10 ms·

I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. I think the reas

• hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  Which might be measured as the proportion of wealth owned by the wealthiest few, and the rest of the peoples. It's like a majority attack, on one side of wealth, on another of votes. While the combined wealth of all voters exceeds that of the few lobbyists, in theory votes should win. It's good to recall that democracy didn't come about in a vaccuum; It came about to displace monarchy. Because democracy is "fair", the aristocrats are among us with at least as much power as any of the rest of us. The greater the wealth disparity, however, the more power they can purchase by bribing the poor politicians. Which in turn begs the masses to pay politicians well enough that corruption becomes at best unnecessary. The only remaining cure for greed is transparency, accountability, and journalism. Therefore it is in the wealthy elite's interest to lobby for laws that erode any established amounts of the aforementioned qualities, steadily inching the power structures towards secrecy, carte blanche, and censorship. Can you think of any government agency that has such powers? I'm thinking of several, and most of them are in the US. Capitalism is allergic to wealth redistribution, which is the true name for the action that begins to solve the issue. The only question is: How much? One practical example is speeding tickets. AFAIK in the US speeding tickets are flat fees. So a wealthy person barely cares about speeding in traffic. In Finland, a more socialist republic, speeding tickets are proportional to income. So a wealthy person speeding will feel the hurt. Every so often some asshole with a Ferrari gets a million dollar speeding ticket. (possibly exaggerated, don't recall exact amounts)
  • morceauxdebois 6y ago
    Calling Finland socialist invalidates your whole post.
    • rjtavares 6y ago
      Parent didn't call Finland socialist, just said "more socialist". If one considers "Capitalism" and "Socialism" as the two extremes of an economic organization continuum (which is reasonable), Finland is indeed "more socialist" (or better yet, less capitalist) than the US.
      • emteycz 6y ago
        It's a false dichotomy. Both can coexist.
        • hypertele-Xii 6y ago
          The central philosophy in capitalism is competition. The world is currently very acutely seeing the second and third order effects of such "winner takes all" philosophy, ranging from consumer-harming monopolies to environment-destroying profit-seeking. If we set socialism as an opposition to capitalism, it rises naturally to represent cooperation; The idea that everyone is entitled to a base level of creature comfort regardless of accumulated capital, and that in coming together to solve problems, rather than trying to one-up each other, problems can be solved more effectively and with less harm.
          • sbuttgereit 6y ago
            No, you've described the caricature of capitalism that those opposed to it repeat to themselves to help justify their opposition. The central philosophy of capitalism is that voluntary trade leads, ultimately, to greater and more efficient production. That's not to say it's necessarily a straight line walk or that what is produced is necessarily pretty. Competition is a side effect that comes into play once you are producing something valuable to someone else willing to buy that something. It is a mechanism that keeps check on the bounds of prices and efficiency. The real difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism requires voluntary action whereas socialism embraces compelled action. Socialist "cooperation" and "coming together to solve problems" are euphemisms for a politically powerful group to harness the productive output of the governed for its own purposes, without regard to if the perceived problems or the perceived solutions are real or not. Unless, of course, true socialist policy allows dissenters to opt-out of participation, in which case I withdraw my characterization. Assuming I'm right, I find the notion of "cooperate or else" far less appealing or moral than capitalism with all of the competition that comes with it. Finally socialism doesn't eliminate competition... it only moves it from the marketplace to the seat of government. There is no grand collective, there is no "public good": there are individuals with differing beliefs, interests, and objectives. Once you put sufficient power in the government: the most ambitious individuals will compete for privileged positions within political movements rather than businesses, political movements will compete with alternative political movements for the reigns of government. Socialism doesn't remove fundamental human desires for prestige and power, it only redirects the energy into the mechanisms of state; and no that's not necessarily a benefit to the poor, or the underprivileged, or any other banner of victimization that you might fly to justify that state. The inability of a government program to fail means that the real world effectiveness any given government program (assuming that it's even a "right program") is secondary to its ability to attract political support. In capitalism, the voluntary aspect allows for failure if the business isn't producing the product efficiently or it isn't producing something that someone else actually wants or needs.
• notahacker 6y ago
  Lobbying isn't easier in a centralised power structure. When Amazon wanted favours from municipal governments, it held a competition to get them to lobby themselves to cut taxes and bend rules to earn the patronage of the corporation that was bigger and richer and more important than them.
  • username90 6y ago
    How come they failed to do just that in Europe? It isn't like some random multinational company can come to Sweden and demand special rules from their national government to do something there.
    • guywhocodes 6y ago
      Isn't Sweden openly looking for special deals with data centers?
    • notahacker 6y ago
      Sweden is a lot larger than the average US municipality. Still, Ireland (population 6m) is so determined to continue collecting tiny amounts of tax from Amazon so long as it continues to base its EMEA HQ there, its government appealed an EU court ruling that Amazon owed it more tax...
    • kwhitefoot 6y ago
      Because the EU has rules against exactly this kind of thing. But companies do exactly what you have described in the EU, take a look at the financial shenanigans that Ireland and several big companies have been involved in.
    • pjc50 6y ago
      Apple pretty much bought Ireland's tax authorities. But, as people keep forgetting, Europe has giant multinationals and lobbyists of its own. I wouldn't presume to know who's on top politically in Sweden, but I imagine Saab (for example) have some influence.
    • hef19898 6y ago
• contravariant 6y ago
  I don't think you really need that much of a justification to claim that centralized power is a danger to democracy. Democracy is to place power into the hands of each individual, every form of centralized power necessarily pulls this power away from people and into the hands of a limited number of individuals. Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power.
  • cies 6y ago
    > Democracy isn't so much threatened but actually harmed by the mere existence of centralized power. What's the essential difference?
    • contravariant 6y ago
      Democracy is already damaged by the lack of democratic control even if a centralized power chooses not to harm it any further (the fact that they even have this choice is evidence of the damage).
  • orange_tee 6y ago
    Actually this is not so clear. One can make arguments either way. For example in feudal Europe and later on, Europe was divided into very small states ruled by tyrants. The power was highly local but this did not result in more freedom for the people. Freedom actually corresponds well with the rise of nation states that centralized power. Even today it is not so clear. It is not hard to find local administrations that are extremely corrupt.
    • contravariant 6y ago
      I reckon it's more about what power is taken away than into how many tyrants that power is concentrated. If you have more tyrants then technically the power is less concentrated but it's mostly the tyrants that have any additional power. It would get interesting if you could come up with an example where taking power away from the people resulted in more freedom but that sounds like a contradiction.
• DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  > I think the reason why centralization is a danger to democracy, is because of lobbying. Also to add, centralized political systems cannot be truly "democratic". The middle ages were far more democratic than our modern enlightened times. Canadian historian Francis Dupuis-Déri writing in the book "Démocratie: Histoire politique d’un mot aux États-Unis et en France": "During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, thousands of villages had an organized assembly where communal decisions were made. The 'community of inhabitants', which even had legal status, functioned for centuries by a process of self-management. Kings and nobles were content to manage affairs related to wars or their own private property, to administer justice, and to now and then mobilize their subjects for common chores. The hierarchical or aristocratic authorities did not interfere in the affairs of the community, which met to deliberate on political communal, financial, judicial and parochial issues. They discussed the sharing of the harvest and sale of the surplus, the cutting of wood on communal land, the repair of bridges, wells and mills, and the hiring of instructors, shepherds, watchmakers, forest guards, sometimes even parish priests, and guards when brigands, wolves or epidemics were rampant. They designated those who would serve in the militia, debated the obligation of lodging the royal court should it visit, or the utility of sending a notable to submit to the court of grievances in the nature of community."
  • hef19898 6y ago
    I have to disagree with such a broad statement covering a period of, what, 600 years. Neither do I agree with the premise that leaving small communities alone, not having the populace or these communities a say in larger affairs, and limiting access to te community decisions to a select few people to be more democratic than our current system.
    • DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
      > broad statement covering a period of, what, 600 years not only was it long period but the Middle Ages are only ever brought up by people educated by a Western/ized idea of history. My point stands because we would never hear of systems that "worked" in a decentralized way because required power structures would have never been in place for them to leave any impact that people will feel should be noted in the history books. James C Scott[1] does a great job tracing decentralized societies fleeing the Chinese empire over a period of several hundred years and settling in the hard to access hills of South East Asia. A successful decentralized society wouldn't be in our history book because the measure of success is different in these systems. In fact things that are a failure in one system are a success in the other. In the same way today, groups like the Jawara/Andaman or similar tribes will always remain a footnote in our books, at least until their successful assimilated into our own "superior" culture, and then we give them an honorary mention (= by then their way of living is destroyed ofc). Another way to read this (and the way I personally do) is that a successful decentralized alternative is often the by-product of (an over-reaching) centralized system. Take a look for what the state labels as crooks, outlaws, degenerates, pirates, insurgents, terrorists, or anyone they are struggling to tax and prosecute, ... in modern times Roma/gypsies are the only ones left who come to mind. Everyone else we eradicate! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Scott#The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Scott#The_Art_of_Not_...
• xupybd 6y ago
  I think the problem is with the concentration of power. The fewer people that hold the power the more likely they are to diverge from serving the people into serving their own interests. I think it has more to do with accountability than anything. If you have power over people you never have to see or hear from you have little empathy for them.
• munhitsu 6y ago
  Lobbying in decentralised environment is untraceable
• dingle_thunk 6y ago
  I think the issue is better described as "corruption", rather than lobbying. Lobbying is a form of corruption unique to politicians, but it's just as possible that someone who has access to everyone's data via the CLOUD act uses such data in a corrupt way, or sells their access to that data to the highest bidder. Corruption is a problem that can occur anywhere down the trust stack. A focus on individual responsibility for security and for integrity refocuses the issue on foundational Confucian principles (for every individual, be: benevolent, righteous, have propriety, build wisdom, and have fidelity), creates a culture of trust, diversity and competence. These things are much better for a thriving society, whether the label for the systems is democratic, dogmacratic, bureaucratic, or plutocratic. (p.s. I am Australian, not Chinese. I just have an appreciation for learning from your rivals)
• lr4444lr 6y ago
  Agree to everything you say, but also because of the tyranny of the majority. When the power to shape communities is pushed down and out, smaller marginalized groups are more able to shape their lives instead of being outvoted by people who share different cultural beliefs and morals in larger overarching dominions that apply regulations and resource management that isn't in fitting with smaller different interest groups.
• max_ 6y ago
  >I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. Lobbying does hurt, societies more in centralized governments due to stronger trickle down effects. As the top of the organisation is linked to multiple parts of the system. But, there is however another reason why centralized governments are really not as effective as we want them to be. There is the notion that, a centralized system (top down) simply cannot process requests of a society as well as a ground up system (decentralized). This Idea was articulated by F. A Hayek in his essay "The use of Knowledge in society" [0]. To summarize Hayek's case in point, his reason was that, as requests to process tasks make their way up to bureaucracy, information about the granularities and complexities of the needs are lost. The more bureaucracy the less effective the service delivery. [0]: https://fee.org/articles/the-use-of-knowledge-in-society/ https://fee.org/articles/the-use-of-knowledge-in-society/
• mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Lobbying is often painted as wholly negative but in a democratic system this is actually something important: It brings different points of views and interests to the attention of governments and lawmakers in order to inform the law-making and government processes. It is not only the "super rich" who lobby and benefit. All advocacy groups trying to make voices heard are lobbying. The key in a democracy is that lobbying be conducted legally and transparently.
• jjk166 6y ago
  I don't think lobbying is a symptom of centralization. You see large concentrations around power centers because lobbyists will go wherever the people in power are. In a decentralized system, you'd still have lobbyists, they'ed just be spread out more. Lobbying is a consequence of a professional political class. Those who make and implement laws need to be knowledgeable about laws, which is why such large numbers are lawyers. In a government that values competence and experience, those in high positions get there by spending years if not decades doing similar, lower level jobs. But if you spend your life in government, when would you have the opportunity to learn the intricacies of non-government life? What fraction of congress has actually worked on a farm? How many cabinet members have ever worked in a factory? How would a president know what it's like to be a refugee? Politicians need information from non-politicians to form and implement coherent policies that work for the people. Enter the lobbyist. At its core, that's all lobbying is: relaying the views of interest groups to the people in power. We talk about it as a dirty thing because it is so easy for it to become a dirty thing, but it isn't inherently one. Unfortunately it's a slippery slope from legitimate lobbying to graft: even an honest politician will be more easily swayed by better presentation, more money allows a lobbyist to make a better presentation, lobbyists seek to align themselves with those who have money so they can make their better presentations, and soon enough the original cause is an afterthought. That said, there is nothing about a centralized governance which makes lobbying easier, nor anything about decentralized governance that makes lobbying less necessary. Your local city councilman is just as clueless about the infinite number of things they didn't do instead of pursuing their path, and they are generally just as open to being wined and dined. Indeed local governments tend to be much more prone to graft than the central ones (though this may simply be due to the fact that there are so many more people to potentially corrupt). Getting professionals in government the information they need to govern without giving undo influence to those handing them that information is a serious open problem in modern democracy, but decentralization doesn't seem like a solution.
  • mc32 6y ago
    It would be harder to lobby in dozens of international jurisdictions, for example, they’d have a hard time imposing western values in Turkey or Iran, for example and vice versa, which I think we’d be better off with.
• dragontamer 6y ago
  > Lobbies basically work in favour of the super rich. One of the most widely respected lobbies in America is the Fraternal Order of Police. And I don't think anyone would consider them super-rich, or even "rich".
  • jjoonathan 6y ago
    That doesn't contradict what he said.
    • dragontamer 6y ago
      Does it? My point is that there are plenty of lobbies in America which are powerful and work on behalf of the non-rich. Fraternal Order of Police is the most obvious, but various unions are quite powerful as well depending on what State you're in. NRA may be bankrupt, but their political strength is what caused so many to donate for their cause as well. I don't think NRA is traditionally seen as a rich-person thing either. Think of the "heavy hitters" of American Politics: ACLU, NAACP, NRA, FOP. Decidedly working for non-rich causes. EFF is arguably for rich people (since it represents tech freedoms, and tech is generally rich).
• lucideer 6y ago
  > I believe the premise of the title. But the main question should be: why? And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship. There's two types of articles around politicized topics like this: 1. Those dealing with Why: for the unconverted 2. Those dealing with How: for the converted Both types are necessary, but I feel often articles that are being read by "the converted" spend far too long trying to deal with the "Why" (preaching to the converted). So this article is refreshing in that sense.
• throwaway894345 6y ago
  > And the article does not really answer that, well beyond censorship Democracies are incompatible with censorship. > Currently lobbies have more power in the decision process than voters (any political sciences professor will agree). So democracy is a hollow word, or worse: a facade, a lie. I agree that lobbies have far more power than citizens, and that this is a problem. However, maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you might be implying that since we don't have democracy anyway, censorship is fine? Of course, that's not true; we don't want to actively invest in preventing ourselves from getting back to something we can meaningfully call "democracy" by way of legitimizing censorship. Again, probably not your intended meaning, but I wanted to address it anyway. While we're talking about corporations having too much power, let's talk about social media companies--they can influence our society directly. They don't have to pay people to petition congress on their behalf; they can pay Twitter and Facebook for access (think "Social Dilemma"). Indeed, they have so much power that we were concerned circa 2017 that the Russians were able to indirectly use their influence over us to corrupt the 2016 POTUS election; how much more influence must Twitter and Facebook (and now Chinese-owned TikTok) have over our democracy given that they have direct access to those algorithmic levers? The super rich can now lobby and pay Twitter/Facebook/etc in order to pass their policies.