4 ms·

Voting rarely works and seems almost impossible in reference to confidential information. We vote people in who get the most out of information being confident

Voting rarely works and seems almost impossible in reference to confidential information. We vote people in who get the most out of information being confidential when they want it to be confidential. Do you get to write laws that the public gets to vote on directly? No. Who does? The government as a whole. We just pick A or B and then A or B get to choose their vote, which may or may not be the same but often is similar on sensitive subjects (do not offend the main voting demographic as much as possible so I can get re-elected). Two wrongs don't make a right is a moral dilemma, but sometimes two wrongs are good for society. E.g. 911 was bad, but attacking Afghanistan was a good response and an appropriate one.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Yes sometimes two wrongs are better for society, see option #2 in my essay. I fully support that option and hope it's used a lot. But who are you to decide that voting rarely works and take action on that? That's a completely different level than saying in certain cases things are out of whack. I agree that the system is structurally broken, perhaps beyond repair. But attacking the way its put together is an act of war. A weird little act of war by a small group of anarchists, but an act of war nonetheless. There is a difference in kind between the Pentagon Papers and the State Department dump. One is for the better good where the leaker put himself at the mercy of the taxpayers. The other is a foreign agency expecting no reprisals at all and attacking the government in its entirity, not just one particular aspect of it. You'll not get a disagreement from me over how broken things are. I'm just asking each of us to pick one of the options. I don't see any other choices available. If I'm wrong, please explain how I am wrong. Would love to hear it.
- invisible 16y ago
  The flaw that you keep hitting is that you assume the government is just. You say that if someone exposes something confidential that they are bad because they broke the law. Law is an abstract thing created to better society and strive for justice, but it is anything but just. Often, it is used for personal/corporate benefit as well as political agendas (or even favors). Doing nothing results in no change - this is probably the most illogical argument of all. You also cannot say the government should go after them for releasing information that the government said shouldn't be released without explaining what exactly Wikileaks is harming in doing so. Lastly, you cannot go to war with the government over this because just as voting doesn't work, neither would rioting unless it were national (or say >= 20 states).
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    "he flaw that you keep hitting is that you assume the government is just." The heck if I do. I'm saying that I personally support the system of voting to enact change, that I believe the only arbitrer of whether something was justifiably held secret or not are my fellow voters, and that by denying us the right to participate in that agreed-upon state of affairs, it is a form of attack. It is not denied by keeping too many secrets -- secrets leak and we make choices. But it is, oddly enough, denied by dumping entire boatloads of secrets. A just government has nothing to do with it.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      Daniel, I think this has been a very productive discussion. However, I believe the only arbitrer of whether something was justifiably held secret or not are my fellow voters How can this ever happen if we the voters are never given any view into what is being kept secret? We may as well vote on "should we continue black ops project X-123?". No voter can have any opinion on the question by its very nature. It seems like this is getting us into a Catch-22.
      - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
        Instead of going deeper in this thread, I tried to wrap up and recap all of this in another article. Hope that is okay. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1979866 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1979866
- mindslight 16y ago
  > I agree that the system is structurally broken, perhaps beyond repair. From what I've seen, you believe that the system is broken in such a way that sufficient voting can fix it. I disagree. Instead of attempting to persuade you otherwise (as it seems you're pretty attached to this viewpoint presently), I'll merely ask - what hypothetical developments and observations would it take to make you believe that your vote is futile?
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    You are confusing results with process. I am very dubious that the results will work out well, ie, I do not necessarily think voting will fix anything. But the process of voting is another thing entirely. It holds society together. It gives us a sense of change. It is what allows me to live in a peaceful country. We might go another 200 years with the process of voting working well enough for civilization to prosper. And that's okay with me. Now if you are asking me under what conditions I would choose option 3? It would have to involve my decision that my family was under imminent threat of harm, or that a majority of my fellow citizens would feel that enough people were under threat to warrant action. I would not take up such a cause simply because I felt strongly one way or another. Mainly because I might be wrong. I'm very good at being wrong, done it a lot. Wouldn't want to make an individual choice to make that mistake with other people's lives unless I absolutely had to, although as a collective decision my threshold is much lower. This may sound awful, but really, I can't change the relationship from voting to the state. If I could, I would. I can observe that most folks who think they can are idiots and end up doing much more harm than good. They gin up a lot of outrage and passion and then it always ends up in violence and oppression, trading off one bunch of jerks for another. This is the clear pattern of history. I don't mean that personally, I have no idea what your opinion on the matter is.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Yes sometimes two wrongs are better for society, see option #2 in my essay. I fully support that option and hope it's used a lot. But who are you to decide that voting rarely works and take action on that? That's a completely different level than saying in certain cases things are out of whack. I agree that the system is structurally broken, perhaps beyond repair. But attacking the way its put together is an act of war. A weird little act of war by a small group of anarchists, but an act of war nonetheless. There is a difference in kind between the Pentagon Papers and the State Department dump. One is for the better good where the leaker put himself at the mercy of the taxpayers. The other is a foreign agency expecting no reprisals at all and attacking the government in its entirity, not just one particular aspect of it. You'll not get a disagreement from me over how broken things are. I'm just asking each of us to pick one of the options. I don't see any other choices available. If I'm wrong, please explain how I am wrong. Would love to hear it.

