12 ms·

> populist vote-grabbing sorry but how is this different from just democracy ? we have democracy here in USA that allows NIMBY homeowners opposing any new d

> populist vote-grabbing sorry but how is this different from just democracy ? we have democracy here in USA that allows NIMBY homeowners opposing any new development. Is that also just 'populist vote-grabbbing'

krastanov 4y ago
Populism is part of democracy and some people even like it. But riling up your voter base to be excited about one bombastic law without (1) considering second order effects or (2) talking about what might be more pressing but unpopular problems, is not something I (and, seemingly, OP) like. And this does not even go into the usual malicious uses of populism.
- dangwhy 4y ago
  > riling up your voter base But where did you get that this happened in italy . I didn't see that in the bbc article.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Are saying this is not supposed to rile up the user base, or not that the law is in Italy?
  - ChrisRR 4y ago
    The title?
  - timeon 4y ago
    You went from: > sorry but how is this different from just democracy to: > But where did you get that this happened Which seems like example of moving the goal-post.
    - dangwhy 4y ago
      how is it moving goal posts. gp's response as i understood is that this has something to do with 'riling up' which makes it 'populism' ( vs democracy) . I am asking where they got there was any 'riling up' involved in this case. I guess i don't really understand 'riling up' means.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > Populism is part of democracy and some people even like it. Populism is how people react to democracy failures. It happens when people are disenfranchised.
bluGill 4y ago
Yes. If you live in any form of democracy this is a real problem and you need to watch out for it. Make sure you watch out for it in yourself - there are a lot of things that make your life better at the expense of society has a whole. There are also a lot of unintended effects of things that should be good that can make them worse than the alternative that feels evil. Democracy is still the best form of government I know of though. So if you don't live in one it is worth moving to one. Hopefully you can learn from the mistakes of those of us who have gone before and design protection for some more downside.
- fnimick 4y ago
  > there are a lot of things that make your life better at the expense of society has a whole There's no better example of this than the discussion on health insurance here on HN a few days ago, where people with health insurance were opposing universal healthcare because they'd have to "compete with the general public for treatment access". How do you fight it though? There's no incentive for anyone to willingly choose to have a worse personal situation for a greater good.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    There are incentives. Selfishness isn't everyone's driving factor, unlike what extremely selfish people want you to believe. Plenty of people believe in morals and other reasons to help their neighbor at their own expense, and these feelings seem to follow a high level of education and awareness of your fellow human beings.
    - prottog 4y ago
      As long as you don't think that just because someone doesn't agree with your way of helping fellow human beings, they are necessarily uneducated or heartless. As an example, just in the last six months or so, I took considerable time and effort out of my day to help absolute strangers in two different occasions to change their flat tires. Both times I was soaked through in sweat by the time I was done, but I was happy to help. Does it follow from my willingness to do this that I would be in support of, say, a government program for roadside assistance (call it AAA-for-All)? Hell no. America once excelled at civil society, but over time government has subsumed more and more of those functions; to everyone's detriment, if you asked me.
stametseater 4y ago
Democracy is termed "populist" when it enacts something counter to a deeply unpopular progressive agenda, such as replacing Italian food with bugs and lab-grown abominations.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  Exactly this ... or you forgot their favorite F word, Fascism
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    I wouldn't say favorite but it's definitely been a useful one recently.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  To me it seems to be when it's irrational reactionary overreach. If it's deeply unpopular why is it so threatening and why does it need to be banned before it even becomes a real thing? Won't the market quickly show that "bugs and lab-grown abominations" can't stand?
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    You seem to forget that brainwashing and propaganda are a thing
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      I didn't forget that. Isn't that another strike against populism? Or is the idea here that the change in diet will still succeed due to nefarious brainwashing, implying that the majority of the people will succumb, but that this is contrary to the REAL will of the people? The will of the majority of the people should be listened to now because they are clearly not brainwashed when they have an idea I agree with, but will be at some indeterminate point in the future when it's something I don't like? That seems ideologically inconsistent but terribly convenient.
  - 4y ago
kodah 4y ago
Yes, NIMBYs are populists as well. Populism doesn't have a favored side of the spectrum.
phpisthebest 4y ago
Yes... That is why many rational people do not support this idea of unlimited democracy. The founders of he US knew very well the perils of unlimited democracy and that is why they not only attempted to check government power, but check the power of the majority I dont want to be ruled by either a government in washington, nor a majority of my neighbors
- Gud 4y ago
  then how do you explain Switzerland, where people vote on referendums every quarter? What the world needs is more power to the people, not less. Populist movements only grow because the insulated ruling class don't listen to the people(and often don't give a shit).
  - prottog 4y ago
    Switzerland is very much an exception to the rule, and even it has a written constitution limiting the government's power. "More power to the people" works when operating within a culture that values attributes that lead to a stable, wealthy society over time, and with limits to what the people can make government do. Otherwise it becomes, as they say, two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. The Swiss do have a popular vote on things, but they aren't, for example, voting themselves free lunch and ponies for all. I don't know whether that's because the government is prohibited from providing free lunch and ponies or because the majority of people culturally value hard work and saving over immediate gratification and are educated enough to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Either way, it would not work out as well in places where one or both of those things are not true. Let's pick out some recent results from Switzerland: In 2022, voters rejected "Ban on animal and human experiments" and "Popular initiative against factory farming", and approved "Limiting tobacco advertising". In 2021, they rejected "Federal Act on greenhouse gas emissions" and "For clean drinking water and healthy food", and approved "Ban on full facial coverings". In 2020, they rejected "Affordable housing" and "Ban on financing weapon production" and approved "Paternity leave". In 2019, they rejected "Stop the Sprawl", and approved "Gun control directive". From this, I can gather that the Swiss as a whole are sensible people who understand that voting for things that sound good on the surface like "ban factory farming" or "more affordable housing" might lead to worse problems down the road than what it is they are trying to fix; and that they have a strong sense of cultural identity, as shown by the ban on full facial coverings. I would imagine the same questions would yield vastly different results in other places. The proposition system in California resulted in Prop 13, arguably one of the worst policy disasters ever in that state, looking back almost 45 years later. Now the San Francisco city government is talking about paying every black resident a lump sum of $5mm and a guaranteed high income for the next 250 years; what do you think a binding popular referendum would do in that city?
ChrisRR 4y ago
I would hardly use the US as the shining example of a fair democracy
pdpi 4y ago
Believing in tightening immigration controls is a matter of policy that people can reasonably disagree on. "I'm going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" takes that policy and makes it populist vote-grabbing. Likewise, there's plenty to be said about standards for food safety and quality, but legislating against lab-grown meat serves no practical purpose right now (it may in the future), other than pure political grandstanding.
wankle 4y ago
I Googled NIMBY. It seems like a non-conversation enhancing passive aggressive term.
- sterlind 4y ago
  it's a real phenomenon. like, methadone clinics for instance. a lot of people support offering methadone treatment to recovering heroin addicts. it keeps them clean. a lot fewer people are okay with a methadone clinic opening up shop in their neighborhood.

