Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

“Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, says the company is so big and powerful that it threatens our democracy.”

considering how flawed democracies are, i say let democracy die. adopt democracy 2.0 (no parties, no president/pm, no cabinet ministers, elected speaker, continuous citizen participation) and that’s that.




I'm against direct democracy because I don't have the expertise or the time to make informed decisions about everything my government is currently doing for me. Direct democracy will likely devolve into a reign of demagogues imho.


>because I don't have the expertise or the time to make informed decisions about everything my government is currently doing for me.

I don't think our current career politician representatives do either.

>Direct democracy will likely devolve into a reign of demagogues imho.

That's more or less what we already have, I think.

An unpopular solution is some sort of qualification based voting, possibly per issue, say having subject matter expert vote on particular bills within their domain. But there's no realistic way of competence based voting without disenfranchising the vast majority of voters.


The Swiss might have something to say on this, living in one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world which happens to be governed under something resembling direct democracy.


It's also fairly homogenous in terms of ethnic and socioeconomic demographics. It's a lot easier to have direct democracy when factors like this are limiting the presence of non-overlapping interest and ideologies.


The Swiss system is still pretty far from no parties, no president/pm, no cabinet ministers.


Sounds like a great idea, so:

- How do you feel about the minimal training of seafarers and the existing directives to that end?

- Also, the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road?

- Amending the regulations contracts for sales of goods?

- Postal services directive?

- Sustainable urban mobility?

- and, of course, cableway installations, how about those?

"Well", you might say, "If you're going to pull facetious examples out of thin air..."

But I'm not; you can find the pdfs here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124949/LUCY_ANDERSON/m...

It's just a list of an MEP picked at random where she was shadow rapporteur.

Are you really going to read through those documents to make an informed decision about all these topics?

Democracy and its politics isn't just about the fun, high-profile stuff you find interesting.

Personally I'm pretty happy I can pay someone to read and write all that stuff for me, and then make a decision based on a broader alignment that I share with them.


Have you read any of these reports? Are you sure they are truly necessary? There have been written reports on the human rights situation of Woman all over the world since the 70s. Do you think those reports contributed to anything? Their formulation is extremely formulaic, the people writing them are underpaid interns or overpaid politicians, that got that cushy job by years of mingling in their respective home countries party system. They don't truly represent the will of the people. In the UN it is especially egregious, you have cousins of African strong men, sitting next to sons of Saudi rich men.


I'm not sure I follow. The original claim was that it would be better to create a democracy without politicians and with continuous citizen participation.

The point wasn't the reports, or the quality of the reports, but the wide range of topics a random politician would have to be at least somewhat informed about to make a decision.

> They don't truly represent the will of the people.

So what is the true will of the people when it comes to safe cableway installations?

Also, I'm not sure if countries get their seat on the UN through elections, so I'm not sure how your example relates to the topic of democracies.


As someone famous once said "democracy is the worst system apart from all the others". You can keep your "democracy 2.0" I'd rather see Facebook forced to follow the spirit and rule of law.


i don’t understand this attitude. we know that democracy is flawed and the best answer is “we’ll keep it flawed”?

think how software evolves. now think how democracy stagnates.

i know humans are extremely conservative by nature, but this is just absurd.


Are you implying that there is a system free of flaws that we have yet to discover ?

First, "democracy" is pretty vague, do you mean direct democracy, representative democracy, presidential democracy, &c. Then "democracy" isn't a fixed thing, it's been changing continuously for thousands of years. 500BC Athens democracy hasn't much to do with today's US version of democracy. So no, we don't "keep it flawed".

Democracy means "power to the people", the way you implement it might be flawed but the underlying principle sounds very sane.

> think how software evolves. now think how democracy stagnates

Change doesn't necessarily mean progress. You don't get to "move fast and break things" in geopolitics.


You aren’t the only person to have had this idea. Most of those that follow through on it, have a tendency to commit war crimes.


Stagnates?

Name one country where the democracy system in place is stagnating, and why.

And then in these cases, why/how less democracy would improve the people prospects altogether.


> we know that democracy is flawed and the best answer is “we’ll keep it flawed”?

As long as the democracy with flaws is better than the alternative, yes.


Democracy is all about how its implemented. There has been plenty of broken democratic systems before, its all about learning and improving institutions. For example, a democracy resulting in bipartism is hardly a very representative one. How you implement democracy will lead to multiple, different outcome in terms of political expression.


> adopt democracy 2.0 (no parties, no president/pm, no cabinet ministers, elected speaker, continuous citizen participation) and that’s that.

That's not “Democracy 2.0”, that's either 1.0 or a pre-release version, with modern liberal Western democracy spread out across something like the 4.x major version range (not every one on the same minor version.)

The version you are talking about doesn't work well with large, diverse, or otherwise complex societies, though it's fine for small hunter-gatherer bands.


Adopt democracy 3.11 where large private organizations are also subject to democratic rule


Let me guess, run on a blockchain too, right?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: