6 ms·

This idea keeps cropping up, and it terrifies me beyond all reason. It's roughly as palatable as a direct democracy, because in effect, that's what it advocates

This idea keeps cropping up, and it terrifies me beyond all reason. It's roughly as palatable as a direct democracy, because in effect, that's what it advocates. People who deeply care about the law are already able, and willing, to find the information they need; I'm all for making it easier to manage, and there are worthy projects in that respect, but by no means do I want ordinary citizens to start dabbling in legislation. The Founding Fathers' romantic notions notwithstanding, running a government that provides important services to 350 million people isn't a side-job—it's a full-time job, and arguably a career. Heaping disdain on career politicians is absurd: if they're good at their job, of course they should make a career out of it. Which brings me to the idea underlying all these posts: that by keeping close tabs on the intricate details of lawmaking, we can ensure that they will do a good job. I have heard this argument before. It came from this guy who wasn't really a coder, but wanted to keep close tabs on what the coders that worked for him did. So he started asking them to log in all their hours, with messages explaining what they were doing. And he started looking at the commits in the VCS so that he would see the actual code. Of course, when he didn't like something he would criticize. He would threaten people with getting fired if they didn't code according to his standards. The coders tried to explain that sometimes things have to be done in a way that's different from the "common sense" way, and sometimes he was even reasonable about it, but he still was not a coder, so he had no way of knowing what was involved. That's who we're trying to become with projects like these. The most pointy-haired of pointy haired bosses. Our pointy hair wants points of its own, and all because we try to hold people accountable. That's a canard. We want to hold politians accountable because we feel they are irresponsible. But what about our responsibility? Who hired these irresponsible politicians to steward us? We did. Instead of looking for ways to make politicians accountable, let's look for ways to make ourselves responsible. I would start, on an individual basis, by taking ownership of our part of the equation: our vote. Remember: "Accountability is something that is left when responsibility is subtracted" -- Pasi Sahlberg Let's find projects that restore our responsibility. From that, the rest will follow.

