6 ms·

This is the sort of thing predicted by Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed", the basic premise of which is that short term leaders as found in

This is the sort of thing predicted by Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed", the basic premise of which is that short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property The evidence shows the opposite. Political leaders (in any system) want to act in the short term. Democracies simply constrain them. No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales. (Democracies’ rotation of leaders also allows for fixing mistakes. Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions.)
- majewsky 7y ago
  > Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions. I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country It characterises humans in general. It’s difficult for leaders to admit mistake. Political change generally increments when leaders are removed from power.
  - Retric 7y ago
    The difference is when one party doubles down on unpopular choices they become more likely to be voted out of office. This is direct communication between the populace and rulers. In single party systems, dictatorships, etc leaders are frequently acting on really bad information or simply don’t feel the need to back down. Thus, such things tend to build up and compound over time.
- XuMiao 7y ago
  Unfortunately Capitalism is not Democracy. Capitalism serves a set of dictators instead of one dictator.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales. A dictator that survives the first two years is more likely than not to die in power. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, The Logic of Political Survival. That’s not a guarantee of lifetime tenure but it’s pretty good, and you don’t get to be dictator, or last the first two years without being excellent at the fight for political survival. Regarding mistakes and bad decisions democracies may be a bit better than dictatorships but it’s not a massive difference. When democracies go to war they mean it. Dictatorships are a lot more likely to realise they made a mistake and back down. Democracy’s saving grace is in the proportion of the population that has power over politics, nowhere else. Dictators are great at pleasing the people they need to please to stay in power, it’s just that’s less than 10,000 people, sometimes less than 1,000.
csb6 7y ago
We've come full circle. I never thought I would see someone unironically support monarchy in 2019, much less cite Hans Hermann Hope as an actual source. Hacker News! A place for hackers, people who want freedom to explore new technologies, disrupt industries, and evaluate other hackers based on their merit alone. God the Internet has gone downhill. Democracy is messy and complicated, but lifetime leaders are not the right answer and do not align with hacker culture at all.
- Bakary 7y ago
  Isn't it contradictory to consider yourself an arbiter of which opinions hackers should be allowed to have? The idea that the Internet has gone downhill because of increased participation is inherently elitist. In any case, this forum is hosted on a website whose primary goal is to help tech minded people become rich and attain the top of the neo-liberal hierarchy. So much for the cyberpunk fantasy...
  - csb6 7y ago
    No one person is the "arbiter" of what hackers should think. That's ridiculous. But cultural norms exist. The hacker subculture (which also exists) has norms that trend towards making decisions based on merit and skill, while also emphasizing freedom. I don't think it is controversial to associate these attributes with hackers. And it is not controversial to say that these attributes are incompatible with the rule of an absolute monarch, who by definition rules unilaterally no matter the merit of his/her actions. What really bothers me is this implication that increased participation always means a better website. I mean come on. This person is proposing a monarchy! What year is this, 1650? It is great to have a diversity of opinions, but no one is obligated to sit on the sidelines and say nothing when someone else gives a hot take straight out of Leviathan. Everyone is free to express their opinion on this site, but we are all free to call out B.S. when we see B.S.
    - Bakary 7y ago
      I think your perspective makes sense, and I agree with it for the most part. I just feel that there is an underlying tension at the root of it. Although hacker culture is mostly as you describe it, I would say that many hackers are also contributing to making the world more monarchical, even if they might not perceive their actions as such. The way tech is changing society and the way tech companies are evolving is pointing the way towards a resurgence of a somewhat feudalistic power structure with capital-owners at the helm supported by a caste of highly educated or skilled professionals, and the remainder of the population in dire economic straits. That's why the "It's [current year]!" argument rings hollow to me. Most hackers will become either capital owners or part of the higher caste, because they will have skills that make them economically adaptable.[0] The largest part of their work ultimately helps increase inequality since whatever productivity gains are largely captured by the new feudal lords, so to speak. This is hardly an original or profound insight since wages have been stagnating for years and inequality has been skyrocketing. With automation, something identical to absolute monarchy will take place in all but name. A revolution will then be impossible since the Panopticon will have become real, the Third Estate will no longer be needed at all, and means of exchange will eventually become digitized. You end up with hackers who have the luxury to discuss freedom and the big bad System even as they pauperize most of the population on Earth and contribute to that same system. Not every hacker does of course, but enough do to make it a concern. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/productivity-inequality-wages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/producti...
sobani 7y ago
I'd suggest you read https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f..., especially chapter 2: Are traditional monarchies better places to live? The most hilarious counterexample is the part about "the dictator of Burma" who was obsessed with the number 'nine'. The saddest is the time King Leopold was the private owner of Congo.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property The evidence shows the opposite. Political leaders (in any system) want to act in the short term. Democracies simply constrain them. No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales. (Democracies’ rotation of leaders also allows for fixing mistakes. Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions.)

