3 ms·

Last time I checked, “society” is more than the monied class that makes up government and finance. Bizarre that I have to point this out on a site with the word

Last time I checked, “society” is more than the monied class that makes up government and finance. Bizarre that I have to point this out on a site with the word hacker in its name.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
It's not bizarre to realize society needs some constraints to function. A computer isn't just a bunch of electrons thrown into a box, much like society isn't just a bunch of people doing whatever they want.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  What does this have to do with my comment? Being critical of the government doesn’t automatically make you an anarchist.
alkonaut 5y ago
What does the “monied class” have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that regular voters would opt against transparency and for privacy? I sure wouldn’t
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  You are one person and you weren’t asked to vote on it. So yes, the monied classes decided for you.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Every voter is one person and in all parliamentary systems I just vote for representatives/parties that push the opinion I want. This isn’t different from any other issue.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > ... in all parliamentary systems I just vote for representatives/parties that push the opinion I want. ... on perhaps one or two hot-button issues. You won't find any "representative" which actually represents you on more than a few issues (at best), so voters have to prioritize—and then the winners go on to vote on their constituents' behalf on many other issues which weren't major talking points during the elections, in effect representing only themselves. You're right that this isn't different from (almost) any other issue. It's a real problem for any issue that isn't right at the top of the priority list.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        Indeed - you won’t find a party (even in ten-party democracies) that represent you on every issue. In a two party system it’s obviously almost impossible. If there are 5-10 parties then there is usually at least a neighboring party that you can switch to if your pet issue isn’t correctly handled by the party you regularly vote for. It’s also a lot easier to steer the opinion of a 10-15% party than a 50% party (with the obvious downside that even if the 10% party forms a government, it will be a coalition where it only has 1:5 weight)
        nybble41 5y ago
        Are you really going to switch to another party which is even further from your own position on several issues which are at least as critical just so that you can get some representation (from a fringe party with little actual influence) on an item further down the list? Any party you choose is going to vote against you interests in some area, abusing your endorsement to back policies you disagree with. The ability to switch to another party which represents you even less apart from one "pet issue" which might not be your highest priority doesn't change that.

Last time I checked, “society” is more than the monied class that makes up government and finance. Bizarre that I have to point this out on a site with the word hacker in its name.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

It's not bizarre to realize society needs some constraints to function. A computer isn't just a bunch of electrons thrown into a box, much like society isn't just a bunch of people doing whatever they want.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
What does this have to do with my comment? Being critical of the government doesn’t automatically make you an anarchist.

alkonaut 5y ago

What does the “monied class” have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that regular voters would opt against transparency and for privacy? I sure wouldn’t

ceilingcorner 5y ago
You are one person and you weren’t asked to vote on it. So yes, the monied classes decided for you.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Every voter is one person and in all parliamentary systems I just vote for representatives/parties that push the opinion I want. This isn’t different from any other issue.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > ... in all parliamentary systems I just vote for representatives/parties that push the opinion I want. ... on perhaps one or two hot-button issues. You won't find any "representative" which actually represents you on more than a few issues (at best), so voters have to prioritize—and then the winners go on to vote on their constituents' behalf on many other issues which weren't major talking points during the elections, in effect representing only themselves. You're right that this isn't different from (almost) any other issue. It's a real problem for any issue that isn't right at the top of the priority list.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      Indeed - you won’t find a party (even in ten-party democracies) that represent you on every issue. In a two party system it’s obviously almost impossible. If there are 5-10 parties then there is usually at least a neighboring party that you can switch to if your pet issue isn’t correctly handled by the party you regularly vote for. It’s also a lot easier to steer the opinion of a 10-15% party than a 50% party (with the obvious downside that even if the 10% party forms a government, it will be a coalition where it only has 1:5 weight)
      - nybble41 5y ago
        Are you really going to switch to another party which is even further from your own position on several issues which are at least as critical just so that you can get some representation (from a fringe party with little actual influence) on an item further down the list? Any party you choose is going to vote against you interests in some area, abusing your endorsement to back policies you disagree with. The ability to switch to another party which represents you even less apart from one "pet issue" which might not be your highest priority doesn't change that.