3 ms·

Government, in a democracy, is supposed to represent the choices of the people. They serve us. If they're not serving you, you are voting wrong. If you vote fo

by jgeada 3y ago

Government, in a democracy, is supposed to represent the choices of the people. They serve us. If they're not serving you, you are voting wrong. If you vote for corrupt imbeciles because their sound bites align with some of your narrow interests, don't expect them stop being corrupt imbeciles when they are in power.

chimpanzee 3y ago
> …supposed to… You’re right. But “supposed to” is just an ideal. > …They serve us. Do they really? The evidence suggests otherwise. So we must ask, why do they not serve us? Leading us to… > If they're not serving you, you are voting wrong Well sure, in a democracy, if the representatives don’t work towards the population’s interests, then the population must be “voting wrong”.[1] But that is just begging the question… “Why are they voting wrong?” And sure…“They are fooled.” But, How? “They are fools.” But, Why? [1] Ignoring the problem of asymmetric information. A population simply does not a have access to all the information needed to ensure they’ll be served properly. The representatives know far more about their own intentions than any set of voters ever could.
- cjblomqvist 3y ago
  Proper education, a corner stone of democracy (sometimes forgotten? In particular in that context). Not the full story, but for sure a critical part of it.
  - chimpanzee 3y ago
    You might be interested in: Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt: https://ia800103.us.archive.org/22/items/jeff_schmidt_disciplined_minds/Jeff%20Schmidt%20-%20Disciplined%20Minds%20A%20Critical%20Look%20at%20Salaried%20Professionals%20and%20the%20Soul-battering%20System%20That%20Shapes%20Their%20Lives.pdf https://ia800103.us.archive.org/22/items/jeff_schmidt_discip... The Crisis of Democracy: https://ia800305.us.archive.org/29/items/TheCrisisOfDemocracy-TrilateralCommission-1975/crisis_of_democracy_text.pdf https://ia800305.us.archive.org/29/items/TheCrisisOfDemocrac... Both address the issue of education in the context of democracy and the current economic order. The first being a proper critique and the second being from the perspective of the elites and power-holders, particularly the Trilateral Commission, helmed by Rockefeller. And its concerns and conclusions can be interpreted as being antagonistic to the goals and interests of the populace. It’s the origin of the phrase “an excess of democracy”. An “excess” according to who? one should reasonably ask… Edit: I says to myself, why not submit these to HN and maybe get a little discussion going? And so I did… Disciplined Minds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643885 Crisis of Democracy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643916
    - notRobot 3y ago
      Thank you for your comments and links in this thread, very interesting.
      - chimpanzee 3y ago
        And thank you for the friendly and encouraging comment.
ROTMetro 3y ago
Great. Then I want them encouraging corporations. I don't want my power company limited to the risks that their CEO can absorb (so projects under what? 20% of the CEOs disposable wealth that the CEO will willing to risk on the total of all projects?). I want a power company that can risk creating large solar farms and absorb the lawsuits that the CEO on their own would not be willing to take on if they were bearer of so much responsibility just couldn't risk it. You are pushing for a world of all large projects being limited to those done by billionaires just like the world of peasants that existed prior to the creation of the concept of corporations. You are pushing a much worse and limited world for the little people where they can't pool their resources and do ANYTHING larger than any one individual can assume the ENTIRE risk of.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jgeada 3y ago
  NOTE: you missed the qualifying word "illegal" in my proposal. You can continue to take all legal risks just the same as before, but all shielding disappears if/when you commit to doing illegal activities. Hold CEOs and boards directly accountable for illegal activity. edit: went through the thread and realized I didn't make it explicit that the proposal is to go directly at executives and board only in cases of illegal activity. It was implied but not explicitly clear. Making this edit to clarify my intent.
  - mikem170 3y ago
    I like the logic of that. Corporations were originally given limited liability in return for doing a public good. If they are doing something illegal - the opposite of a public good - then they broke the deal, so those who broke the law don't get limited liability.
    - ROTMetro 3y ago
      On a previous thread someone posted a interesting idea. Every time a company conducts criminal actions, the feds assume X percentage of undilutable ownership. This punishes the company and stakeholders (or stockholders) as it dilutes their equity and if too much illegality occurs the company changes hands (and probably gets spun out as a new public company with the proceeds going back to the public and the original investors/etc still get an acceptable punishment).
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Government, in a democracy, is supposed to represent the choices of the people. They serve us And most of us prefer a large and strategic employer not be obliterated over fixable sanctions violations.

