4 ms·

If you start with the 5 why's, then it's clear that this could never ever happen until our corruption problem is addressed. We can't have this because people w

If you start with the 5 why's, then it's clear that this could never ever happen until our corruption problem is addressed. We can't have this because people won't unionize and exercise collective bargaining outside the bounds of the law. Why can't we have this? Big banks don't want it. Why does that matter? Big blanks have too much influence over the government. Why do banks have too much influence? Because money votes on politicians before people do (politicians fundraise before the primary which means that money votes on candidates before people do) and money contributions are unbound (thanks to citizens united). Why can't we make our politicians work for us? Because we have less power than the our plutocrats. Why do we have less power? Because the law prevents us from exercising it via unions (or other means) and those in power are able to keep us fighting eachother rather than exercising collective power. Why don't we put justice above law? Because that puts ourselves at risk and most people would rather live a slave than risk death or otherwise when the powerful defend themselves from having their power reduced. So if you want a government that works for you, you have to unionize, until people have credible power, we will not be able to influence the government to work on our behalf.

than3 3y ago
You are mistaken in outcome, but you are not wrong that we do have a corruption problem. Unfortunately, corruption is endemic in any political system. Socialism also isn't a solution. Someone has to pay and be held accountable. As long as it remained manageable its not necessarily a negative. What we are seeing is the debt fueled rage of two selfish generations piling up unchecked and snowballing; leaving us with the check, or more appropriately bag of flaming poo rolling down on us.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I sat down with a Chinese person who was willing to have a political conversation with me. They talked about the idea of "planned corruption" in China. What became pretty clear is that corruption does not grow linearly it grows exponentially. It grows exponentially because corruption frequently requires multiple parties. Corruption is often expressed in the form of loyalty. Corruption is social in nature and therefore subject to network effects. The less manageable the corruption is, the more it costs to manage it less effectively. So the idea of manageable corruption seems farcicle to me. In your political model of reality, who is doing that managing? > Socialism also isn't a solution. Someone has to pay and be held accountable. I think I disagree. In order to hold someone accountable, you must have power. You cannot expect the powerful to hold themselves accountable. So in your political model of reality, where does the power to hold someone accountable come from? > What we are seeing... I don't buy this at all as a key factor.
  - than3 3y ago
    I agree it seems farcicle but it will inevitably creep in regardless with any centralized system, simply as turnover of people's roles to younger overseers without the benefit of experience occurs. Self-limiting and enforcing limits is not unheard of though usually exceedingly rare. There is such a thing as the rule of law, but as you mentioned when the powerful band together in collusive behavior anything is possible, and its usually for their benefit. The rule of law as we've come to know it generally speaking usually requires appropriate representation with regard to crafting/maintaining those laws but that is not always the case. Also, without maintaining a market which limits currency sufficiently to allow rational price discovery, you run into the Economic Calculation problem which has no solution. A form of it is inflation/deflation curves based on lagging indicators where you whipsaw closer and closer to the margins until one or the other outcome spirals out. Very dynamical. > What we are seeing. >> I don't buy this at all as a key factor We'll have to disagree. Its pretty obvious that previous generations starting at the point of taking the dollar off the gold standard have consistently spent more than revenue (negative cashflow). They've spread the loss in value globally, but its still a loss and worse its in lagging inflation adjusted payouts. The bill always comes due, and the consequences of policies put in place over that time will be paid by generations who had no say in its creation. Debt can be just as coercive when backed by law (austerity measures). Incidentally, a very similar issue came up during the French Revolution (Bastille) at least according to Thomas Paine who wrote about it in passing in his Rights of Man (1770s). That and Common Sense are both very interesting reads if you can make the time. In my opinion, power should be entrusted to the people's representation in a republic with important limitations enforced independently to preserve their responsiveness to the people they represent. For example representatives who spend more than X% of their time on activities other than representation, time for which they are paid by the taxpayer. Or representing/concentrating more than 80,000 people's voting rights in a single person aren't really representing their constituents in any equitable way. Exceeding either of those limits causes their responsibility and duty to fall in furtherance of maintaining their profession.
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      I'll respond to the substance but you avoided the key question that I think hamstrings your response. Fundamentally you think the problem with America is framed around money and monetary policy. I think the problem with America is framed around power, of which money is one form of, and the middle class and lower class loss of power. power should be entrusted to representatives of the people, but what is the remedy when it is not? Who "enforces independently"?
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> We can't have this because people won't unionize and exercise collective bargaining outside the bounds of the law This is a non sequitur from why we can’t have postal banking.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  I listed the sequence of ideas I think leads to that conclusion, and the best you could muster is an unsubstantiated "you're wrong"? Imagine if every hacker news response was just a verbose "you're wrong." What low quality discourse. If voting has been ritualized and is not very meaningful, where does power come from? If wages are determined by the relative power difference between labor and management, how is a laborer supposed to increase their wages? Would you expect labors wages to increase without an increase of power first? What if labors power goes to near zero? If we wanted to stop gerrymandering, where does that power come from? If we wanted to stop Pelosi from trading, how do we do that? If we wanted to bring back the per-Reagan tax rates, how do we do that? It is about power. We can't get a government that represents us because we do not have power. Corruption in our government represents a lack of the public's power at large. We can't have public works because those works benefit the public at the cost of business. The government represents businesses because they have more power than the public. Businesses literally vote on candidates with money before the public at large votes. That's not a fringe idea. That is literally presented by Harvard Law professor and tech darling Lawrence Lessig. So you think it's a non sequitur because you haven't asked the question "where does public power come from?" "How does a relatively powerless person exercise political force"? "What happens if voting is more of a ritual than a meaningful choice?" Clearly it is a "sequitur".