Aqua_Geek 14y ago
> Who hired these irresponsible politicians to steward us? We did. Isn't there some value in making people more aware of what these "irresponsible" politicians are doing then, so that we don't keep lazily voting them in again and again? Yes, those who care about the law are probably already involved. Shouldn't we be trying to get more people to care, though? More people getting the information from the source instead of having their opinions formed for them by the news anchor is a good thing, IMHO.
- afthonos 14y ago
  I am less and less convinced that more information is the solution. If it were, we would already have the most enlightened era of government the world has ever known, since far more information is available now than there ever has been. What we care about is narratives. And since narratives are fundamentally subjective, it's very hard to create a narrative that legitimately serves "the public good" while simultaneously satisfying the public. I hope there is a solution to this; I just don't think throwing more information at the problem is it.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    It could easily be a necessary but not sufficient sort of thing.
maratd 14y ago
> This idea keeps cropping up, and it terrifies me beyond all reason. I can only hope you remain in a constant state of fear. This has nothing to do with direct democracy or democracy in general. Please keep your pants on. The government already makes this data available. I mean, where do you think he got it? These are laws. Laws that we, as citizens, are obligated to comply with. Failure to comply with some of these laws lead to jail or financial ruin. And we are utterly ignorant over 99.9% of them. Especially the minute changes that happen year to year. The idea that one must hire a lawyer just to be made aware of what the law is or is going to be ... is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say. I applaud any effort that allows a citizen easy access to the laws that govern us and especially their constant flux. > I would start, on an individual basis, by taking ownership of our part of the equation: our vote. Who am I supposed to vote for? The guy with the nice hair? This is exactly the kind of tool that will allow me to quickly determine where to place my vote.
- afthonos 14y ago
  I was unclear. I am not alarmed by the data being available. In fact, I also mentioned that it's already mostly available. I am concerned with the idea that we need to pay close attention to the process. > The idea that one must hire a lawyer just to be made aware of what the law is or is going to be ... is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say. Having the text of the law available will not help that. As others have pointed out, the meaning of the law is very different from its text, and that's what you pay lawyers to explain to you. It's a pleasant fantasy that the world is simple, but it's a fantasy nonetheless, and it will always be one in a large nation. The only comfort we have is that, by and large, while we only know a tiny fraction of the laws we live under, it is only a little smaller than the fraction that affects our actions. > This is exactly the kind of tool that will allow me to quickly determine where to place my vote. No, it isn't, unless you're a lawyer or a legislator yourself. Understanding law is an expertise, not a casual hobby. I cannot emphasize this enough. If you disagree with this, there is little more to say. And if you think it should be different, again, I think it isn't possible, and I believe that a few days talking with any lawyer about whatever your favorite topic is will show you otherwise. And so, if you instead rely on reading the US Code directly and making judgement based on your understanding of it, you'll be making gross mistakes, because you won't take into account Supreme Court rulings that will affect the interpretation, other, non-obvious parts of the US Code that directly bear on how certain passages must be read, and an endless number of arcana that make a real difference. But you'll still think yourself qualified, and you'll vote based on that. Except you won't have read all the changes made every year, because how could you, so you'll really vote based on the subset a few people told you to focus on. This is the irony: a seemingly useful thing, the availability of ALL THE INFORMATION, becomes a tool for shaping whatever narrative the people we trust want to shape (and I don't mean "want" in a malicious way). But because they will have the information at their fingertips, we'll assume that they have properly analyzed it, and pass judgements based on theirs, thinking we are basing them on facts.. > Who am I supposed to vote for? The guy with the nice hair? I inverted these two because this answer is the critical one. You are supposed to try and meet your representative. You are supposed to talk to her, and listen to her, not as a politician, but as a person you are entrusting with an important job. That means pretty much ignoring the stump speech, and instead talking to her or her staff, seeing where they are coming from, and approaching to learn, not to judge. It's hard work. It's way harder than grep-ing for keywords in the repository, or look at the commit history of a particular passage we dislike. But that's where responsibility starts. Not with being hypercritical of every little thing, as we developers are so good at being.
fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
it terrifies me beyond all reason. It's roughly as palatable as a direct democracy, Because direct democracy has been such a disaster for Switzerland.
- afthonos 14y ago
  Switzerland does not have direct democracy; it is simply close to it. Switzerland is also a country with 7 million people, not 350. Yes, that changes things. We are more diverse, and more geographically and culturally separated, and that means we are more prone to distrust each other.
  - fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
    Switzerland does not have direct democracy; it is simply close to it It is very close to it. In fact the only differences between it and the theoretic ideal, are in the practical implementation of a direct democracy. All real world direct democracies would look very much like Switzerland. Switzerland is also a country with 7 million people, not 350. And 7 million is still far beyond the monkey sphere. Zurich is bigger than most towns in the US, except for the mega cities like New York and L.A and a few others. Most of the US is made up less densely populated areas than Switzerland. That is why the US so much more conservative than Europe, because due to its geographic size, it is also much more rural. Europe packs something like twice the population in a similar area. And the expression "All politics is local." originates in the US - I think. So the US and its states could be structured like the Swiss federation and its cantons. The bottom line is that real direct democracy on a very large scale (literally millions of people) exists and works like a Swiss watch. That's one extreme I wish the world would follow. But sadly, despite your fears, the world is going towards the opposite extreme - Singapore. Similar to Switzerland in its wealth and prosperity, Singapore is not at all a democracy. And that's the government model the world seems to want to follow. That's where China is going and that's what the US and Europe are very slowly sliding towards.

Aqua_Geek 14y ago

> Who hired these irresponsible politicians to steward us? We did. Isn't there some value in making people more aware of what these "irresponsible" politicians are doing then, so that we don't keep lazily voting them in again and again? Yes, those who care about the law are probably already involved. Shouldn't we be trying to get more people to care, though? More people getting the information from the source instead of having their opinions formed for them by the news anchor is a good thing, IMHO.

afthonos 14y ago
I am less and less convinced that more information is the solution. If it were, we would already have the most enlightened era of government the world has ever known, since far more information is available now than there ever has been. What we care about is narratives. And since narratives are fundamentally subjective, it's very hard to create a narrative that legitimately serves "the public good" while simultaneously satisfying the public. I hope there is a solution to this; I just don't think throwing more information at the problem is it.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  It could easily be a necessary but not sufficient sort of thing.

