4 ms·

I think sad how much of a popularity contest politics are. He doesn't really respond to the arguments, just uses the boilerplate "freedom" stuff. You can turn t

I think sad how much of a popularity contest politics are. He doesn't really respond to the arguments, just uses the boilerplate "freedom" stuff. You can turn that statement right around, and it'd still make sense. I wish politicians would actually have the time and commitment to know what they were legislating. This system is broken. Turned around: > The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. In order to do that, we must close those evil sites so that we can have better conditions for the corporations and they will continue to provide jobs and security to our economy.

ajross 15y ago
Having politicians who understand the issues you care about is no guarantee that they will work for them. Yes, most of us yearn for a utopia where we're ruled by super-intelligent benevolent overlords. But in the real world, I'll settle for politicians that take popular positions because it's what the voters want. Ryan did the right thing here, regardless of what you think about his understanding of the issue (or about his other politics), and should be commended. We won this little battle. It's a good thing.
- jjoe 15y ago
  """But in the real world, I'll settle for politicians that take popular positions because it's what the voters want.""" It doesn't always work out best. It becomes a tyranny of the majority. Especially when what's at stake impacts a small group of people (e.g. religious differences, minorities, etc). I'd rather settle for politicians that can think on their own.
  - polyfractal 15y ago
    I don't understand why this comment is being downvoted. He makes a valid argument against the tyranny of the (uninformed) majority. A significant number of Americans thought defaulting on our debt was a good idea and ignored every expert and economist shouting this would be catastrophic. Their argument was simply "we don't believe you" without supporting evidence, and without any desire to listen to counter-arguments. There is plenty of legitimate controversy over monetary policy, but basically everyone agreed defaulting on the debt was not a good idea. I'm not arguing for elitism or benevolent dictatorship, but there are definitely times when "average Joe" has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.
    - ajross 15y ago
      In which case shouldn't the correct solution be to educate Joe about the issue and get him to make informed choices at the voting booth and town hall meeting? Which, it seems, is exactly what happened here. Democracy is working (if not working well). That's a good thing. Edit: three responses now are picking on my use of the term "educate" and referring to the willful ignorance of the public. That's missing the point. People certainly can be "educated" about issues they care about, as demonstrated here. It's not an issue of "book learning" or making Joe watch the news. It's an issue of Joe knowing what matters to him already and getting access to information that impacts those interests.
      - polyfractal 15y ago
        I agree, education is key. And I'm happy about what happened in this particular story. Not disputing that at all =) But how do you educate someone that plugs their ears and yells "na na na na"? This is what I was getting at - politicians that legislate the ignorance of the masses, even when credible sources are saying its a catastrophic idea. I don't have an answer to this, by the way. The opposite is legislators that ignore the general public and enforce things "for your own good", which is also a problem.
      - gnaritas 15y ago
        Often, Joe doesn't want to be educated; Joe looks down on education; Joe doesn't trust all that fancy book learning.
      - srdev 15y ago
        One has to be willing and open to learning to be educated. Often, people discussing politics or economics feel that their understanding is already good and have no desire to learn. This is the main reason that these topics tend to turn into a cesspool of a discussion.
      - yummyfajitas 15y ago
        Joe has no incentive to become educated. His odds of affecting the outcome are essentially nil [1], so it's all the same if he votes based on his tribal affiliations or self image (e.g. "look at me, I'm so very not racist!" or "look at me, I'm so religious"). [1] Math can be found here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1750757 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1750757
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > I'll settle for politicians that take popular positions Because it worked so well in Germany in the mid 30's
- walexander 15y ago
  I think the best comment on this I've heard came from Milton Friedman. Paraphrasing, he said: "Politicians will do whatever they have to do to get re-elected. Everyone thinks if we just elect the right people, we'll have change. If you want change, don't worry about electing the right people. Just make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things". Now, save for someone being bribed outright by a lobbyist, I think this is the context we need to work within.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tlb 15y ago
There's also the opposite theory: that in a democracy politicians should just listen to the people rather than forming their own opinions.

ajross 15y ago

Having politicians who understand the issues you care about is no guarantee that they will work for them. Yes, most of us yearn for a utopia where we're ruled by super-intelligent benevolent overlords. But in the real world, I'll settle for politicians that take popular positions because it's what the voters want. Ryan did the right thing here, regardless of what you think about his understanding of the issue (or about his other politics), and should be commended. We won this little battle. It's a good thing.

jjoe 15y ago
"""But in the real world, I'll settle for politicians that take popular positions because it's what the voters want.""" It doesn't always work out best. It becomes a tyranny of the majority. Especially when what's at stake impacts a small group of people (e.g. religious differences, minorities, etc). I'd rather settle for politicians that can think on their own.
- polyfractal 15y ago
  I don't understand why this comment is being downvoted. He makes a valid argument against the tyranny of the (uninformed) majority. A significant number of Americans thought defaulting on our debt was a good idea and ignored every expert and economist shouting this would be catastrophic. Their argument was simply "we don't believe you" without supporting evidence, and without any desire to listen to counter-arguments. There is plenty of legitimate controversy over monetary policy, but basically everyone agreed defaulting on the debt was not a good idea. I'm not arguing for elitism or benevolent dictatorship, but there are definitely times when "average Joe" has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.
  - ajross 15y ago
    In which case shouldn't the correct solution be to educate Joe about the issue and get him to make informed choices at the voting booth and town hall meeting? Which, it seems, is exactly what happened here. Democracy is working (if not working well). That's a good thing. Edit: three responses now are picking on my use of the term "educate" and referring to the willful ignorance of the public. That's missing the point. People certainly can be "educated" about issues they care about, as demonstrated here. It's not an issue of "book learning" or making Joe watch the news. It's an issue of Joe knowing what matters to him already and getting access to information that impacts those interests.
    - polyfractal 15y ago
      I agree, education is key. And I'm happy about what happened in this particular story. Not disputing that at all =) But how do you educate someone that plugs their ears and yells "na na na na"? This is what I was getting at - politicians that legislate the ignorance of the masses, even when credible sources are saying its a catastrophic idea. I don't have an answer to this, by the way. The opposite is legislators that ignore the general public and enforce things "for your own good", which is also a problem.
    - gnaritas 15y ago
      Often, Joe doesn't want to be educated; Joe looks down on education; Joe doesn't trust all that fancy book learning.
    - srdev 15y ago
      One has to be willing and open to learning to be educated. Often, people discussing politics or economics feel that their understanding is already good and have no desire to learn. This is the main reason that these topics tend to turn into a cesspool of a discussion.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      Joe has no incentive to become educated. His odds of affecting the outcome are essentially nil [1], so it's all the same if he votes based on his tribal affiliations or self image (e.g. "look at me, I'm so very not racist!" or "look at me, I'm so religious"). [1] Math can be found here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1750757 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1750757
rbanffy 15y ago
> I'll settle for politicians that take popular positions Because it worked so well in Germany in the mid 30's
walexander 15y ago
I think the best comment on this I've heard came from Milton Friedman. Paraphrasing, he said: "Politicians will do whatever they have to do to get re-elected. Everyone thinks if we just elect the right people, we'll have change. If you want change, don't worry about electing the right people. Just make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things". Now, save for someone being bribed outright by a lobbyist, I think this is the context we need to work within.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tlb 15y ago

There's also the opposite theory: that in a democracy politicians should just listen to the people rather than forming their own opinions.