invisible 16y ago
The flaw that you keep hitting is that you assume the government is just. You say that if someone exposes something confidential that they are bad because they broke the law. Law is an abstract thing created to better society and strive for justice, but it is anything but just. Often, it is used for personal/corporate benefit as well as political agendas (or even favors). Doing nothing results in no change - this is probably the most illogical argument of all. You also cannot say the government should go after them for releasing information that the government said shouldn't be released without explaining what exactly Wikileaks is harming in doing so. Lastly, you cannot go to war with the government over this because just as voting doesn't work, neither would rioting unless it were national (or say >= 20 states).
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  "he flaw that you keep hitting is that you assume the government is just." The heck if I do. I'm saying that I personally support the system of voting to enact change, that I believe the only arbitrer of whether something was justifiably held secret or not are my fellow voters, and that by denying us the right to participate in that agreed-upon state of affairs, it is a form of attack. It is not denied by keeping too many secrets -- secrets leak and we make choices. But it is, oddly enough, denied by dumping entire boatloads of secrets. A just government has nothing to do with it.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Daniel, I think this has been a very productive discussion. However, I believe the only arbitrer of whether something was justifiably held secret or not are my fellow voters How can this ever happen if we the voters are never given any view into what is being kept secret? We may as well vote on "should we continue black ops project X-123?". No voter can have any opinion on the question by its very nature. It seems like this is getting us into a Catch-22.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      Instead of going deeper in this thread, I tried to wrap up and recap all of this in another article. Hope that is okay. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1979866 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1979866
mindslight 16y ago
> I agree that the system is structurally broken, perhaps beyond repair. From what I've seen, you believe that the system is broken in such a way that sufficient voting can fix it. I disagree. Instead of attempting to persuade you otherwise (as it seems you're pretty attached to this viewpoint presently), I'll merely ask - what hypothetical developments and observations would it take to make you believe that your vote is futile?
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  You are confusing results with process. I am very dubious that the results will work out well, ie, I do not necessarily think voting will fix anything. But the process of voting is another thing entirely. It holds society together. It gives us a sense of change. It is what allows me to live in a peaceful country. We might go another 200 years with the process of voting working well enough for civilization to prosper. And that's okay with me. Now if you are asking me under what conditions I would choose option 3? It would have to involve my decision that my family was under imminent threat of harm, or that a majority of my fellow citizens would feel that enough people were under threat to warrant action. I would not take up such a cause simply because I felt strongly one way or another. Mainly because I might be wrong. I'm very good at being wrong, done it a lot. Wouldn't want to make an individual choice to make that mistake with other people's lives unless I absolutely had to, although as a collective decision my threshold is much lower. This may sound awful, but really, I can't change the relationship from voting to the state. If I could, I would. I can observe that most folks who think they can are idiots and end up doing much more harm than good. They gin up a lot of outrage and passion and then it always ends up in violence and oppression, trading off one bunch of jerks for another. This is the clear pattern of history. I don't mean that personally, I have no idea what your opinion on the matter is.