by jgeada 3y ago

chimpanzee 3y ago

> …supposed to… You’re right. But “supposed to” is just an ideal. > …They serve us. Do they really? The evidence suggests otherwise. So we must ask, why do they not serve us? Leading us to… > If they're not serving you, you are voting wrong Well sure, in a democracy, if the representatives don’t work towards the population’s interests, then the population must be “voting wrong”.[1] But that is just begging the question… “Why are they voting wrong?” And sure…“They are fooled.” But, How? “They are fools.” But, Why? [1] Ignoring the problem of asymmetric information. A population simply does not a have access to all the information needed to ensure they’ll be served properly. The representatives know far more about their own intentions than any set of voters ever could.

cjblomqvist 3y ago
Proper education, a corner stone of democracy (sometimes forgotten? In particular in that context). Not the full story, but for sure a critical part of it.
- chimpanzee 3y ago
  You might be interested in: Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt: https://ia800103.us.archive.org/22/items/jeff_schmidt_disciplined_minds/Jeff%20Schmidt%20-%20Disciplined%20Minds%20A%20Critical%20Look%20at%20Salaried%20Professionals%20and%20the%20Soul-battering%20System%20That%20Shapes%20Their%20Lives.pdf https://ia800103.us.archive.org/22/items/jeff_schmidt_discip... The Crisis of Democracy: https://ia800305.us.archive.org/29/items/TheCrisisOfDemocracy-TrilateralCommission-1975/crisis_of_democracy_text.pdf https://ia800305.us.archive.org/29/items/TheCrisisOfDemocrac... Both address the issue of education in the context of democracy and the current economic order. The first being a proper critique and the second being from the perspective of the elites and power-holders, particularly the Trilateral Commission, helmed by Rockefeller. And its concerns and conclusions can be interpreted as being antagonistic to the goals and interests of the populace. It’s the origin of the phrase “an excess of democracy”. An “excess” according to who? one should reasonably ask… Edit: I says to myself, why not submit these to HN and maybe get a little discussion going? And so I did… Disciplined Minds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643885 Crisis of Democracy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643916
  - notRobot 3y ago
    Thank you for your comments and links in this thread, very interesting.
    - chimpanzee 3y ago
      And thank you for the friendly and encouraging comment.

ROTMetro 3y ago

Great. Then I want them encouraging corporations. I don't want my power company limited to the risks that their CEO can absorb (so projects under what? 20% of the CEOs disposable wealth that the CEO will willing to risk on the total of all projects?). I want a power company that can risk creating large solar farms and absorb the lawsuits that the CEO on their own would not be willing to take on if they were bearer of so much responsibility just couldn't risk it. You are pushing for a world of all large projects being limited to those done by billionaires just like the world of peasants that existed prior to the creation of the concept of corporations. You are pushing a much worse and limited world for the little people where they can't pool their resources and do ANYTHING larger than any one individual can assume the ENTIRE risk of.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jgeada 3y ago
NOTE: you missed the qualifying word "illegal" in my proposal. You can continue to take all legal risks just the same as before, but all shielding disappears if/when you commit to doing illegal activities. Hold CEOs and boards directly accountable for illegal activity. edit: went through the thread and realized I didn't make it explicit that the proposal is to go directly at executives and board only in cases of illegal activity. It was implied but not explicitly clear. Making this edit to clarify my intent.
- mikem170 3y ago
  I like the logic of that. Corporations were originally given limited liability in return for doing a public good. If they are doing something illegal - the opposite of a public good - then they broke the deal, so those who broke the law don't get limited liability.
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    On a previous thread someone posted a interesting idea. Every time a company conducts criminal actions, the feds assume X percentage of undilutable ownership. This punishes the company and stakeholders (or stockholders) as it dilutes their equity and if too much illegality occurs the company changes hands (and probably gets spun out as a new public company with the proceeds going back to the public and the original investors/etc still get an acceptable punishment).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Government, in a democracy, is supposed to represent the choices of the people. They serve us And most of us prefer a large and strategic employer not be obliterated over fixable sanctions violations.