12 ms·

I understand what they're getting at, I think, but "pro-democracy tycoon" has to be one of the funniest oxymorons I've seen in serious print (at least on its fa

I understand what they're getting at, I think, but "pro-democracy tycoon" has to be one of the funniest oxymorons I've seen in serious print (at least on its face).

philliphaydon 6y ago
Why is it an oxymoron?
- Shared404 6y ago
  In the US at least, many (most?) tycoons are involved with lobbying of the sort that destroys the function of democracy, even though they leave the form.
  - throwaway-semi 6y ago
    Can you expand more how it destroys the definition of democracy: > Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core issues for democratic theory, development and constitution. Some cornerstones of these issues are freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, voting, right to life and minority rights. Democracy is more than just political lobbying.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      Excessive lobbying can lead to where although people are able to vote for representatives, said representatives are likely to do what is best for them only -- taking money from lobbyists to do things that may or may not be unethical. This leads to a situation where although you voted, you don't actually get a say in government. Of course, this only applies to representative democracy. Edit: see also kemonocode's response to my above comment. That's what I was trying (badly) to say.
      - freeopinion 6y ago
        Some among the US founding fathers argued that such was inevitable. The only plausible solution, they posited, was to encourage even more lobbying. The only thing that could protect the democracy from special interests was, well, special interests. Competing special interests. The only hope was to set them against each other.
        rapnie 6y ago
        Radical transparency enforced by rules would also come a long way. The electorate would be outraged if they knew about the extent of lobbying to their representatives. It would allow them to put public pressure where it is due.
        Shared404 6y ago
        This would be the most beneficial thing, I think. I do find the idea of competing special interest groups intriguing, but what do you do when one wins?
        freeopinion 6y ago
        Endure. One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter. Endure, regroup, retool, resurge.
        Shared404 6y ago
        > One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter. Excellent point. The optimist and pessimist in me are at odds about this concept, I have a hard time believing that there are enough people who would endure long enough to make a difference. However, there is a good chance that I am wrong, and I will try to hold on to it. Edit: I'll have to be going offline now, or I'll never actually sleep. Thank you for the excellent discussion, this is why I'm on HN.
      - DeonPenny 6y ago
  - kemonocode 6y ago
    Being rich and successful isn't inherently evil, nor anti-democratic. Weak and corrupt governments who bend themselves to please evil people who are also rich, however, are very much a threat to democracy.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      Well said. This is what I was trying to say, but I'm stupid. Edit 0: I would point out: weak governments bending over backward to rich people requires rich people opposed to good governments. Edit 1: See dbtc's comment. I removed the word evil from this comment.
    - dbtc 6y ago
      Agreed, but using the word "evil" in a political context tends to suck all of the nuance out of the room. The rich who attempt to bend the government are certainly ALSO a threat to the democracy.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - anoncake 6y ago
      As long as wealth means influence, people being rich is inherently anti-democratic.
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    No most people destroying democracy are the people with nothing and want things with no effort. IMO
    - Shared404 6y ago
      I have to ask, how is that destroying democracy? It may or may not be leading the nation down a negative path, something that I suspect we disagree on based on your phrasing. However, if people vote and their votes actually influence government, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, isn't that democracy following it's path?

I understand what they're getting at, I think, but "pro-democracy tycoon" has to be one of the funniest oxymorons I've seen in serious print (at least on its face).

philliphaydon 6y ago

Why is it an oxymoron?

Shared404 6y ago
In the US at least, many (most?) tycoons are involved with lobbying of the sort that destroys the function of democracy, even though they leave the form.
- throwaway-semi 6y ago
  Can you expand more how it destroys the definition of democracy: > Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core issues for democratic theory, development and constitution. Some cornerstones of these issues are freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, voting, right to life and minority rights. Democracy is more than just political lobbying.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    Excessive lobbying can lead to where although people are able to vote for representatives, said representatives are likely to do what is best for them only -- taking money from lobbyists to do things that may or may not be unethical. This leads to a situation where although you voted, you don't actually get a say in government. Of course, this only applies to representative democracy. Edit: see also kemonocode's response to my above comment. That's what I was trying (badly) to say.
    - freeopinion 6y ago
      Some among the US founding fathers argued that such was inevitable. The only plausible solution, they posited, was to encourage even more lobbying. The only thing that could protect the democracy from special interests was, well, special interests. Competing special interests. The only hope was to set them against each other.
      - rapnie 6y ago
        Radical transparency enforced by rules would also come a long way. The electorate would be outraged if they knew about the extent of lobbying to their representatives. It would allow them to put public pressure where it is due.
        Shared404 6y ago
        This would be the most beneficial thing, I think. I do find the idea of competing special interest groups intriguing, but what do you do when one wins?
        freeopinion 6y ago
        Endure. One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter. Endure, regroup, retool, resurge.
        Shared404 6y ago
        > One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter. Excellent point. The optimist and pessimist in me are at odds about this concept, I have a hard time believing that there are enough people who would endure long enough to make a difference. However, there is a good chance that I am wrong, and I will try to hold on to it. Edit: I'll have to be going offline now, or I'll never actually sleep. Thank you for the excellent discussion, this is why I'm on HN.
    - DeonPenny 6y ago
- kemonocode 6y ago
  Being rich and successful isn't inherently evil, nor anti-democratic. Weak and corrupt governments who bend themselves to please evil people who are also rich, however, are very much a threat to democracy.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    Well said. This is what I was trying to say, but I'm stupid. Edit 0: I would point out: weak governments bending over backward to rich people requires rich people opposed to good governments. Edit 1: See dbtc's comment. I removed the word evil from this comment.
  - dbtc 6y ago
    Agreed, but using the word "evil" in a political context tends to suck all of the nuance out of the room. The rich who attempt to bend the government are certainly ALSO a threat to the democracy.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - anoncake 6y ago
    As long as wealth means influence, people being rich is inherently anti-democratic.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  No most people destroying democracy are the people with nothing and want things with no effort. IMO
  - Shared404 6y ago
    I have to ask, how is that destroying democracy? It may or may not be leading the nation down a negative path, something that I suspect we disagree on based on your phrasing. However, if people vote and their votes actually influence government, as discussed elsewhere in the thread, isn't that democracy following it's path?