4 ms·

Through venal politicians, and--judging by the typical "man on the street" segment--voters who are barely literate?

hackerlight 4y ago
Well not everyone is illiterate, so you're trying to weave some rhetorical trick here. Anyway, the alternative of me being forced to huff your SUV exhaust and listen to your 6am leafblower and get early dementia is not a world I want to be a part of.
- zhxshen 4y ago
  Not a trick... an observation. Spengler put it better than I ever could in "The Decline of the West": If by "democracy" we mean the form which the Third Estate as such wishes to impart to public life as a whole, it must be concluded that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice, knowing and doing. It is the tragic comedy of the world‑improvers' and freedom‑teachers' desperate fight against money that they are ipso facto assisting money to be effective. Respect for the big number—expressed in the principles of equality for all, natural rights, and universal suffrage—is just as much a class‑ideal of the unclassed as freedom of public opinion (and more particularly freedom of the press) is so. These are ideals, but in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune. The representatives of the ideas look at one side only, while the representatives of money operate with the other. The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in effective motion only by money. … the Jacobins had destroyed the old obligations of the blood and so had emancipated money; now it stepped forward as lord of the land. There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact. The great movement which makes use of the catchwords of Marx has not delivered the entrepreneur into the power of the worker, but both into that of the Bourse.
  - prophesi 4y ago
    Not sure how an excerpt from an early 1900's German book debating the merits of unbridled democracy has anything to do with today's literacy of the Third Estate.
    - zhxshen 4y ago
      Read it again. Money money money. Whether it's Spengler or Plato, Weimar or Weimerica, people haven't changed. The lesson still applies.
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  You know 100 years ago, people were a hell of a lot less likely to make a racket at 6am in a residential area. Any reflection on why that was?
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Mechanically they couldn't unless they tried really hard to intentionally do so. Now it's just a default given cars, motorbikes, leafblowers, lawnmowers. Late capitalism has been effective at putting the costs onto other people. Don't get me wrong, such inventions are net good (cars and motorbikes yes, not so much leafblowers), but they need to be regulated and taxed in a way that manages the additional cost burden that others are forced to pay.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      It's because people weren't afraid of punching each other in the head as one or all potential steps of conflict resolution. Correct?, no. Irreplaceable incentive to not be a dick? Seemingly.
noelsusman 4y ago
Yes, precisely. Churchill was right in 1947 and he's still right today. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.
- zhxshen 4y ago
  That doesn't really figure into it. My point is that administrative law has failed. It invests too much power into too few people with nowhere near enough transparency, and the things it seeks to address are so far above the "the people's" pay-grade that it presents an intractable situation with respect to assessing and maintaining performance. I think a better solution to the problems Spengler pointed out (see below) would be good old-fashioned torts. We have plenty of under-employed ambulance chasers. If only a few of them manage their way to the middle of the big-tech tootsie-roll pop, that would be one hell of a message, and far more effective at improving practices than the occasional $150M slap on the wrist. PS> Churchill was a fat drunk who went into the war against methed-out nazis with an empire upon which the sun never set, and came out of it only by the skin of his teeth despite plenty of help. The Greeks & Romans will still be quoted long after he has (rightfully, mercifully) been forgotten.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Torts (+ Coase Theorem) is the ancapistan catch-all solution but it doesn't work in practice because the frictions (e.g legal fees, time, access) prevent small everyday externalities from being reasonably addressable. I've seen a small time civil case pertaining to a dispute totalling sub-$50k drag out for 10 years and cost more than the damages. It doesn't work empirically for everyday disputes because it puts the onus and burden onto the small time victim, which is net unprofitable given all the frictions, leading to persistence of externalities. You also don't solve the root problem of corruption by moving to a torts only system. Torts as a solution would rely on property laws that are themselves free of moneyed corruption. It also would rely on a judiciary that can't be bought. So it's shifting the same problem we have now (corporatocracy and entrenched interests) to a stunted and less competent system of enforcement. "My point is that administrative law has failed." It hasn't failed. For example, look at leaded petrol, nitrogen oxides, smoking and the ozone layer. It's just highly imperfect and needs to be improved.

