5 ms·

It’s probably mentioning Trump that gets you downvoted. He definitely leans authoritarian on many issues, but so do most of the democrats he’s running against i

It’s probably mentioning Trump that gets you downvoted. He definitely leans authoritarian on many issues, but so do most of the democrats he’s running against in 2020. Where these two flavors of authoritarian differ is the issues they are authoritarian on. Whether or not someone downvotes you probably has most to do with which issues they are most concerned about with respect to the authoritarian we get. If someone is more worried about Democrat authoritarians than Trump-flavored authoritarianism then it’s likely they’d downvote you. Having lived in China for several years, my opinion is that Warren and Sanders are probably the two politicians pushing big government ideas that if unchecked are most likely to devolve into something resembling Chinese style authoritarianism. Both are the "I know what's best for you" central planner fallacy. Unfortunately, that that think they know what's best for you are never the ones that pay the price for being wrong. China is a place where big government is never wrong and the population is disarmed just in case they disagree with the government. Anyways, that’s my theory on the downvoting you’re getting. That said, I wouldn’t worry too much about downvotes on HN these days. It’s become far more ideological on here in the past few years, that it's highly likely that you’re going to encounter downvotes out of disagreement. With tech being mainstream and a major social justice battleground, the HN on yesteryear is long gone. We've had several years of eternal september by now.

kmonsen 7y ago
This is just not true. Authoritarian governments are kept in check by free speech and openness of government. Sanders and Warren are clearly if favor of citizens being in charge of the government.
- malandrew 7y ago
  "citizens" is a term vague to the point of meaninglessness. Not sure what you're definition you're using, but pretty much all authoritarian communist governments in the 20th and 21st century had citizens in charge of the government. That didn't do a whole lot of good for the citizens that were not in charge. The DPRK is pretty much the only one where the responsibility of who was in charge was passed on from parent to child.
  - kmonsen 7y ago
    I mean all citizen, not some special citizens or a few citizens. Of course if the power is in the hands of the few it doesn't matter at all which label you put on them.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      Basically every form of government that has ever existed at scale has devolved into an oligarchy. I know of none where "all citizen [sic], not some special citizens or a few citizens" are in power. A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens". I haven't seen a single proposal from them that would have then operating any differently from any previous executive administration this country has seen since 1776. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
      - andrekandre 7y ago
        > A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens" then what is the alternative that you propose?
        malandrew 7y ago
        I'm not proposing an alternative. I'm happy with our Constitution and our three branches of government with checks and balances enforced. We have the 1st and 2nd amendment as a Plan A and the Plan B, respectively, to prevent tyranny.
      - kmonsen 7y ago
        No it would not, both Warren and Sanders are strong supporters of transparency and voting rights and want to reign in lobbying and power of big corporations.
loceng 7y ago
People feeling a quick reward by a dopamine hit of clicking the downvote certainly isn't based on someone's political leanings, who they like or dislike, and certainly is due to laziness - regardless of whatever labels you give yourself. Likewise, Trump's behaviour is in a completely different league than what any other politician in the US has presented - regardless if self-labeling as Democratic or Republican; albeit it is becoming more and more clear who is a disgrace to humanity. Warren I'm not sure of, with Sanders I agree - at least with the Federal Jobs Guarantee is the wrong solution because it kills the power and efficiency that capitalism allows in a free market, fluid system - that efficiency which requires hierarchy of expertise to lead and teach, and that require making micro and macro decisions quickly for every decision possible; a bureaucratic government agency simply can't incentivize people, leaders, to reward them for what they deserve for who they are and what they know they are leading towards. I agree with your sentiment that "big government knows best for you" is badly implemented in most cases - and why I believe POTUS candidate Andrew Yang (yang2020.com) will win: his Freedom Dividend (UBI, Universal Basic Income) of giving every adult American $1,000 / month is taking the decision making away from the government and giving it to each individual to decide for themselves; the small, simple role of the government here then is simply collecting the VAT tax and distributing the $. I don't worry about downvotes - however the mechanism generally infuriates me though as it's horrible for learning opportunities, self-development, communication/language and community development. A huge thank you to you for taking the time to respond, even though someone (not me) downvoted you - someone lazy or inarticulate - under developed, unchecked thoughts through critical thinking process nor peer review perhaps fear of ridicule or finding it would be a "waste of time" - so they simply "contribute" by a quick click of the downvote. P.S. I had to wait initially 1 hour before I last tried replying - as I apparently some mechanism triggered - presumably by the small number of downvotes all of my comments were getting - to say I was "posting too frequently." And it's been 3+ hours now that I try again. If this doesn't work then I've been blocked from commenting - for how long then I wonder, and why.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  doesn’t a federal jobs guarantee just mean that if you can’t find a job, there’s at least somewhere you can go to get one, regardless of the state of the economy? this is just my interpretation but, i’m not sure that would kill capitalism as much as mean that employees wouldn’t be scared as much from being fired, would be less afraid to be entrepreneurial (worst case in failure, you have a job until you can try again or find a better job in the private sector) etc... same goes for medicare for all and tuition free college... i don’t see the authoritarian part (as your previous post alludes to) but maybe i’m missing something.
thrwy_01 7y ago
I think we need to understand why the Chinese government "is never wrong" from a cultural context. In traditional east Asian culture the patriarch / Lord / boss is never wrong. The same power dynamics of government exist at every level of society. The superior owes some responsibility to the subordinate but (in practice) ultimately is not accountable, which lends itself to a corruption of power.
- loceng 7y ago
  Except in practice "all of us" learn through experience that there is a different better way, assuming someone's learning isn't stunted early, along with obedience taught - preventing learning and critical thinking development necessary to contrast different possibilities.

