7 ms·

Someday, perhaps populists and socialists will realize that the very structure of American government combined with our culture leads to complete incompetence i

by lhnn 15y ago

Someday, perhaps populists and socialists will realize that the very structure of American government combined with our culture leads to complete incompetence in government. We are better off with every power we take away from them.

wpietri 15y ago
Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this.
- SkyMarshal 15y ago
  Indeed. We've been giving the US government all the wrong powers, and stripping it of all the right ones. Heckuvajob, us.
- kiba 15y ago
  Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. Our civilization relies on extreme specialization and deep division of labor, not that everyone knows everything. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this. Regulatory capture means that regulatory framework aren't necessary free of corruption. It just means we ought to be smarter how we devise regulations or lack thereof, as sometime doing nothing is better than corporations gaining control of the law. If anything, the government are in bed with the bankers.
  - quanticle 15y ago
    The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. So you would rather live under an absolute monarchy? An enlightened dictatorship? Oligarchy? Theocracy? Which form of government, extant or extinct, would you prefer over the western democratic republic?
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      I vote for a Constitutionally-limited republic. We were supposed to have one of those, but the Constitutional limitations seem to have atrophied. See, for example, the overuse of the "Interstate Commerce Clause"; the rotting of the 10th Amendment; Kelo, Raich, and so forth...
    - shasta 15y ago
      As long as we're fantasizing, why limit to extant or extinct governments? Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? Your parent post is absolutely correct about the major flaw in a democracy, and despite your insinuation, this is not, I believe, an unfixable problem.
      - quanticle 15y ago
        >Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? The problem with every "clean slate" redesign I've ever seen is that it runs into bootstrapping issues. If bootstrapping a new form of government was so obvious or easy, it'd have been done by now.
        shasta 15y ago
        By "bootstrapping issues" you mean that the people in power aren't in a hurry to give it up, right? Obviously they're not and that's why I used the term "fantasizing". :)
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets This isn't going to be rehashing the Glass-Steagall myth, is it? See, e.g., [1] regulation of campaign contributions Isn't this in itself a repudiation of democracy? We're not talking here about Blagojevich-style corruption in the election process. If you're worrying about campaign contributions, that boils down to how much advertising a campaign can buy. If you're worried about a candidate advertising a lot, that's pretty much a vote of no-confidence in your fellow Americans' ability to weigh options and vote rationally. Also, if you're one of those people horrified that corporations can now contribute to campaigns, can you tell me where the line should be drawn? I'm sure you don't object to my right to contribute to a campaign, nor my right to pool money with a friend to do so. If two of us can do so, why not, say, my whole club (e.g., my hypothetical flying club wants to have elected the guy who promises to grant a permit to expand the airport in town)? As this scales up, at some point we need a formal structure to organize things, which is legally recognized by a corporation; why can't my incorporated flying club make a contribution? [1] http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/ http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Heritage Foundation...really?
    - civilian 15y ago
      Attack their argument, not the source.
      - onemoreact 15y ago
        Ok, corporate donations are not linked to what everyone inside a corporation decides but rather a small set of people whose interest don't necessarily align with the shareholders or the workers at large. Handing disproportionate power to middlemen breeds corruption without the counterbalance of risking large personal fortunes or publicity. This same argument also disproves the idea of giving personal tax breaks on large incomes as apposed to corporate tax breaks for small businesses. AKA middle management don't create jobs so tax breaks targeting 'job creators' that include them are misnamed. Edit: The above is a position piece just like those people at the Heritage Foundation are paid to create. There is nothing wrong with suggesting you find credible sources that are not simply spouting propaganda.
- sbov 15y ago
  The real problem is the government is afraid to police the markets like they police the people. There are all sorts of things that are legal for people to do absent the harm of others. However, when you throw in harm to others in there, you may become criminally liable for your otherwise legal actions - I'm speaking of negligence. This is what's missing. Without this concept, the government will always be several steps behind the market "innovators".
- lhnn 15y ago
  The authority we grant to the government to make laws that regulate financial markets, currencies, and (you wish) campaign contributions gives them the authority to make bullshit laws sponsored by the RIAA. A public that isn't engaged with the political process because our central bureaucracy is to distant to interact with personally: THAT'S why we have this trash happening today. Glass-Steagal would only be good because it keeps FDIC-insured money from being used for gambling, which is what securities trading is. One could argue we don't need FDIC insurance, and in fact, we shouldn't have regulation and monopoly of currency by the government. As far as campaign contribution regulation, it's a violation of free speech to tell me how I can spend my money to talk. I can go on if you really care to know how CFR is a bad idea. I want this country to "not suck" and respect the freedoms of its citizens. Several simple, yet fundamental things need to change: -Repeal the 17th amendment -Our voting system for the legislature -The scope of federal government needs drastically reduced.
andylei 15y ago
this type of thinking is just lazy. the government did something bad? government can't work! take away as many powers as possible! or maybe, we need to figure out a good solution. problem is, that's not easy and requires domain knowledge and critical thinking. its a lot easier just to say, well i have this one solution that will solve all the problems.
- rhizome 15y ago
  That, and half of US political society wants to murder the entire concept of government.
  - einhverfr 15y ago
    No they don't. They just say they do so they can get elected and expand government. Those of us who actually believe in small government* across the board are as likely to be in the Occupy Wall St. movement as the Tea Party, and we realize that neither party is anywhere near our views. * I mean this in a literal way, that government should be no larger than necessary and no more intrusive than required. The goal is to get to a point where we can engineer intrusive, large government structures out of the picture. For example, if we were to have state and local governments running the last mile telephone network but allowing services to be provided by a host of competing businesses, we'd have a freer market with less regulation. But it would require some use of eminent domain to achieve in a way that neither party would support.
    - rhizome 15y ago
      "Oh, that's just rhetoric" is not a realistic critique. Actual people shape their perspectives based on what messages come from a) people in power, and b) people they agree with. They aren't just words.
      - einhverfr 15y ago
        But the words and actions are entirely out of sync. The fact is that very few running for federal office have any interest in limiting federal power. Additionally one thing I have found interesting is how folks who supported Obama during the campaign when he promised to reduce the impact of state secrets, create a more open executive, etc. have more or less continued to follow him (more often than not) as he has done the near exact opposite of his promises. Sure we can argue why Gitmo is still operating as a prison, but the executive has made an about face on the "war on terror" (after about a day in office) which quite astounding, though not as surprising as the willingness of Democratic supporters to go along with it. Of course the excesses of the Bush and Obama years are probably why we have both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St, but that's a discussion for another time.
ryandickherber 15y ago
I think it's the fact that there exists an organization with a monopoly on the initiation of force that is the problem. The structure of this organization matters a little less. That's why these sorts of problems happen with every government. What the government has done in this case is criminal. But now we just have to hope that they prosecute themselves. If there were no monopoly on force, it would be possible to use a competing court system to prosecute.
emmett 15y ago
This kind of political bombast doesn't belong on Hacker News. Please don't drag us into a war of the Blues and the Greens.
- lhnn 15y ago
  Frank discussion on the failure of powerful central government in America is appropriate when it's central to the topic that is posted. The fact that the US government did this, for a year, without any backlash, is a symbol of how far gone the US government is.
phillmv 15y ago
Get your memes right. This is an example of government corporatism, acting at the behest of a single entity. Socialists are supposed to hate business, right?

