6 ms·

Wouldn’t a brain drain lead to even dumber laws?

by koolba 5y ago

elzbardico 5y ago
Other kind of dumb laws. Authoritaranism is a special kind of dumbness historically associated with really smart people.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Authoritarianism is an expression of fear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality disclaimer: I distance myself from the groups currently associated with these schools of thought. I also think the English version of this article is lacks scientific savoir faire. The gender inequality part is empirically and historically wrong. edit: To be honest the whole article is trash, better read it here (Psychological theory): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm
dragonelite 5y ago
Not the problem anymore for the brains that fled.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Kinda weird for the attitude toward governments allegedly violating freedom to be “it’s okay as long as it doesn’t affect me.”
  - dragonelite 5y ago
    Why shouldn't a person exercise their most powerful vote, voting by their feet and exit the system to reintegrate in a different system. Serfs did it in the past when feudalism become to harsh and moved to the cities to make a living. Europeans did it when life became to harsh in Europe and moved to the Americas.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Of course one can avoid most domestic laws by moving to another country. My point is that when someone asks for a solution to this problem, I’m assuming they are looking for something to actually help solve the problem in that country, because they’re probably already aware that simply leaving is a viable way out for themselves (if they can afford it).
  - alpaca128 5y ago
    No, it's not okay. But if you can't fix it, why stay in a bad environment?
moate 5y ago
At that point, who cares? You live somewhere else, not your problem. That's sorta the whole point of leaving a country for political reasons, you feel it's unfixable and not worth hanging around. It's defeatist and doesn't help the people still in Australia, but it's a valid value judgement.
maerF0x0 5y ago
Democracy leads to dumb laws. It's a tyranny of the bottom 51%ile. I say this a little tongue in cheek, but it's a real problem I've yet to understand -- how can an outlier intelligent person thrive in a system that caters to the masses? The masses have an incentive to drain any marginal value out of the intelligent, and have the political power to do so. Edit: @majormajor sorry HN wont let me reply. The reason would be because the bottom 51% have something to gain from extraction. The top 51% however are already superior and dont need to rely on extraction to fulfill their wants/needs. 51% might have been too broad a number, but do you get my drift? Those in the lower intelligence brackets have a lot to gain, but those in the upper intelligence brackets do not have a lot to gain
- majormajor 5y ago
  Why would the bottom 51% have more influence than the top 51% or the middle 25-76% or whatever other random fraction you pull out of your butt?
  - trutannus 5y ago
    >Why would the bottom 51% have more influence than the top 51% 51 + 51 = 102% The bottom 51% have more influence than the top 49% because one is a majority. There is your answer.
    - AlexandrB 5y ago
      I think you missed the point. By this logic, the top 51% have more influence than the bottom 49% so why isn't GP saying they're the ones driving democracy? As an aside, if you look at the elected representatives of Australia, I suspect you'll find most of them are highly educated.
      - hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
        or you might not. some of the highest ministers are country bumpkins catering to the lowest common denominator. the country was however founded by very well educated persons.

Wouldn’t a brain drain lead to even dumber laws?

by koolba 5y ago

Wouldn’t a brain drain lead to even dumber laws?

Other kind of dumb laws. Authoritaranism is a special kind of dumbness historically associated with really smart people.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Authoritarianism is an expression of fear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality disclaimer: I distance myself from the groups currently associated with these schools of thought. I also think the English version of this article is lacks scientific savoir faire. The gender inequality part is empirically and historically wrong. edit: To be honest the whole article is trash, better read it here (Psychological theory): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm

dragonelite 5y ago

Not the problem anymore for the brains that fled.

tshaddox 5y ago
Kinda weird for the attitude toward governments allegedly violating freedom to be “it’s okay as long as it doesn’t affect me.”
- dragonelite 5y ago
  Why shouldn't a person exercise their most powerful vote, voting by their feet and exit the system to reintegrate in a different system. Serfs did it in the past when feudalism become to harsh and moved to the cities to make a living. Europeans did it when life became to harsh in Europe and moved to the Americas.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Of course one can avoid most domestic laws by moving to another country. My point is that when someone asks for a solution to this problem, I’m assuming they are looking for something to actually help solve the problem in that country, because they’re probably already aware that simply leaving is a viable way out for themselves (if they can afford it).
- alpaca128 5y ago
  No, it's not okay. But if you can't fix it, why stay in a bad environment?

moate 5y ago

At that point, who cares? You live somewhere else, not your problem. That's sorta the whole point of leaving a country for political reasons, you feel it's unfixable and not worth hanging around. It's defeatist and doesn't help the people still in Australia, but it's a valid value judgement.

maerF0x0 5y ago

Democracy leads to dumb laws. It's a tyranny of the bottom 51%ile. I say this a little tongue in cheek, but it's a real problem I've yet to understand -- how can an outlier intelligent person thrive in a system that caters to the masses? The masses have an incentive to drain any marginal value out of the intelligent, and have the political power to do so. Edit: @majormajor sorry HN wont let me reply. The reason would be because the bottom 51% have something to gain from extraction. The top 51% however are already superior and dont need to rely on extraction to fulfill their wants/needs. 51% might have been too broad a number, but do you get my drift? Those in the lower intelligence brackets have a lot to gain, but those in the upper intelligence brackets do not have a lot to gain

majormajor 5y ago
Why would the bottom 51% have more influence than the top 51% or the middle 25-76% or whatever other random fraction you pull out of your butt?
- trutannus 5y ago
  >Why would the bottom 51% have more influence than the top 51% 51 + 51 = 102% The bottom 51% have more influence than the top 49% because one is a majority. There is your answer.
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    I think you missed the point. By this logic, the top 51% have more influence than the bottom 49% so why isn't GP saying they're the ones driving democracy? As an aside, if you look at the elected representatives of Australia, I suspect you'll find most of them are highly educated.
    - hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
      or you might not. some of the highest ministers are country bumpkins catering to the lowest common denominator. the country was however founded by very well educated persons.