6 ms·

Viscous or vicious?

by brodouevencode 5y ago

Viscous or vicious?

ddingus 5y ago
Viscosity type viscous. Move and flow more like water, not sticky.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Bad idea. You want the system to be viscous, to respond slowly to pressure put on it. Too fluid, and it turns into populist-driven mob rule. If you want to argue that the system currently is too viscous and needs to move somewhat toward liquid, I might agree. But it is dangerous and destructive to go all the way to liquid.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    Frankly, an increase in the populist mob scope of influence would not be a bad thing. If I had my way, I would take top 5 issues and have a national vote on them every Presidential election. As it is right now, ordinary people have little to no effective representation. More is needed. Aaron Schwartz was headed down that road. Very interesting perspective on how technology can be used in these ways.
    - jiofih 5y ago
      This system exists all around the world - Brazil, Switzerland, Finland and other parts of europe, Japan... it doesn’t make a huge difference when the government itself defines which five issues will be voted on, and I don’t think it could be any different. Personally, I think the focus should be on education. How can you have vast masses of the world in 2021 electing dumb, retrograde populist leaders? learning history for real, stimulating independent though and intelectual freedom - but that’s way “too leftist” for anyone to take on right now. And on top of that, accountability for politicians. It should not be a life career, and gross mistakes should mean stepping out so new heads can come in.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        You did not discuss money in politics, which present significant challenges. The US sees many struggles, and does so in a way that impacts most of the population. These things go unaddressed despite majority support for solutions. Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle.
        giantg2 5y ago
        "Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle." What unnecessary struggle? I can see how popular ideas are good from the standpoint of the majority of the population liking them. Some of that is being eroded now. For example, wanting to eliminate the 60 votes in the senate related to the filibuster as they already did with some conformation hearings (how can they use a 51 vote to abolish a 60 vote rule anyways, that seems to undermine the point). So now, we are reducing the amount of people necessary to like the law and reducing the likelihood of compromises to make laws less partisan and more acceptable to all. The downside to populist laws is that the people may not be educated in even the basics of how the system works (or is supposed to). Maybe it was a populist idea that things should be segregated by race. That doesn't make it right, and it infringes on the minority faction.
        ddingus 5y ago
        To sum up: People are not smart enough to participate in policy? Because of that, their economic struggle is necessary?
        giantg2 5y ago
        No, that's not what I'm saying. Can you effectively participate in a game if you don't understand the rules and objective? I don't think so. You wouldn't drop someone into a car, a job, or really anything important without some knowledge or training. If we did, we would expect poor outcomes. I think we are seeing that now. For example, people don't know the basic differences of statute, code, and case law, or how they work. They can't define or explain basic legal principles. I'm many cases, they don't even know what rights they have. How can you demand your rights and proper treatment if you don't know them, nor how to effectively communicate about the law? I'm also saying that populism has some issues with what percentage does it take to pass something, thus alienating a very large minority (like 51/49). That populist policies can trample the rights of others. I had no input on the economic struggle as that was not even defined, so I find it odd that you would try to link my statement to that. I had asked what kind of "unnecessary struggle" the parent meant. I guess here you are saying it is economic. Can you elaborate on what is unnecessary? If it is unnecessary then there must be some obvious solution - can you define that too?

Viscous or vicious?

ddingus 5y ago

Viscosity type viscous. Move and flow more like water, not sticky.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Bad idea. You want the system to be viscous, to respond slowly to pressure put on it. Too fluid, and it turns into populist-driven mob rule. If you want to argue that the system currently is too viscous and needs to move somewhat toward liquid, I might agree. But it is dangerous and destructive to go all the way to liquid.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Frankly, an increase in the populist mob scope of influence would not be a bad thing. If I had my way, I would take top 5 issues and have a national vote on them every Presidential election. As it is right now, ordinary people have little to no effective representation. More is needed. Aaron Schwartz was headed down that road. Very interesting perspective on how technology can be used in these ways.
  - jiofih 5y ago
    This system exists all around the world - Brazil, Switzerland, Finland and other parts of europe, Japan... it doesn’t make a huge difference when the government itself defines which five issues will be voted on, and I don’t think it could be any different. Personally, I think the focus should be on education. How can you have vast masses of the world in 2021 electing dumb, retrograde populist leaders? learning history for real, stimulating independent though and intelectual freedom - but that’s way “too leftist” for anyone to take on right now. And on top of that, accountability for politicians. It should not be a life career, and gross mistakes should mean stepping out so new heads can come in.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      You did not discuss money in politics, which present significant challenges. The US sees many struggles, and does so in a way that impacts most of the population. These things go unaddressed despite majority support for solutions. Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle." What unnecessary struggle? I can see how popular ideas are good from the standpoint of the majority of the population liking them. Some of that is being eroded now. For example, wanting to eliminate the 60 votes in the senate related to the filibuster as they already did with some conformation hearings (how can they use a 51 vote to abolish a 60 vote rule anyways, that seems to undermine the point). So now, we are reducing the amount of people necessary to like the law and reducing the likelihood of compromises to make laws less partisan and more acceptable to all. The downside to populist laws is that the people may not be educated in even the basics of how the system works (or is supposed to). Maybe it was a populist idea that things should be segregated by race. That doesn't make it right, and it infringes on the minority faction.
        ddingus 5y ago
        To sum up: People are not smart enough to participate in policy? Because of that, their economic struggle is necessary?
        giantg2 5y ago
        No, that's not what I'm saying. Can you effectively participate in a game if you don't understand the rules and objective? I don't think so. You wouldn't drop someone into a car, a job, or really anything important without some knowledge or training. If we did, we would expect poor outcomes. I think we are seeing that now. For example, people don't know the basic differences of statute, code, and case law, or how they work. They can't define or explain basic legal principles. I'm many cases, they don't even know what rights they have. How can you demand your rights and proper treatment if you don't know them, nor how to effectively communicate about the law? I'm also saying that populism has some issues with what percentage does it take to pass something, thus alienating a very large minority (like 51/49). That populist policies can trample the rights of others. I had no input on the economic struggle as that was not even defined, so I find it odd that you would try to link my statement to that. I had asked what kind of "unnecessary struggle" the parent meant. I guess here you are saying it is economic. Can you elaborate on what is unnecessary? If it is unnecessary then there must be some obvious solution - can you define that too?