majewsky 7y ago
> Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions. I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country It characterises humans in general. It’s difficult for leaders to admit mistake. Political change generally increments when leaders are removed from power.
- Retric 7y ago
  The difference is when one party doubles down on unpopular choices they become more likely to be voted out of office. This is direct communication between the populace and rulers. In single party systems, dictatorships, etc leaders are frequently acting on really bad information or simply don’t feel the need to back down. Thus, such things tend to build up and compound over time.
XuMiao 7y ago
Unfortunately Capitalism is not Democracy. Capitalism serves a set of dictators instead of one dictator.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales. A dictator that survives the first two years is more likely than not to die in power. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, The Logic of Political Survival. That’s not a guarantee of lifetime tenure but it’s pretty good, and you don’t get to be dictator, or last the first two years without being excellent at the fight for political survival. Regarding mistakes and bad decisions democracies may be a bit better than dictatorships but it’s not a massive difference. When democracies go to war they mean it. Dictatorships are a lot more likely to realise they made a mistake and back down. Democracy’s saving grace is in the proportion of the population that has power over politics, nowhere else. Dictators are great at pleasing the people they need to please to stay in power, it’s just that’s less than 10,000 people, sometimes less than 1,000.

csb6 7y ago

We've come full circle. I never thought I would see someone unironically support monarchy in 2019, much less cite Hans Hermann Hope as an actual source. Hacker News! A place for hackers, people who want freedom to explore new technologies, disrupt industries, and evaluate other hackers based on their merit alone. God the Internet has gone downhill. Democracy is messy and complicated, but lifetime leaders are not the right answer and do not align with hacker culture at all.

Bakary 7y ago
Isn't it contradictory to consider yourself an arbiter of which opinions hackers should be allowed to have? The idea that the Internet has gone downhill because of increased participation is inherently elitist. In any case, this forum is hosted on a website whose primary goal is to help tech minded people become rich and attain the top of the neo-liberal hierarchy. So much for the cyberpunk fantasy...
- csb6 7y ago
  No one person is the "arbiter" of what hackers should think. That's ridiculous. But cultural norms exist. The hacker subculture (which also exists) has norms that trend towards making decisions based on merit and skill, while also emphasizing freedom. I don't think it is controversial to associate these attributes with hackers. And it is not controversial to say that these attributes are incompatible with the rule of an absolute monarch, who by definition rules unilaterally no matter the merit of his/her actions. What really bothers me is this implication that increased participation always means a better website. I mean come on. This person is proposing a monarchy! What year is this, 1650? It is great to have a diversity of opinions, but no one is obligated to sit on the sidelines and say nothing when someone else gives a hot take straight out of Leviathan. Everyone is free to express their opinion on this site, but we are all free to call out B.S. when we see B.S.
  - Bakary 7y ago
    I think your perspective makes sense, and I agree with it for the most part. I just feel that there is an underlying tension at the root of it. Although hacker culture is mostly as you describe it, I would say that many hackers are also contributing to making the world more monarchical, even if they might not perceive their actions as such. The way tech is changing society and the way tech companies are evolving is pointing the way towards a resurgence of a somewhat feudalistic power structure with capital-owners at the helm supported by a caste of highly educated or skilled professionals, and the remainder of the population in dire economic straits. That's why the "It's [current year]!" argument rings hollow to me. Most hackers will become either capital owners or part of the higher caste, because they will have skills that make them economically adaptable.[0] The largest part of their work ultimately helps increase inequality since whatever productivity gains are largely captured by the new feudal lords, so to speak. This is hardly an original or profound insight since wages have been stagnating for years and inequality has been skyrocketing. With automation, something identical to absolute monarchy will take place in all but name. A revolution will then be impossible since the Panopticon will have become real, the Third Estate will no longer be needed at all, and means of exchange will eventually become digitized. You end up with hackers who have the luxury to discuss freedom and the big bad System even as they pauperize most of the population on Earth and contribute to that same system. Not every hacker does of course, but enough do to make it a concern. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/productivity-inequality-wages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/business/economy/producti...

sobani 7y ago

I'd suggest you read https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-f..., especially chapter 2: Are traditional monarchies better places to live? The most hilarious counterexample is the part about "the dictator of Burma" who was obsessed with the number 'nine'. The saddest is the time King Leopold was the private owner of Congo.