7 ms·

I think this is romanticizing the past a bit. I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class o

I think this is romanticizing the past a bit. I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today.

throwawaylinux 3y ago
I think you're romanticizing the present. There is no law that results in monotonic increase in "goodness" of social systems over time. It can appear that way if you look at the past few hundred or thousand years because incredible technological advances do tend to result in more, but that can also mask inequality and injustice on the fringes. Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. > I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to call it real power. You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. There's a lot of power between cockroach and omnipotent. > Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you. " It can also mean countless other things. Like that government has to stop excessive surveillance. Cannot take your home away to build a road. Or has to lift a regulation for your buisness, ... Not every government activity is money redistribution.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel. You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? If nothing, what kind of political system do you propose? And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        > You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? Strange. > If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? Yes. > And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not. I can't understand what you mean.
    - SanderNL 3y ago
      The "government" is a behemoth multi-armed monster of gigantic propertions. It is utterly incapable of even observing itself in full. The best we can do is look at parts. You are throwing the separate branches of government on the same pile, which I think is unfair to say the least. The judicial branch tells the executive branch to stop or adjust whatever it is doing. The executive branch is not happy about this, but if it wants to survive it needs to listen or at the very least project the illusion that it is listening in some way shape or form. We haven't touched the legislative branch here which is also a force to be reckoned with. All these branches are filled to the brim with people of various background and motivations. They might not be happy about eachother, but they are stuck with it. I don't know about American politics, but these branches are pretty well separated in the Netherlands. Maybe not as much as we'd like, but I'm hard-pressed to call it anything but a clear improvement over the past.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. The hockey-stick-like growth in technology, quality-of-life, and economic activity generally coinciding with the rise of modern market economics and liberal democracy suggests you might not be able to have one without the other.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    You might not, but you might. And there's nothing about a liberal democracy that says government must have a massive centralized concentration of power, it just happens to be going that way because power begets power.
    - SanderNL 3y ago
      > there's nothing about a liberal democracy that says government must have a massive centralized concentration of power That seems like it simplifies a few things like national security, civic safety of any kind, health care, migration, education. I can see a lot of arrows pointing towards centralization of power and for good reasons. Not saying I'm happy about it, but I really, really struggle to imagine a solution for it that is as stable.
      - throwawaylinux 3y ago
        > national security, civic safety of any kind, health care, migration, education. I can see a lot of arrows pointing towards centralization of power and for good reasons. Many "liberal western democracy" governments do very badly and and make ruinously expensive decisions that go against the interest and will of the citizens on some or all of those things.
        SanderNL 3y ago
        In contrast to … ? Systems of government in your utopian visions? You have made a sport out of oversimplifying complicated matters before attacking them unfairly. These “governments” you are so fond of attacking are the best we can do in the present and they require enormous, continuous support from regular civilians. It behooves us all to be mindful of this. These “bureaucrats, politicians, judges, police, and other officials” are normal people, probably including members of your family. The enemy you are envisioning might actually exist, but I believe you are pointing your sword(s) in the wrong direction.
- SanderNL 3y ago
  > I think you're romanticizing the present. You might be right, actually. Common bias eh? But I suggest we look at it practically. > Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. How do you suppose that technology came about? I don't wish to trivialize this, but I'm convinced systems of government and levels of technology have a very strong connection. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on that. > It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. I did not proclaim otherwise. Elite assholes are exactly the same. It's just that they are less capable of actualizing it now. In my experience they lack the privileges they used to have. Sure, they are rich and fuck you over, but that doesn't come close to what they were able to do in the past. I am only interested in results, nothing else. Human souls are as murky as they ever were and maybe it's worse now. I don't know about that. > You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. I'm sorry, maybe I did come across like that indeed. I meant to imply that whatever is between cockroach and omnipotent, it is more now, not less. Cockroaches these days have way more power than they ever did. > And what does "winning" mean? It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight.
