4 ms·

> Yes, because your vote spent other people's money, not your own. It's our money, I pay taxes too, significantly more than average. So you don't believe in de

> Yes, because your vote spent other people's money, not your own. It's our money, I pay taxes too, significantly more than average. So you don't believe in democracy? If half the population has net worth of rougly zero, does that part of the population not have legitimate free will? In such a society, what stops the half that is wealthy from becoming exploitative towards the poor, putting in place policies that make sure the poor stay poor. What if they take student loans furhter and make the kids start their life with a loan for mandatory schooling, from primacy school onwards. Making real estate so expensive that the only way majority can have housing is for it to be provided by the company in company towns, and if you quit your job you loose roof over your head. And making healthcare so expensive that it can also be only provided by your employer, and if you loose your job with a chronic health condition you are basically sentenced to die. oh, wait, we have already done that bit. What stops the wealthy part from turning it into Feudalism version 2 - there are lords, there are some 'free merchants' like white collar proffeshional, and then there are the serfs?

kragen 5y ago
> So you don't believe in democracy? No, not really. It's better at preventing the worst harms of government than the alternatives that have so far been tried, such as feudalism ("aristocracy"), dictatorship, and especially colonialism, but democracy still regularly perpetrates atrocities and steals from the poor to enrich the rich. Hopefully we can find a better form of social organization soon, one that doesn't offer the ruthless and ambitious quite so much leeway to enrich themselves by harming others. I, too, condemn the strawman the rest of your comment rightly condemns, which as far as I know consists of policies that nobody has ever advocated. Within the broad class of democratic societies, those that have stronger protection for private property and tighter limits on government power are the ones that are best at protecting the poor from the depredations of the rich and otherwise privileged. Sometimes it has been said that democracy consists of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, but Trump's election demonstrates the truth is even worse: they apparently voted to eat library paste and boiled leather.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "policies that nobody has ever advocated" Surely you wouldn't expect anyone to openly advocate 'let's make housing unaffordable', and yet we are well on our way to making it unaffordable. Also no-one ever advocated 'let's allow Russian oligarhs to buy UK realestate with blood money, anonymously, inflate real estate prices and introduce strong libel laws to protect them' and yet that's exactly what happened, and even the financial times got sued multiple times for reporting on the issue.
  - kragen 5y ago
    What is the matter with that, if it is what everyone wants to do? https://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/45.php https://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/45.php (And if not, well, that's the trouble with democracy...)
- lisper 5y ago
  > Hopefully we can find a better form of social organization soon, one that doesn't offer the ruthless and ambitious quite so much leeway to enrich themselves by harming others. Hear hear. Got any suggestions?
  - kragen 5y ago
    Yes, but they all have a low chance of having the desired effects. I can list buzzwords that might be worth trying: dominant assurance contracts, seed factories (clanking replicators), Gandhian nonviolence, strong cryptography and cryptocurrencies to structurally limit the powers of governments (whether democratic or otherwise), enhanced geothermal systems, land value taxes, pervasive pseudonymity, solar-orbit artificial habitats, drug decriminalization, copyright elimination. Some of these are surely counterproductive, while others would improve the situation. All are uncertain in their effects. All this stuff is, sociologically speaking, "basic research". When you start out on basic research you don't know what the results will be. (But isn't it unethical to do experiments on humans? No, whatever you do in the world without knowing the full consequences amounts to "experiments on humans", and the question is whether you do it well or badly.) By the way, would you mind making an effort to answer my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31276333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31276333?

kragen 5y ago

> So you don't believe in democracy? No, not really. It's better at preventing the worst harms of government than the alternatives that have so far been tried, such as feudalism ("aristocracy"), dictatorship, and especially colonialism, but democracy still regularly perpetrates atrocities and steals from the poor to enrich the rich. Hopefully we can find a better form of social organization soon, one that doesn't offer the ruthless and ambitious quite so much leeway to enrich themselves by harming others. I, too, condemn the strawman the rest of your comment rightly condemns, which as far as I know consists of policies that nobody has ever advocated. Within the broad class of democratic societies, those that have stronger protection for private property and tighter limits on government power are the ones that are best at protecting the poor from the depredations of the rich and otherwise privileged. Sometimes it has been said that democracy consists of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, but Trump's election demonstrates the truth is even worse: they apparently voted to eat library paste and boiled leather.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"policies that nobody has ever advocated" Surely you wouldn't expect anyone to openly advocate 'let's make housing unaffordable', and yet we are well on our way to making it unaffordable. Also no-one ever advocated 'let's allow Russian oligarhs to buy UK realestate with blood money, anonymously, inflate real estate prices and introduce strong libel laws to protect them' and yet that's exactly what happened, and even the financial times got sued multiple times for reporting on the issue.
- kragen 5y ago
  What is the matter with that, if it is what everyone wants to do? https://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/45.php https://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/45.php (And if not, well, that's the trouble with democracy...)
lisper 5y ago
> Hopefully we can find a better form of social organization soon, one that doesn't offer the ruthless and ambitious quite so much leeway to enrich themselves by harming others. Hear hear. Got any suggestions?
- kragen 5y ago
  Yes, but they all have a low chance of having the desired effects. I can list buzzwords that might be worth trying: dominant assurance contracts, seed factories (clanking replicators), Gandhian nonviolence, strong cryptography and cryptocurrencies to structurally limit the powers of governments (whether democratic or otherwise), enhanced geothermal systems, land value taxes, pervasive pseudonymity, solar-orbit artificial habitats, drug decriminalization, copyright elimination. Some of these are surely counterproductive, while others would improve the situation. All are uncertain in their effects. All this stuff is, sociologically speaking, "basic research". When you start out on basic research you don't know what the results will be. (But isn't it unethical to do experiments on humans? No, whatever you do in the world without knowing the full consequences amounts to "experiments on humans", and the question is whether you do it well or badly.) By the way, would you mind making an effort to answer my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31276333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31276333?