3 ms·
> I have never seen a way to do this proposed that doesn't have horrific side effects There's some sort of fetishism of systems and technology on the internet
by arlort 2y ago
> I have never seen a way to do this proposed that doesn't have horrific side effects
There's some sort of fetishism of systems and technology on the internet and especially in technical forums like HN where people have this idea that technical solutions can fix social issues
Governance systems have mostly been unchanged at their core for the past 100-200 years and people are under the impression that makes them somewhat antiquated so we definitely can fix this with some good code and automated judging.
It helps that that's much easier than having to accept the responsibility of being involved and proactively interested in the work of institutions which most people find boring and not worth the effort to learn about
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Governance systems have mostly been unchanged at their core for the past 100-200 years I actually disagree with this notion. We had three big spurts of new-country formation in the last 100 years: after WWI, after WWII/decolonisation and after the collapse of the USSR. I'd argue we've been better each time around at creating a larger fraction of resilient governments. > easier than having to accept the responsibility of being involved Correct. Strongmen are convenient.
- arlort 2y ago> new-country formation in the last 100 years Yes, but they didn't really introduce new ideas and philosophies of government, at most slightly different ways of implement old ideas
- toyg 2y ago> I'd argue we've been better each time around at creating a larger fraction of resilient governments. Looking at the state of a lot of ex-USSR countries, I'd say this is not correct. Quite a few of them ended up as dictatorships. If anything, I would argue the immediate post-WWII was an apex of democratic creation that we are unlikely to match any time soon.