3 ms·

Wow, that's overly agressive. If you read the article, the story goes that upon asking him what government his native Austria had, Gödel commented "It was a rep

Wow, that's overly agressive. If you read the article, the story goes that upon asking him what government his native Austria had, Gödel commented "It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship." The judge commented that this could not happen in the U.S., and Gödel responded "Oh, yes, I can prove it". I don't see how you jump from this, to saying that Gödel, who was a very smart person, childishly believed that words on paper were universally enforceable to their logical consequences. I'm sure he was aware of the existence of courts...

smitty1e 6y ago
The point is that there is a system, with feedback loops. The point is NOT that the system is somehow immaculate and incapable of drifting into instability. Indeed, the concentration of power in the hands of the few we see about us is, arguably, the rejection of representative systems developed in the last several centuries in favor of historical authoritarian approaches. Sweet, sweet panem et circenses => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
- bobthechef 6y ago
  > in favor of historical authoritarian approaches. I don't think history is a linear progression from authoritarianism to representative government.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    It's more often a progression from authoritarianism to representative government and back to authoritarianism. "Law is what should happen. Politics is what does happen."
    - smitty1e 6y ago
      Law is very often a reaction to what has happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    A cogent argument. Are you arguing the linearity, or the degree to which any governments in view represent much beyond the whims of the authoritarians?
oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
I've noticed that many commenters on this insightful orange website like to bash on strawmen extrapolated from the headline or intro paragraph. They seem to think that this will make them come across as a critical thinker.

smitty1e 6y ago

The point is that there is a system, with feedback loops. The point is NOT that the system is somehow immaculate and incapable of drifting into instability. Indeed, the concentration of power in the hands of the few we see about us is, arguably, the rejection of representative systems developed in the last several centuries in favor of historical authoritarian approaches. Sweet, sweet panem et circenses => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

bobthechef 6y ago
> in favor of historical authoritarian approaches. I don't think history is a linear progression from authoritarianism to representative government.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  It's more often a progression from authoritarianism to representative government and back to authoritarianism. "Law is what should happen. Politics is what does happen."
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    Law is very often a reaction to what has happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law
- smitty1e 6y ago
  A cogent argument. Are you arguing the linearity, or the degree to which any governments in view represent much beyond the whims of the authoritarians?

oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago

I've noticed that many commenters on this insightful orange website like to bash on strawmen extrapolated from the headline or intro paragraph. They seem to think that this will make them come across as a critical thinker.