than3 3y ago

You are mistaken in outcome, but you are not wrong that we do have a corruption problem. Unfortunately, corruption is endemic in any political system. Socialism also isn't a solution. Someone has to pay and be held accountable. As long as it remained manageable its not necessarily a negative. What we are seeing is the debt fueled rage of two selfish generations piling up unchecked and snowballing; leaving us with the check, or more appropriately bag of flaming poo rolling down on us.

hayst4ck 3y ago
I sat down with a Chinese person who was willing to have a political conversation with me. They talked about the idea of "planned corruption" in China. What became pretty clear is that corruption does not grow linearly it grows exponentially. It grows exponentially because corruption frequently requires multiple parties. Corruption is often expressed in the form of loyalty. Corruption is social in nature and therefore subject to network effects. The less manageable the corruption is, the more it costs to manage it less effectively. So the idea of manageable corruption seems farcicle to me. In your political model of reality, who is doing that managing? > Socialism also isn't a solution. Someone has to pay and be held accountable. I think I disagree. In order to hold someone accountable, you must have power. You cannot expect the powerful to hold themselves accountable. So in your political model of reality, where does the power to hold someone accountable come from? > What we are seeing... I don't buy this at all as a key factor.
- than3 3y ago
  I agree it seems farcicle but it will inevitably creep in regardless with any centralized system, simply as turnover of people's roles to younger overseers without the benefit of experience occurs. Self-limiting and enforcing limits is not unheard of though usually exceedingly rare. There is such a thing as the rule of law, but as you mentioned when the powerful band together in collusive behavior anything is possible, and its usually for their benefit. The rule of law as we've come to know it generally speaking usually requires appropriate representation with regard to crafting/maintaining those laws but that is not always the case. Also, without maintaining a market which limits currency sufficiently to allow rational price discovery, you run into the Economic Calculation problem which has no solution. A form of it is inflation/deflation curves based on lagging indicators where you whipsaw closer and closer to the margins until one or the other outcome spirals out. Very dynamical. > What we are seeing. >> I don't buy this at all as a key factor We'll have to disagree. Its pretty obvious that previous generations starting at the point of taking the dollar off the gold standard have consistently spent more than revenue (negative cashflow). They've spread the loss in value globally, but its still a loss and worse its in lagging inflation adjusted payouts. The bill always comes due, and the consequences of policies put in place over that time will be paid by generations who had no say in its creation. Debt can be just as coercive when backed by law (austerity measures). Incidentally, a very similar issue came up during the French Revolution (Bastille) at least according to Thomas Paine who wrote about it in passing in his Rights of Man (1770s). That and Common Sense are both very interesting reads if you can make the time. In my opinion, power should be entrusted to the people's representation in a republic with important limitations enforced independently to preserve their responsiveness to the people they represent. For example representatives who spend more than X% of their time on activities other than representation, time for which they are paid by the taxpayer. Or representing/concentrating more than 80,000 people's voting rights in a single person aren't really representing their constituents in any equitable way. Exceeding either of those limits causes their responsibility and duty to fall in furtherance of maintaining their profession.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    I'll respond to the substance but you avoided the key question that I think hamstrings your response. Fundamentally you think the problem with America is framed around money and monetary policy. I think the problem with America is framed around power, of which money is one form of, and the middle class and lower class loss of power. power should be entrusted to representatives of the people, but what is the remedy when it is not? Who "enforces independently"?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> We can't have this because people won't unionize and exercise collective bargaining outside the bounds of the law This is a non sequitur from why we can’t have postal banking.

hayst4ck 3y ago
I listed the sequence of ideas I think leads to that conclusion, and the best you could muster is an unsubstantiated "you're wrong"? Imagine if every hacker news response was just a verbose "you're wrong." What low quality discourse. If voting has been ritualized and is not very meaningful, where does power come from? If wages are determined by the relative power difference between labor and management, how is a laborer supposed to increase their wages? Would you expect labors wages to increase without an increase of power first? What if labors power goes to near zero? If we wanted to stop gerrymandering, where does that power come from? If we wanted to stop Pelosi from trading, how do we do that? If we wanted to bring back the per-Reagan tax rates, how do we do that? It is about power. We can't get a government that represents us because we do not have power. Corruption in our government represents a lack of the public's power at large. We can't have public works because those works benefit the public at the cost of business. The government represents businesses because they have more power than the public. Businesses literally vote on candidates with money before the public at large votes. That's not a fringe idea. That is literally presented by Harvard Law professor and tech darling Lawrence Lessig. So you think it's a non sequitur because you haven't asked the question "where does public power come from?" "How does a relatively powerless person exercise political force"? "What happens if voting is more of a ritual than a meaningful choice?" Clearly it is a "sequitur".