by lhnn 15y ago

wpietri 15y ago

Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this.

SkyMarshal 15y ago
Indeed. We've been giving the US government all the wrong powers, and stripping it of all the right ones. Heckuvajob, us.
kiba 15y ago
Or could it be that it's exactly this sort of reflexive government-bashing that makes it easy for the general public to elect fools and charlatans? After all, if government is the problem, why would people bother electing representatives who take governing seriously? Heck of a job, Brownie. The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. Our civilization relies on extreme specialization and deep division of labor, not that everyone knows everything. Regardless, I think your thesis is false. A lot of the powers we've taken away from government lately (regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets, regulation of campaign contributions) have made us worse off, and specifically have made it easier for RIAA to buy legislation like this. Regulatory capture means that regulatory framework aren't necessary free of corruption. It just means we ought to be smarter how we devise regulations or lack thereof, as sometime doing nothing is better than corporations gaining control of the law. If anything, the government are in bed with the bankers.
- quanticle 15y ago
  The current form of government allows people to elect charlatans and fools. That's not because the population is stupid. On the contrary, a democratic system required the population to be unusually educated & informed, while always deciding to vote in our long-term interest. In other words, the democratic system requires the impossible. So you would rather live under an absolute monarchy? An enlightened dictatorship? Oligarchy? Theocracy? Which form of government, extant or extinct, would you prefer over the western democratic republic?
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    I vote for a Constitutionally-limited republic. We were supposed to have one of those, but the Constitutional limitations seem to have atrophied. See, for example, the overuse of the "Interstate Commerce Clause"; the rotting of the 10th Amendment; Kelo, Raich, and so forth...
  - shasta 15y ago
    As long as we're fantasizing, why limit to extant or extinct governments? Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? Your parent post is absolutely correct about the major flaw in a democracy, and despite your insinuation, this is not, I believe, an unfixable problem.
    - quanticle 15y ago
      >Do you think a clean slate government design wouldn't be a huge improvement over any government ever present in the world? The problem with every "clean slate" redesign I've ever seen is that it runs into bootstrapping issues. If bootstrapping a new form of government was so obvious or easy, it'd have been done by now.
      - shasta 15y ago
        By "bootstrapping issues" you mean that the people in power aren't in a hurry to give it up, right? Obviously they're not and that's why I used the term "fantasizing". :)
CWuestefeld 15y ago
regulation of financial services, regulation of financial markets This isn't going to be rehashing the Glass-Steagall myth, is it? See, e.g., [1] regulation of campaign contributions Isn't this in itself a repudiation of democracy? We're not talking here about Blagojevich-style corruption in the election process. If you're worrying about campaign contributions, that boils down to how much advertising a campaign can buy. If you're worried about a candidate advertising a lot, that's pretty much a vote of no-confidence in your fellow Americans' ability to weigh options and vote rationally. Also, if you're one of those people horrified that corporations can now contribute to campaigns, can you tell me where the line should be drawn? I'm sure you don't object to my right to contribute to a campaign, nor my right to pool money with a friend to do so. If two of us can do so, why not, say, my whole club (e.g., my hypothetical flying club wants to have elected the guy who promises to grant a permit to expand the airport in town)? As this scales up, at some point we need a formal structure to organize things, which is legally recognized by a corporation; why can't my incorporated flying club make a contribution? [1] http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/ http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/22/the-glass-steagall-myth/
- rhizome 15y ago
  Heritage Foundation...really?
  - civilian 15y ago
    Attack their argument, not the source.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      Ok, corporate donations are not linked to what everyone inside a corporation decides but rather a small set of people whose interest don't necessarily align with the shareholders or the workers at large. Handing disproportionate power to middlemen breeds corruption without the counterbalance of risking large personal fortunes or publicity. This same argument also disproves the idea of giving personal tax breaks on large incomes as apposed to corporate tax breaks for small businesses. AKA middle management don't create jobs so tax breaks targeting 'job creators' that include them are misnamed. Edit: The above is a position piece just like those people at the Heritage Foundation are paid to create. There is nothing wrong with suggesting you find credible sources that are not simply spouting propaganda.
sbov 15y ago
The real problem is the government is afraid to police the markets like they police the people. There are all sorts of things that are legal for people to do absent the harm of others. However, when you throw in harm to others in there, you may become criminally liable for your otherwise legal actions - I'm speaking of negligence. This is what's missing. Without this concept, the government will always be several steps behind the market "innovators".
lhnn 15y ago
The authority we grant to the government to make laws that regulate financial markets, currencies, and (you wish) campaign contributions gives them the authority to make bullshit laws sponsored by the RIAA. A public that isn't engaged with the political process because our central bureaucracy is to distant to interact with personally: THAT'S why we have this trash happening today. Glass-Steagal would only be good because it keeps FDIC-insured money from being used for gambling, which is what securities trading is. One could argue we don't need FDIC insurance, and in fact, we shouldn't have regulation and monopoly of currency by the government. As far as campaign contribution regulation, it's a violation of free speech to tell me how I can spend my money to talk. I can go on if you really care to know how CFR is a bad idea. I want this country to "not suck" and respect the freedoms of its citizens. Several simple, yet fundamental things need to change: -Repeal the 17th amendment -Our voting system for the legislature -The scope of federal government needs drastically reduced.