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    > How do you suppose that technology came about? By people, inventors, creatives, entrepreneurs, explorers. Certainly not government or bureaucracy. Many of the most incredible inventions, discoveries, and creative works came about under governments that were not free or democratic. I'm sure some amount of government is needed for a society to keep running. I have seen no evidence that it is what gives rise to technology and production rather than the other way around, or that bigger, costlier, more complicated, and more imposing is always better. [snip] > It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight. These are trifles. Corporations are all "on board" with climate change now. Petroleum profiteers have ESG scores. As far as the government is concerned, "doing more about climate change" means nothing for the people involved beyond making the commoners pay more for their food and energy.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. If you lived in Rome this time 2000 years ago, well, you'd be going through a period of relative stability (Tiberius was, well, a bit odd, but things were mostly stable enough), but just coming off about a century of civil war, and looking at, well, interesting times in 2038. And, post the end of the republic, that stretch from start of Augustus to end of Tiberius was about as good as it got. Even ignoring the civil rights issues (unless you were (a) a man and (b) pretty wealthy you were an unperson; while Rome had a concept of citizenship some citizens were very much more citizen than others) it was just very messy relative to just about any developed country today. Your chances of being collateral damage in a civil war at some point in your lifetime would be, well, quite high. Even if you assume wealthy man, btw, don't think you're off the hook. In fact, in the period covered in the article that might even put you in more jeopardy than a normal person. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription#Sulla's_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription#Sulla's_dictators... - have the wrong politics, or even just the wrong friends, and you might end up on the extrajudicial murder list. Cicero, one of the lawyers mentioned in the article, died this way.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    > Tiberius was, well, a bit odd, but things were mostly stable enoug If you were a rich aristocrat it’s likely that you lived under a constant threat of being killed during one of his “stalinist” style purges. Which to be fair wasn’t that odd even the “good” emperors like Claudius engaged in stuff like that. Rule of law wasn’t much of a thing during the imperial period.
qwytw 3y ago
> There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today. To be fair ancient Athens even elected most public official using a lottery system so that the rich/powerful would be able to monopolize the power because they had time/money to campaign and extensive client networks. Multiple other societies had they "eat the rich" moments as well it's just the it wasn't sustainable, almost immediately after the last ruling class was removed a new one (just as corrupt) arose.
kahnclusions 3y ago
It’s 100% romanticising the past. Threads like this always make it painfully obvious how logically-minded and clever tech folks (HN crowd) are really clueless about anything outside their area of expertise.
- zer0-c00l 3y ago
  “logically-minded and clever tech folks” is even too generous. Keep in mind the only barrier to entry to post here is the ability to write moderately complete sentences.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  Aahaha, "nobody may have an opinion about how they are governed, or an interest in thinking about different possibilities unless they are 'experts'". That's rich. Exactly what some kind of self-proclaimed "government expert" would say, thank you for that.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    I’m not sure there is anything wrong with having an opinion it’s just a lot of the time any post related to economics/history/other non tech subjects is full of overconfident people offering semi-absurd solutions (some of which have even been tried but they are obviously not aware of that).
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      > Private legal system with non-profit counsel. Would be interesting to try it again, but no state would ever revert that kind of power to its citizens. "Over-confident" "solution" This is just too much, it's satire right? Really good if it is. Nothing more fragile and angry than an "expert" who has their proclamations challenged, or an indoctrinated follower who is threatened with scary opinions.
      - ffhhttt 3y ago
        It was satire? Makes sense now.. The Roman legal system was extremely arbitrary and highly dysfunctional by modern standard. Why transporting some random feature of it (which contributed to it being such) to the modern world would ever be a good idea? > revert that kind of power to its citizens. It think it’s the inverse and would significantly decrease the “power” a random person has due to obvious reasons. > fragile and angry I’m neither angry or fragile. Why would you even use these words? I just shared my observation, that’s it. > indoctrinated That generally comments which include this word tend to be at least mildly deranged is another thing I noticed here as well.