Well not everyone is illiterate, so you're trying to weave some rhetorical trick here. Anyway, the alternative of me being forced to huff your SUV exhaust and listen to your 6am leafblower and get early dementia is not a world I want to be a part of.

zhxshen 4y ago
Not a trick... an observation. Spengler put it better than I ever could in "The Decline of the West": If by "democracy" we mean the form which the Third Estate as such wishes to impart to public life as a whole, it must be concluded that democracy and plutocracy are the same thing under the two aspects of wish and actuality, theory and practice, knowing and doing. It is the tragic comedy of the world‑improvers' and freedom‑teachers' desperate fight against money that they are ipso facto assisting money to be effective. Respect for the big number—expressed in the principles of equality for all, natural rights, and universal suffrage—is just as much a class‑ideal of the unclassed as freedom of public opinion (and more particularly freedom of the press) is so. These are ideals, but in actuality the freedom of public opinion involves the preparation of public opinion, which costs money; and the freedom of the press brings with it the question of possession of the press, which again is a matter of money; and with the franchise comes electioneering, in which he who pays the piper calls the tune. The representatives of the ideas look at one side only, while the representatives of money operate with the other. The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in effective motion only by money. … the Jacobins had destroyed the old obligations of the blood and so had emancipated money; now it stepped forward as lord of the land. There is no proletarian, not even a Communist movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money—and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact. The great movement which makes use of the catchwords of Marx has not delivered the entrepreneur into the power of the worker, but both into that of the Bourse.
- prophesi 4y ago
  Not sure how an excerpt from an early 1900's German book debating the merits of unbridled democracy has anything to do with today's literacy of the Third Estate.
  - zhxshen 4y ago
    Read it again. Money money money. Whether it's Spengler or Plato, Weimar or Weimerica, people haven't changed. The lesson still applies.
aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
You know 100 years ago, people were a hell of a lot less likely to make a racket at 6am in a residential area. Any reflection on why that was?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Mechanically they couldn't unless they tried really hard to intentionally do so. Now it's just a default given cars, motorbikes, leafblowers, lawnmowers. Late capitalism has been effective at putting the costs onto other people. Don't get me wrong, such inventions are net good (cars and motorbikes yes, not so much leafblowers), but they need to be regulated and taxed in a way that manages the additional cost burden that others are forced to pay.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    It's because people weren't afraid of punching each other in the head as one or all potential steps of conflict resolution. Correct?, no. Irreplaceable incentive to not be a dick? Seemingly.

noelsusman 4y ago

Yes, precisely. Churchill was right in 1947 and he's still right today. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.

zhxshen 4y ago
That doesn't really figure into it. My point is that administrative law has failed. It invests too much power into too few people with nowhere near enough transparency, and the things it seeks to address are so far above the "the people's" pay-grade that it presents an intractable situation with respect to assessing and maintaining performance. I think a better solution to the problems Spengler pointed out (see below) would be good old-fashioned torts. We have plenty of under-employed ambulance chasers. If only a few of them manage their way to the middle of the big-tech tootsie-roll pop, that would be one hell of a message, and far more effective at improving practices than the occasional $150M slap on the wrist. PS> Churchill was a fat drunk who went into the war against methed-out nazis with an empire upon which the sun never set, and came out of it only by the skin of his teeth despite plenty of help. The Greeks & Romans will still be quoted long after he has (rightfully, mercifully) been forgotten.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Torts (+ Coase Theorem) is the ancapistan catch-all solution but it doesn't work in practice because the frictions (e.g legal fees, time, access) prevent small everyday externalities from being reasonably addressable. I've seen a small time civil case pertaining to a dispute totalling sub-$50k drag out for 10 years and cost more than the damages. It doesn't work empirically for everyday disputes because it puts the onus and burden onto the small time victim, which is net unprofitable given all the frictions, leading to persistence of externalities. You also don't solve the root problem of corruption by moving to a torts only system. Torts as a solution would rely on property laws that are themselves free of moneyed corruption. It also would rely on a judiciary that can't be bought. So it's shifting the same problem we have now (corporatocracy and entrenched interests) to a stunted and less competent system of enforcement. "My point is that administrative law has failed." It hasn't failed. For example, look at leaded petrol, nitrogen oxides, smoking and the ozone layer. It's just highly imperfect and needs to be improved.