4 ms·

Excellent comment, you changed my thinking on the issue. I feel like liberal, educated democracies are focused on the wrong problems. It’s only going to get har

by jquery 6y ago

Excellent comment, you changed my thinking on the issue. I feel like liberal, educated democracies are focused on the wrong problems. It’s only going to get harder to change course the longer we keep sailing in this direction of a laissez faire, anything-goes approach to software. Apple’s infamous walled garden solves this problem to some extent, but introduces others because it lacks due process, leading to corruption where money can solve any problem, and so apps like Tiktok get to abuse their trust with impunity.

godelski 6y ago
As I see it, democracy is unstable. I like living in a democratic system (yes, a democratically elected republic is still a democratic system). But we have to recognize that it is unstable and democracies work under the pretense that the keys to power are distributed and frequently moving hands (by elective processes). So the danger to democracy is the collection of keys, or the consolidation of power. Power consolidation DOES have benefits after all. I mean a benevolent dictator is probably the best form of government, the issue is that if the next dictator isn't benevolent (or how long until that). The same is with democracy. We keep power distributed so that when a malevolent (or even just non-benevolent) ruler comes into power they aren't able to do much. Essentially as long as we don't let corruption fill the majority of roles with power, we're fine. They have to spend a lot of time and resources consolidating that power. Essentially this is what "turnkey tyranny" is: the point at which power is consolidated to such a degree that a malevolent ruler would have the power of a tyrant. So it has never been about having something to hide or that people aren't using a power malevolently. It is the potential for abuse and that given enough time a power is likely to be abused. Distribution makes it more difficult (but does not eliminate) to abuse power. With HN's love for federated systems, which essentially operate under similar principles, I'm surprised this is not a more popular concept. The only difference is that we're talking about government officials instead of Moxie.
- jquery 6y ago
  All governments are unstable. The best we can hope for is they do the most good for the longest amount of time. The better a government does, the more its population tends to assume that it’s impossible for their government to fail, and they don’t guard against it, instead choosing convenience (and properly federated government is the opposite of convenient).

by jquery 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

As I see it, democracy is unstable. I like living in a democratic system (yes, a democratically elected republic is still a democratic system). But we have to recognize that it is unstable and democracies work under the pretense that the keys to power are distributed and frequently moving hands (by elective processes). So the danger to democracy is the collection of keys, or the consolidation of power. Power consolidation DOES have benefits after all. I mean a benevolent dictator is probably the best form of government, the issue is that if the next dictator isn't benevolent (or how long until that). The same is with democracy. We keep power distributed so that when a malevolent (or even just non-benevolent) ruler comes into power they aren't able to do much. Essentially as long as we don't let corruption fill the majority of roles with power, we're fine. They have to spend a lot of time and resources consolidating that power. Essentially this is what "turnkey tyranny" is: the point at which power is consolidated to such a degree that a malevolent ruler would have the power of a tyrant. So it has never been about having something to hide or that people aren't using a power malevolently. It is the potential for abuse and that given enough time a power is likely to be abused. Distribution makes it more difficult (but does not eliminate) to abuse power. With HN's love for federated systems, which essentially operate under similar principles, I'm surprised this is not a more popular concept. The only difference is that we're talking about government officials instead of Moxie.

jquery 6y ago
All governments are unstable. The best we can hope for is they do the most good for the longest amount of time. The better a government does, the more its population tends to assume that it’s impossible for their government to fail, and they don’t guard against it, instead choosing convenience (and properly federated government is the opposite of convenient).