kmonsen 7y ago

This is just not true. Authoritarian governments are kept in check by free speech and openness of government. Sanders and Warren are clearly if favor of citizens being in charge of the government.

malandrew 7y ago
"citizens" is a term vague to the point of meaninglessness. Not sure what you're definition you're using, but pretty much all authoritarian communist governments in the 20th and 21st century had citizens in charge of the government. That didn't do a whole lot of good for the citizens that were not in charge. The DPRK is pretty much the only one where the responsibility of who was in charge was passed on from parent to child.
- kmonsen 7y ago
  I mean all citizen, not some special citizens or a few citizens. Of course if the power is in the hands of the few it doesn't matter at all which label you put on them.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    Basically every form of government that has ever existed at scale has devolved into an oligarchy. I know of none where "all citizen [sic], not some special citizens or a few citizens" are in power. A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens". I haven't seen a single proposal from them that would have then operating any differently from any previous executive administration this country has seen since 1776. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
    - andrekandre 7y ago
      > A Sanders or Warren government would just have power in the hands of either Sanders or Warren and their respective cabinet and the other three branches of government. It would still be "some special citizens or a few citizens" then what is the alternative that you propose?
      - malandrew 7y ago
        I'm not proposing an alternative. I'm happy with our Constitution and our three branches of government with checks and balances enforced. We have the 1st and 2nd amendment as a Plan A and the Plan B, respectively, to prevent tyranny.
    - kmonsen 7y ago
      No it would not, both Warren and Sanders are strong supporters of transparency and voting rights and want to reign in lobbying and power of big corporations.

loceng 7y ago

People feeling a quick reward by a dopamine hit of clicking the downvote certainly isn't based on someone's political leanings, who they like or dislike, and certainly is due to laziness - regardless of whatever labels you give yourself. Likewise, Trump's behaviour is in a completely different league than what any other politician in the US has presented - regardless if self-labeling as Democratic or Republican; albeit it is becoming more and more clear who is a disgrace to humanity. Warren I'm not sure of, with Sanders I agree - at least with the Federal Jobs Guarantee is the wrong solution because it kills the power and efficiency that capitalism allows in a free market, fluid system - that efficiency which requires hierarchy of expertise to lead and teach, and that require making micro and macro decisions quickly for every decision possible; a bureaucratic government agency simply can't incentivize people, leaders, to reward them for what they deserve for who they are and what they know they are leading towards. I agree with your sentiment that "big government knows best for you" is badly implemented in most cases - and why I believe POTUS candidate Andrew Yang (yang2020.com) will win: his Freedom Dividend (UBI, Universal Basic Income) of giving every adult American $1,000 / month is taking the decision making away from the government and giving it to each individual to decide for themselves; the small, simple role of the government here then is simply collecting the VAT tax and distributing the $. I don't worry about downvotes - however the mechanism generally infuriates me though as it's horrible for learning opportunities, self-development, communication/language and community development. A huge thank you to you for taking the time to respond, even though someone (not me) downvoted you - someone lazy or inarticulate - under developed, unchecked thoughts through critical thinking process nor peer review perhaps fear of ridicule or finding it would be a "waste of time" - so they simply "contribute" by a quick click of the downvote. P.S. I had to wait initially 1 hour before I last tried replying - as I apparently some mechanism triggered - presumably by the small number of downvotes all of my comments were getting - to say I was "posting too frequently." And it's been 3+ hours now that I try again. If this doesn't work then I've been blocked from commenting - for how long then I wonder, and why.

andrekandre 7y ago
doesn’t a federal jobs guarantee just mean that if you can’t find a job, there’s at least somewhere you can go to get one, regardless of the state of the economy? this is just my interpretation but, i’m not sure that would kill capitalism as much as mean that employees wouldn’t be scared as much from being fired, would be less afraid to be entrepreneurial (worst case in failure, you have a job until you can try again or find a better job in the private sector) etc... same goes for medicare for all and tuition free college... i don’t see the authoritarian part (as your previous post alludes to) but maybe i’m missing something.

thrwy_01 7y ago

I think we need to understand why the Chinese government "is never wrong" from a cultural context. In traditional east Asian culture the patriarch / Lord / boss is never wrong. The same power dynamics of government exist at every level of society. The superior owes some responsibility to the subordinate but (in practice) ultimately is not accountable, which lends itself to a corruption of power.

loceng 7y ago
Except in practice "all of us" learn through experience that there is a different better way, assuming someone's learning isn't stunted early, along with obedience taught - preventing learning and critical thinking development necessary to contrast different possibilities.