5 ms·

What the fuck is wrong with governments?

okamiueru 5y ago
Things like these tends to be backed by pressure from the US. It would surprise me if it wasn't the case here.
dijit 5y ago
If you really want to converse with governments then it helps to steelman their position before arguing it. Bear in mind I am against weakening cryptography when reading this: I am a government. 20% of my population are tech savvy, a different very minorly overlapping 20% are criminals. Given the law of distributions this is probably pretty close to true. Now, those 20% of criminals are very varied in their delights, violent, sexual or theft. Serious crime such as pedophilia or terrorism is very low probability overall. However, as a government, I can't be seen to be weak on those extreme positions because they are highly visible; the 80% population simply will not allow me to argue in good faith for protections which _might_ help such extreme criminals operate easier. The technical feasibility of good opsec for criminals is usually very low, and the FBI has a decent track record of targeted surveillance. But I, the politician, cannot communicate effectively with 80% of people, when the populist says that I am weak on terrorists and pedophiles. I only weaken my own position and allow the populist access to power, because 80% > 20%. -- The biggest benefit and the biggest problem with democracy is that everyone has a voice, even the uninformed. If you listen to all politicans by numbers there will be liars and opportunists among them; then you're not uninformed, you're misinformed, and that's arguably worse.
- WillDaSilva 5y ago
  What you've described often goes hand-in-hand with a two-party system. That way everyone finds themselves voting for what they believe to be the lesser of two evils. Alternative voting systems (e.g. ranked choice systems) aren't some sort of political panacea, but they could help a lot with this issue. A populist thrives in an environment that does not support nuance. It would be harder for them to be successful if they were running against, say, 6 viable opponents rather than 1. I hope we can address some of these major problems with democracy, because the alternatives generally aren't great.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    The original post is about the EU.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      Indeed, bad voting systems are not an issue regarding the EU because the EU is not democratic in the first place.
      - dijit 5y ago
        > the EU is not democratic in the first place EU Election system is _literally_ one of the fairest systems in existence[0] ensuring that every party get some measure of proportional representation. Compared to English First Past the Post (minority rule, and 2 party systems) or Scotlands Single-transferrable vote (which is still winner take all); but D'Hondts method means that people can be safe in the knowledge they'll be represented and it's proportional to the input. It's not "perfect" but it's _literally_ the best humans have come up with. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method [0.1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU CGP Grey did some videos on these: FPTP (England): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeB... STV (Scotland): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c&index=7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI&list=PLNCHVwtpeB... D'Hondt-esque (EU): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c&index=3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=PLNCHVwtpeB...
        notriddle 5y ago
        1. The voting system isn’t really important, if the voters themselves are restricted to a chosen few who are themselves elected using inferior methods. 2. Range voting is the best humans have come up with.
        Ieghaehia9 5y ago
- _0ffh 5y ago
  How is it populist if, per the article, 72% of the population oppose the measure?
dandanua 5y ago
They are run by humans who are seeking power over other humans. Easy.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
The general public have shown time and again that they don't really care about privacy. And the movies have convinced them that the government can monitor anything at any time already (but only use it for catching crooks), so what's to lose? The minority of the population who are tech-savvy enough to know this is going to be a complete disaster are unimportant in politician's eyes - no-one listens to us nerds in the corner doing nerd stuff.
int_19h 5y ago
By definition, a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within its jurisdiction. And, as any other monopolist, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain that position.

Things like these tends to be backed by pressure from the US. It would surprise me if it wasn't the case here.

If you really want to converse with governments then it helps to steelman their position before arguing it. Bear in mind I am against weakening cryptography when reading this: I am a government. 20% of my population are tech savvy, a different very minorly overlapping 20% are criminals. Given the law of distributions this is probably pretty close to true. Now, those 20% of criminals are very varied in their delights, violent, sexual or theft. Serious crime such as pedophilia or terrorism is very low probability overall. However, as a government, I can't be seen to be weak on those extreme positions because they are highly visible; the 80% population simply will not allow me to argue in good faith for protections which _might_ help such extreme criminals operate easier. The technical feasibility of good opsec for criminals is usually very low, and the FBI has a decent track record of targeted surveillance. But I, the politician, cannot communicate effectively with 80% of people, when the populist says that I am weak on terrorists and pedophiles. I only weaken my own position and allow the populist access to power, because 80% > 20%. -- The biggest benefit and the biggest problem with democracy is that everyone has a voice, even the uninformed. If you listen to all politicans by numbers there will be liars and opportunists among them; then you're not uninformed, you're misinformed, and that's arguably worse.

WillDaSilva 5y ago
What you've described often goes hand-in-hand with a two-party system. That way everyone finds themselves voting for what they believe to be the lesser of two evils. Alternative voting systems (e.g. ranked choice systems) aren't some sort of political panacea, but they could help a lot with this issue. A populist thrives in an environment that does not support nuance. It would be harder for them to be successful if they were running against, say, 6 viable opponents rather than 1. I hope we can address some of these major problems with democracy, because the alternatives generally aren't great.
- notriddle 5y ago
  The original post is about the EU.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Indeed, bad voting systems are not an issue regarding the EU because the EU is not democratic in the first place.
    - dijit 5y ago
      > the EU is not democratic in the first place EU Election system is _literally_ one of the fairest systems in existence[0] ensuring that every party get some measure of proportional representation. Compared to English First Past the Post (minority rule, and 2 party systems) or Scotlands Single-transferrable vote (which is still winner take all); but D'Hondts method means that people can be safe in the knowledge they'll be represented and it's proportional to the input. It's not "perfect" but it's _literally_ the best humans have come up with. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method [0.1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU CGP Grey did some videos on these: FPTP (England): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeB... STV (Scotland): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c&index=7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI&list=PLNCHVwtpeB... D'Hondt-esque (EU): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c&index=3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&list=PLNCHVwtpeB...
      - notriddle 5y ago
        1. The voting system isn’t really important, if the voters themselves are restricted to a chosen few who are themselves elected using inferior methods. 2. Range voting is the best humans have come up with.
      - Ieghaehia9 5y ago
_0ffh 5y ago
How is it populist if, per the article, 72% of the population oppose the measure?

dandanua 5y ago

They are run by humans who are seeking power over other humans. Easy.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

The general public have shown time and again that they don't really care about privacy. And the movies have convinced them that the government can monitor anything at any time already (but only use it for catching crooks), so what's to lose? The minority of the population who are tech-savvy enough to know this is going to be a complete disaster are unimportant in politician's eyes - no-one listens to us nerds in the corner doing nerd stuff.

int_19h 5y ago

By definition, a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within its jurisdiction. And, as any other monopolist, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain that position.