krastanov 4y ago

Populism is part of democracy and some people even like it. But riling up your voter base to be excited about one bombastic law without (1) considering second order effects or (2) talking about what might be more pressing but unpopular problems, is not something I (and, seemingly, OP) like. And this does not even go into the usual malicious uses of populism.

dangwhy 4y ago
> riling up your voter base But where did you get that this happened in italy . I didn't see that in the bbc article.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Are saying this is not supposed to rile up the user base, or not that the law is in Italy?
- ChrisRR 4y ago
  The title?
- timeon 4y ago
  You went from: > sorry but how is this different from just democracy to: > But where did you get that this happened Which seems like example of moving the goal-post.
  - dangwhy 4y ago
    how is it moving goal posts. gp's response as i understood is that this has something to do with 'riling up' which makes it 'populism' ( vs democracy) . I am asking where they got there was any 'riling up' involved in this case. I guess i don't really understand 'riling up' means.
marcosdumay 4y ago
> Populism is part of democracy and some people even like it. Populism is how people react to democracy failures. It happens when people are disenfranchised.

bluGill 4y ago

Yes. If you live in any form of democracy this is a real problem and you need to watch out for it. Make sure you watch out for it in yourself - there are a lot of things that make your life better at the expense of society has a whole. There are also a lot of unintended effects of things that should be good that can make them worse than the alternative that feels evil. Democracy is still the best form of government I know of though. So if you don't live in one it is worth moving to one. Hopefully you can learn from the mistakes of those of us who have gone before and design protection for some more downside.

fnimick 4y ago
> there are a lot of things that make your life better at the expense of society has a whole There's no better example of this than the discussion on health insurance here on HN a few days ago, where people with health insurance were opposing universal healthcare because they'd have to "compete with the general public for treatment access". How do you fight it though? There's no incentive for anyone to willingly choose to have a worse personal situation for a greater good.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  There are incentives. Selfishness isn't everyone's driving factor, unlike what extremely selfish people want you to believe. Plenty of people believe in morals and other reasons to help their neighbor at their own expense, and these feelings seem to follow a high level of education and awareness of your fellow human beings.
  - prottog 4y ago
    As long as you don't think that just because someone doesn't agree with your way of helping fellow human beings, they are necessarily uneducated or heartless. As an example, just in the last six months or so, I took considerable time and effort out of my day to help absolute strangers in two different occasions to change their flat tires. Both times I was soaked through in sweat by the time I was done, but I was happy to help. Does it follow from my willingness to do this that I would be in support of, say, a government program for roadside assistance (call it AAA-for-All)? Hell no. America once excelled at civil society, but over time government has subsumed more and more of those functions; to everyone's detriment, if you asked me.

stametseater 4y ago

Democracy is termed "populist" when it enacts something counter to a deeply unpopular progressive agenda, such as replacing Italian food with bugs and lab-grown abominations.