throwawaylinux 3y ago

I think you're romanticizing the present. There is no law that results in monotonic increase in "goodness" of social systems over time. It can appear that way if you look at the past few hundred or thousand years because incredible technological advances do tend to result in more, but that can also mask inequality and injustice on the fringes. Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. > I'd hesitate to call it real power as well. You could not just go against someone of let's say senatorial class or god forbid, the Emperor himself, without substantial (military) backing and/or being an untouchable demi-god yourself. I wouldn't hesitate to call it real power. You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. There's a lot of power between cockroach and omnipotent. > Today you can take the government itself to court and actually win. And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you. " It can also mean countless other things. Like that government has to stop excessive surveillance. Cannot take your home away to build a road. Or has to lift a regulation for your buisness, ... Not every government activity is money redistribution.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel. You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? If nothing, what kind of political system do you propose? And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      > You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? Strange. > If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? Yes. > And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not. I can't understand what you mean.
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    The "government" is a behemoth multi-armed monster of gigantic propertions. It is utterly incapable of even observing itself in full. The best we can do is look at parts. You are throwing the separate branches of government on the same pile, which I think is unfair to say the least. The judicial branch tells the executive branch to stop or adjust whatever it is doing. The executive branch is not happy about this, but if it wants to survive it needs to listen or at the very least project the illusion that it is listening in some way shape or form. We haven't touched the legislative branch here which is also a force to be reckoned with. All these branches are filled to the brim with people of various background and motivations. They might not be happy about eachother, but they are stuck with it. I don't know about American politics, but these branches are pretty well separated in the Netherlands. Maybe not as much as we'd like, but I'm hard-pressed to call it anything but a clear improvement over the past.
twoodfin 3y ago
Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. The hockey-stick-like growth in technology, quality-of-life, and economic activity generally coinciding with the rise of modern market economics and liberal democracy suggests you might not be able to have one without the other.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  You might not, but you might. And there's nothing about a liberal democracy that says government must have a massive centralized concentration of power, it just happens to be going that way because power begets power.
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    > there's nothing about a liberal democracy that says government must have a massive centralized concentration of power That seems like it simplifies a few things like national security, civic safety of any kind, health care, migration, education. I can see a lot of arrows pointing towards centralization of power and for good reasons. Not saying I'm happy about it, but I really, really struggle to imagine a solution for it that is as stable.
    - throwawaylinux 3y ago
      > national security, civic safety of any kind, health care, migration, education. I can see a lot of arrows pointing towards centralization of power and for good reasons. Many "liberal western democracy" governments do very badly and and make ruinously expensive decisions that go against the interest and will of the citizens on some or all of those things.
      - SanderNL 3y ago
        In contrast to … ? Systems of government in your utopian visions? You have made a sport out of oversimplifying complicated matters before attacking them unfairly. These “governments” you are so fond of attacking are the best we can do in the present and they require enormous, continuous support from regular civilians. It behooves us all to be mindful of this. These “bureaucrats, politicians, judges, police, and other officials” are normal people, probably including members of your family. The enemy you are envisioning might actually exist, but I believe you are pointing your sword(s) in the wrong direction.
SanderNL 3y ago
> I think you're romanticizing the present. You might be right, actually. Common bias eh? But I suggest we look at it practically. > Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. How do you suppose that technology came about? I don't wish to trivialize this, but I'm convinced systems of government and levels of technology have a very strong connection. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on that. > It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt. I did not proclaim otherwise. Elite assholes are exactly the same. It's just that they are less capable of actualizing it now. In my experience they lack the privileges they used to have. Sure, they are rich and fuck you over, but that doesn't come close to what they were able to do in the past. I am only interested in results, nothing else. Human souls are as murky as they ever were and maybe it's worse now. I don't know about that. > You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not. I'm sorry, maybe I did come across like that indeed. I meant to imply that whatever is between cockroach and omnipotent, it is more now, not less. Cockroaches these days have way more power than they ever did. > And what does "winning" mean? It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight.
- throwawaylinux 3y ago
  > How do you suppose that technology came about? By people, inventors, creatives, entrepreneurs, explorers. Certainly not government or bureaucracy. Many of the most incredible inventions, discoveries, and creative works came about under governments that were not free or democratic. I'm sure some amount of government is needed for a society to keep running. I have seen no evidence that it is what gives rise to technology and production rather than the other way around, or that bigger, costlier, more complicated, and more imposing is always better. [snip] > It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight. These are trifles. Corporations are all "on board" with climate change now. Petroleum profiteers have ESG scores. As far as the government is concerned, "doing more about climate change" means nothing for the people involved beyond making the commoners pay more for their food and energy.
rsynnott 3y ago
> Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No. If you lived in Rome this time 2000 years ago, well, you'd be going through a period of relative stability (Tiberius was, well, a bit odd, but things were mostly stable enough), but just coming off about a century of civil war, and looking at, well, interesting times in 2038. And, post the end of the republic, that stretch from start of Augustus to end of Tiberius was about as good as it got. Even ignoring the civil rights issues (unless you were (a) a man and (b) pretty wealthy you were an unperson; while Rome had a concept of citizenship some citizens were very much more citizen than others) it was just very messy relative to just about any developed country today. Your chances of being collateral damage in a civil war at some point in your lifetime would be, well, quite high. Even if you assume wealthy man, btw, don't think you're off the hook. In fact, in the period covered in the article that might even put you in more jeopardy than a normal person. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription#Sulla's_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription#Sulla's_dictators... - have the wrong politics, or even just the wrong friends, and you might end up on the extrajudicial murder list. Cicero, one of the lawyers mentioned in the article, died this way.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  > Tiberius was, well, a bit odd, but things were mostly stable enoug If you were a rich aristocrat it’s likely that you lived under a constant threat of being killed during one of his “stalinist” style purges. Which to be fair wasn’t that odd even the “good” emperors like Claudius engaged in stuff like that. Rule of law wasn’t much of a thing during the imperial period.

