3 ms·
> I'm also tired of this argument: But it takes a special kind of arrogance for this young man to believe that his moral judgment on the dilemma su
by diminoten 13y ago
> I'm also tired of this argument:
But it takes a special kind of arrogance for this young
man to believe that his moral judgment on the dilemma
suddenly trumps that of two (incredibly different)
presidents, both houses of the U.S. Congress, both
political parties, the U.S. court system and more than
30,000 of his co-workers.
You might be tired of the argument, Mr. Schneier, but that doesn't mean the argument is invalid.
When you elect people to congress, you elect their whole selves, not just a collection of individual issues. It's things like these which make topics other than the direct issues valid questions in a campaign - you're trusting your congressperson to make decisions on your behalf. You need to know what kind of stuff he or she is made of so when they make decisions on things you're not aware of, you can trust them to make a decision similar to the decision you'd make were you in their position.
- rbehrends 13y agoBruce Schneier's point wasn't that there's anything wrong with a representative democracy, but that this claim is massively overstating things: i.e. where a single secret court suddenly becomes the "U.S. court system" and a few legislators that were forbidden to discuss this matter with anyone (even where they saw problems, as Wyden and Udall did) suddenly become "both houses of the U.S. Congress".
- diminoten 13y agoYes, because it was classified. There are a whole lot of things judges and legislators are forbidden to discuss with anyone. The country runs on secrets, every country does. That's why you elect representatives. So Bruce Schneier may not have intentionally taken issue with a representative democracy, but that's where his argument leads.
- pstuart 13y agoThat's all great if the system operated in a "pure" manner as it is defined. But it doesn't. The system is corrupt and therefore makes whistleblowers one of the only avenues of defense against further corruption.
- diminoten 13y agoIf you think this system is corrupt, then you don't know what corruption is.
- malandrew 13y agoI'm from Brazil, and I think you and I can both agree that that country has was you consider real corruption. Having lived in the US long enough and seeing how things work here, I'd say it's just as corrupt as Brazil, but that it is a very very different flavor of corruption. Brazilian politicians plunder actively while in office and reap the rewards while in office. Their actions are often downright illegal. The US on the other hand causes the same damage to its citizens, however the politicians don't reap their rewards until they leave office and walk through the revolving door. Regulatory capture and the revolving door are corruption on par with what happens in Brazil. The difference is that American politicians do exceedingly well at the marshmallow test getting two marshmallows later whereas Brazilian politicians are happy stealing one marshmallow now.
- malandrew 13y agoUntil they demonstrate otherwise by passing laws insulating themselves and all other representatives from lobbyist influences, I'm going to proceed under the assumption that we, the people, elect representatives that win a popularity contest and can be only trusted to make decisions on behalf of the lobbyists that are most likely to help them get re-elected in the next election. That argument really is only valid if we have a functional democracy, which has slowly been dismantled by gerrymandering and lobbying.