andylei 15y ago

this type of thinking is just lazy. the government did something bad? government can't work! take away as many powers as possible! or maybe, we need to figure out a good solution. problem is, that's not easy and requires domain knowledge and critical thinking. its a lot easier just to say, well i have this one solution that will solve all the problems.

rhizome 15y ago
That, and half of US political society wants to murder the entire concept of government.
- einhverfr 15y ago
  No they don't. They just say they do so they can get elected and expand government. Those of us who actually believe in small government* across the board are as likely to be in the Occupy Wall St. movement as the Tea Party, and we realize that neither party is anywhere near our views. * I mean this in a literal way, that government should be no larger than necessary and no more intrusive than required. The goal is to get to a point where we can engineer intrusive, large government structures out of the picture. For example, if we were to have state and local governments running the last mile telephone network but allowing services to be provided by a host of competing businesses, we'd have a freer market with less regulation. But it would require some use of eminent domain to achieve in a way that neither party would support.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    "Oh, that's just rhetoric" is not a realistic critique. Actual people shape their perspectives based on what messages come from a) people in power, and b) people they agree with. They aren't just words.
    - einhverfr 15y ago
      But the words and actions are entirely out of sync. The fact is that very few running for federal office have any interest in limiting federal power. Additionally one thing I have found interesting is how folks who supported Obama during the campaign when he promised to reduce the impact of state secrets, create a more open executive, etc. have more or less continued to follow him (more often than not) as he has done the near exact opposite of his promises. Sure we can argue why Gitmo is still operating as a prison, but the executive has made an about face on the "war on terror" (after about a day in office) which quite astounding, though not as surprising as the willingness of Democratic supporters to go along with it. Of course the excesses of the Bush and Obama years are probably why we have both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St, but that's a discussion for another time.

ryandickherber 15y ago

I think it's the fact that there exists an organization with a monopoly on the initiation of force that is the problem. The structure of this organization matters a little less. That's why these sorts of problems happen with every government. What the government has done in this case is criminal. But now we just have to hope that they prosecute themselves. If there were no monopoly on force, it would be possible to use a competing court system to prosecute.

emmett 15y ago

This kind of political bombast doesn't belong on Hacker News. Please don't drag us into a war of the Blues and the Greens.

lhnn 15y ago
Frank discussion on the failure of powerful central government in America is appropriate when it's central to the topic that is posted. The fact that the US government did this, for a year, without any backlash, is a symbol of how far gone the US government is.

phillmv 15y ago

Get your memes right. This is an example of government corporatism, acting at the behest of a single entity. Socialists are supposed to hate business, right?