qwytw 3y ago

> There is to my knowledge no historical precedent for the amount of practical power the common citizenry has over the powerful classes today. To be fair ancient Athens even elected most public official using a lottery system so that the rich/powerful would be able to monopolize the power because they had time/money to campaign and extensive client networks. Multiple other societies had they "eat the rich" moments as well it's just the it wasn't sustainable, almost immediately after the last ruling class was removed a new one (just as corrupt) arose.

kahnclusions 3y ago

It’s 100% romanticising the past. Threads like this always make it painfully obvious how logically-minded and clever tech folks (HN crowd) are really clueless about anything outside their area of expertise.

zer0-c00l 3y ago
“logically-minded and clever tech folks” is even too generous. Keep in mind the only barrier to entry to post here is the ability to write moderately complete sentences.
throwawaylinux 3y ago
Aahaha, "nobody may have an opinion about how they are governed, or an interest in thinking about different possibilities unless they are 'experts'". That's rich. Exactly what some kind of self-proclaimed "government expert" would say, thank you for that.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  I’m not sure there is anything wrong with having an opinion it’s just a lot of the time any post related to economics/history/other non tech subjects is full of overconfident people offering semi-absurd solutions (some of which have even been tried but they are obviously not aware of that).
  - throwawaylinux 3y ago
    > Private legal system with non-profit counsel. Would be interesting to try it again, but no state would ever revert that kind of power to its citizens. "Over-confident" "solution" This is just too much, it's satire right? Really good if it is. Nothing more fragile and angry than an "expert" who has their proclamations challenged, or an indoctrinated follower who is threatened with scary opinions.
    - ffhhttt 3y ago
      It was satire? Makes sense now.. The Roman legal system was extremely arbitrary and highly dysfunctional by modern standard. Why transporting some random feature of it (which contributed to it being such) to the modern world would ever be a good idea? > revert that kind of power to its citizens. It think it’s the inverse and would significantly decrease the “power” a random person has due to obvious reasons. > fragile and angry I’m neither angry or fragile. Why would you even use these words? I just shared my observation, that’s it. > indoctrinated That generally comments which include this word tend to be at least mildly deranged is another thing I noticed here as well.