (again, programmer logic), while real life and politics are nothing like that. Again, this is where you’re running into problems. You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. The DPRK has “democratic” in the name, but so what? Even in less blatant departures from the spirit of the thing, democracy in practice takes many forms. No one (I hope) thinks they live in an Athenian democracy, so what kind of democracy are we talking about? Usually it’s a buzzword interchangeable with “free society” which is another buzzword. For example, the U.S. styles itself as the world’s leading democracy, but that’s branding again. In reality it is nominally a federated system of indirect representative republics. The U.K. also considers itself a leading democracy, but in practice we’re a constitutional monarchy where power mostly rests in a parliamentary system and civil service. In short, talking only in terms of buzzwords means that we can project whatever desires we want on “democracy” or “freedom” when the reality is complex.
      - anoncake 8y ago
        > You’re confusing among other things, the branding with the reality. I have no idea how you got that idea considering I just wrote that the systems we call democracies may not be all that democratic in reality.
        Pharmakon 8y ago
        That’s not what I’m saying. Rather it’s a problem that “democratic” is largely an unhelpful term which obscures rather than reveals anything about a political system.
- I_am_tiberius 8y ago
  If you're referring to me, I don't think like you described. However, I think representative democracy like we have it now is not suitable for a law like the one we're discussing. I want to be represented by experts and not by people who are ~50 years old and who are barely using the Internet.
- natch 8y ago
  Who’s saying it doesn’t work? It works, poorly. As in, with poor results. Which is exactly how it does work when it is working. Almost invariably the results are poor because so many of the voters are ignorant.
- philpem 8y ago
  The difficulty is when the elected representatives decide unilaterally to pursue their own goals and aims, putting party before country and constituents. As evidenced by Merkel and Voss's reported comments (which were in the Wired article on this): "The protesters are a bunch of people Google paid off to protest. Every one of them has a pay cheque". Which to me sounds a lot like the oft-quoted line from the other side: "George Soros is bankrolling this".