Eumenes 4y ago
Exactly this ... or you forgot their favorite F word, Fascism
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I wouldn't say favorite but it's definitely been a useful one recently.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
To me it seems to be when it's irrational reactionary overreach. If it's deeply unpopular why is it so threatening and why does it need to be banned before it even becomes a real thing? Won't the market quickly show that "bugs and lab-grown abominations" can't stand?
- orangepurple 4y ago
  You seem to forget that brainwashing and propaganda are a thing
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    I didn't forget that. Isn't that another strike against populism? Or is the idea here that the change in diet will still succeed due to nefarious brainwashing, implying that the majority of the people will succumb, but that this is contrary to the REAL will of the people? The will of the majority of the people should be listened to now because they are clearly not brainwashed when they have an idea I agree with, but will be at some indeterminate point in the future when it's something I don't like? That seems ideologically inconsistent but terribly convenient.
- 4y ago

kodah 4y ago

Yes, NIMBYs are populists as well. Populism doesn't have a favored side of the spectrum.

phpisthebest 4y ago

Yes... That is why many rational people do not support this idea of unlimited democracy. The founders of he US knew very well the perils of unlimited democracy and that is why they not only attempted to check government power, but check the power of the majority I dont want to be ruled by either a government in washington, nor a majority of my neighbors

Gud 4y ago
then how do you explain Switzerland, where people vote on referendums every quarter? What the world needs is more power to the people, not less. Populist movements only grow because the insulated ruling class don't listen to the people(and often don't give a shit).
- prottog 4y ago
  Switzerland is very much an exception to the rule, and even it has a written constitution limiting the government's power. "More power to the people" works when operating within a culture that values attributes that lead to a stable, wealthy society over time, and with limits to what the people can make government do. Otherwise it becomes, as they say, two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. The Swiss do have a popular vote on things, but they aren't, for example, voting themselves free lunch and ponies for all. I don't know whether that's because the government is prohibited from providing free lunch and ponies or because the majority of people culturally value hard work and saving over immediate gratification and are educated enough to know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Either way, it would not work out as well in places where one or both of those things are not true. Let's pick out some recent results from Switzerland: In 2022, voters rejected "Ban on animal and human experiments" and "Popular initiative against factory farming", and approved "Limiting tobacco advertising". In 2021, they rejected "Federal Act on greenhouse gas emissions" and "For clean drinking water and healthy food", and approved "Ban on full facial coverings". In 2020, they rejected "Affordable housing" and "Ban on financing weapon production" and approved "Paternity leave". In 2019, they rejected "Stop the Sprawl", and approved "Gun control directive". From this, I can gather that the Swiss as a whole are sensible people who understand that voting for things that sound good on the surface like "ban factory farming" or "more affordable housing" might lead to worse problems down the road than what it is they are trying to fix; and that they have a strong sense of cultural identity, as shown by the ban on full facial coverings. I would imagine the same questions would yield vastly different results in other places. The proposition system in California resulted in Prop 13, arguably one of the worst policy disasters ever in that state, looking back almost 45 years later. Now the San Francisco city government is talking about paying every black resident a lump sum of $5mm and a guaranteed high income for the next 250 years; what do you think a binding popular referendum would do in that city?

ChrisRR 4y ago

I would hardly use the US as the shining example of a fair democracy

pdpi 4y ago

Believing in tightening immigration controls is a matter of policy that people can reasonably disagree on. "I'm going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" takes that policy and makes it populist vote-grabbing. Likewise, there's plenty to be said about standards for food safety and quality, but legislating against lab-grown meat serves no practical purpose right now (it may in the future), other than pure political grandstanding.

wankle 4y ago

I Googled NIMBY. It seems like a non-conversation enhancing passive aggressive term.

sterlind 4y ago
it's a real phenomenon. like, methadone clinics for instance. a lot of people support offering methadone treatment to recovering heroin addicts. it keeps them clean. a lot fewer people are okay with a methadone clinic opening up shop in their neighborhood.