3 ms·

> Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it! You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship

> Yeah but how legitimate is the Constitution really? Nobody alive has given their consent to it! You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship, if you don't want a constitution to bind you. You can always ask another country whether they want you as a citizen, if you prefer their constitution. > emotionally satisfying Democracy is not supposed to be "emotionally satisfying", Democracy is boring. That's what makes it great. If you want "emotionally satisfying", than you have better lack with a monarchy, dictatorship or civil war.

PaulHoule 9mo ago
The problem with that is that disaffected people vote and politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying when the alternatives aren't. The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Until recently you would have thought right wingers only cared about the second amendment although in the last ten years they've discovered the first but in the garbled sense that Facebook owes you a megaphone (for "free as in beer") and Twitter is doing a crime if they don't give your posts maximum visiblity with all the other spam and scams.
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  > politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying That is called populism and comes with a huge stigma for a reason. > The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Sure, a disagreement with what people think and what the constitution says is going to cause problems. Ultimately society is based on trust, once you loose that you have already lost some important part. The existence and growth of para-country organizations (e.g. FAANG) has certainly affected if not effected your current issue (and continues to do so for other countries in the world).
  - gsf_emergency_6 9mo ago
    Pedantry: the general term is emotivism, not populism. "intellectuals" (shorthand for the average HNer) are vulnerable to that, we just won't admit it. It's hard for trust to work beyond the Dunbar limit-- representative democracy is a jerry-rig-- but Swiss sidestep that with (a version of) direct democracy Update: since there's a false etymology that "jerry" comes from "German", may I suggest we stay below the line https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/the_term_is_gerryrigged_not_juryrigged_right/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/...
aebtebeten 9mo ago
> emotionally satisfying I think this is the basic issue: politics is about satisfying objective needs, in terms of allocating public goods and coordinating independent actors; it's not about satisfying emotional needs. The latter is better done by oneself, or at worst through one's kith or karass, and certainly not at the granfalloon levels at which politics operates.
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  > kith, karass, granfalloon Can you translate these for the not-so-gifted people among as (e.g. me)?
  - aebtebeten 9mo ago
    kith: people whom you have chosen to be in your entourage (friends, etc., as opposed to kin) karass: (from "Cat's Cradle", 1963) "a group of people linked in a cosmically significant manner, even when superficial linkages are not evident" granfalloon: (idem) "a false karass; i.e., a group of people who imagine they have a connection that does not really exist. An example is 'Hoosiers'. Hoosiers are people from Indiana, and Hoosiers have no true spiritual destiny in common. They really share little more than a name."
    - gsf_emergency_6 9mo ago
      Etymological pedantry: Falloon is roughly Gaelic for "son of a leader", so granfalloon is ... An apt label for the Kennedys? Functional pedantry: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=true&query=Geohot&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=tr... Satisfies my cognitive dissonance needs (from afar :) Somewhat in the same reactionary progressivism bracket as PH. I.e. have to occasionally delve into their code to see how it's working out for them so far :) (American Gen-Z[0] are the new hipsters (middle-middle class formal-education-shunning rebels[1], I hope the HN DAU agrees with me!!) [0]both geohot and PH's son [1]James Dean, Marlon Brando, James Franco.. or at the very least their most popular characters
mothballed 9mo ago
>You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship, if you don't want a constitution to bind you. You can always ask another country whether they want you as a citizen, if you prefer their constitution. Yeah that's not how consent works. "Leave and pay me $2000+" is the robber's or rapist's version of consent. There is no rational version of consent that requires the counterparty to pay you a large sum of money and travel to an embassy in order to declare an opt-out to consent. Most people here never consented to being a citizen unless they naturalized.

PaulHoule 9mo ago

The problem with that is that disaffected people vote and politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying when the alternatives aren't. The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Until recently you would have thought right wingers only cared about the second amendment although in the last ten years they've discovered the first but in the garbled sense that Facebook owes you a megaphone (for "free as in beer") and Twitter is doing a crime if they don't give your posts maximum visiblity with all the other spam and scams.

1718627440 9mo ago
> politicians can win by being emotionally satisfying That is called populism and comes with a huge stigma for a reason. > The common denominator on the left and the right is a completely garbled and fragmentary concept of the Constitution. Sure, a disagreement with what people think and what the constitution says is going to cause problems. Ultimately society is based on trust, once you loose that you have already lost some important part. The existence and growth of para-country organizations (e.g. FAANG) has certainly affected if not effected your current issue (and continues to do so for other countries in the world).
- gsf_emergency_6 9mo ago
  Pedantry: the general term is emotivism, not populism. "intellectuals" (shorthand for the average HNer) are vulnerable to that, we just won't admit it. It's hard for trust to work beyond the Dunbar limit-- representative democracy is a jerry-rig-- but Swiss sidestep that with (a version of) direct democracy Update: since there's a false etymology that "jerry" comes from "German", may I suggest we stay below the line https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://magdamiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/13.png https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/the_term_is_gerryrigged_not_juryrigged_right/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/16npbs4/...

aebtebeten 9mo ago

> emotionally satisfying I think this is the basic issue: politics is about satisfying objective needs, in terms of allocating public goods and coordinating independent actors; it's not about satisfying emotional needs. The latter is better done by oneself, or at worst through one's kith or karass, and certainly not at the granfalloon levels at which politics operates.

1718627440 9mo ago
> kith, karass, granfalloon Can you translate these for the not-so-gifted people among as (e.g. me)?
- aebtebeten 9mo ago
  kith: people whom you have chosen to be in your entourage (friends, etc., as opposed to kin) karass: (from "Cat's Cradle", 1963) "a group of people linked in a cosmically significant manner, even when superficial linkages are not evident" granfalloon: (idem) "a false karass; i.e., a group of people who imagine they have a connection that does not really exist. An example is 'Hoosiers'. Hoosiers are people from Indiana, and Hoosiers have no true spiritual destiny in common. They really share little more than a name."
  - gsf_emergency_6 9mo ago
    Etymological pedantry: Falloon is roughly Gaelic for "son of a leader", so granfalloon is ... An apt label for the Kennedys? Functional pedantry: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=true&query=Geohot&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastMonth&page=0&prefix=tr... Satisfies my cognitive dissonance needs (from afar :) Somewhat in the same reactionary progressivism bracket as PH. I.e. have to occasionally delve into their code to see how it's working out for them so far :) (American Gen-Z[0] are the new hipsters (middle-middle class formal-education-shunning rebels[1], I hope the HN DAU agrees with me!!) [0]both geohot and PH's son [1]James Dean, Marlon Brando, James Franco.. or at the very least their most popular characters

mothballed 9mo ago

>You do by being a citizen. You can renounce your citizenship, if you don't want a constitution to bind you. You can always ask another country whether they want you as a citizen, if you prefer their constitution. Yeah that's not how consent works. "Leave and pay me $2000+" is the robber's or rapist's version of consent. There is no rational version of consent that requires the counterparty to pay you a large sum of money and travel to an embassy in order to declare an opt-out to consent. Most people here never consented to being a citizen unless they naturalized.