maratd 14y ago

> This idea keeps cropping up, and it terrifies me beyond all reason. I can only hope you remain in a constant state of fear. This has nothing to do with direct democracy or democracy in general. Please keep your pants on. The government already makes this data available. I mean, where do you think he got it? These are laws. Laws that we, as citizens, are obligated to comply with. Failure to comply with some of these laws lead to jail or financial ruin. And we are utterly ignorant over 99.9% of them. Especially the minute changes that happen year to year. The idea that one must hire a lawyer just to be made aware of what the law is or is going to be ... is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say. I applaud any effort that allows a citizen easy access to the laws that govern us and especially their constant flux. > I would start, on an individual basis, by taking ownership of our part of the equation: our vote. Who am I supposed to vote for? The guy with the nice hair? This is exactly the kind of tool that will allow me to quickly determine where to place my vote.

afthonos 14y ago
I was unclear. I am not alarmed by the data being available. In fact, I also mentioned that it's already mostly available. I am concerned with the idea that we need to pay close attention to the process. > The idea that one must hire a lawyer just to be made aware of what the law is or is going to be ... is so warped and disgusting, I just don't know what to say. Having the text of the law available will not help that. As others have pointed out, the meaning of the law is very different from its text, and that's what you pay lawyers to explain to you. It's a pleasant fantasy that the world is simple, but it's a fantasy nonetheless, and it will always be one in a large nation. The only comfort we have is that, by and large, while we only know a tiny fraction of the laws we live under, it is only a little smaller than the fraction that affects our actions. > This is exactly the kind of tool that will allow me to quickly determine where to place my vote. No, it isn't, unless you're a lawyer or a legislator yourself. Understanding law is an expertise, not a casual hobby. I cannot emphasize this enough. If you disagree with this, there is little more to say. And if you think it should be different, again, I think it isn't possible, and I believe that a few days talking with any lawyer about whatever your favorite topic is will show you otherwise. And so, if you instead rely on reading the US Code directly and making judgement based on your understanding of it, you'll be making gross mistakes, because you won't take into account Supreme Court rulings that will affect the interpretation, other, non-obvious parts of the US Code that directly bear on how certain passages must be read, and an endless number of arcana that make a real difference. But you'll still think yourself qualified, and you'll vote based on that. Except you won't have read all the changes made every year, because how could you, so you'll really vote based on the subset a few people told you to focus on. This is the irony: a seemingly useful thing, the availability of ALL THE INFORMATION, becomes a tool for shaping whatever narrative the people we trust want to shape (and I don't mean "want" in a malicious way). But because they will have the information at their fingertips, we'll assume that they have properly analyzed it, and pass judgements based on theirs, thinking we are basing them on facts.. > Who am I supposed to vote for? The guy with the nice hair? I inverted these two because this answer is the critical one. You are supposed to try and meet your representative. You are supposed to talk to her, and listen to her, not as a politician, but as a person you are entrusting with an important job. That means pretty much ignoring the stump speech, and instead talking to her or her staff, seeing where they are coming from, and approaching to learn, not to judge. It's hard work. It's way harder than grep-ing for keywords in the repository, or look at the commit history of a particular passage we dislike. But that's where responsibility starts. Not with being hypercritical of every little thing, as we developers are so good at being.

fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago

it terrifies me beyond all reason. It's roughly as palatable as a direct democracy, Because direct democracy has been such a disaster for Switzerland.

afthonos 14y ago
Switzerland does not have direct democracy; it is simply close to it. Switzerland is also a country with 7 million people, not 350. Yes, that changes things. We are more diverse, and more geographically and culturally separated, and that means we are more prone to distrust each other.
- fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
  Switzerland does not have direct democracy; it is simply close to it It is very close to it. In fact the only differences between it and the theoretic ideal, are in the practical implementation of a direct democracy. All real world direct democracies would look very much like Switzerland. Switzerland is also a country with 7 million people, not 350. And 7 million is still far beyond the monkey sphere. Zurich is bigger than most towns in the US, except for the mega cities like New York and L.A and a few others. Most of the US is made up less densely populated areas than Switzerland. That is why the US so much more conservative than Europe, because due to its geographic size, it is also much more rural. Europe packs something like twice the population in a similar area. And the expression "All politics is local." originates in the US - I think. So the US and its states could be structured like the Swiss federation and its cantons. The bottom line is that real direct democracy on a very large scale (literally millions of people) exists and works like a Swiss watch. That's one extreme I wish the world would follow. But sadly, despite your fears, the world is going towards the opposite extreme - Singapore. Similar to Switzerland in its wealth and prosperity, Singapore is not at all a democracy. And that's the government model the world seems to want to follow. That's where China is going and that's what the US and Europe are very slowly sliding towards.