Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think that you are both right on different levels and possibly talking past each other.

Yes, on the level of franchise, it is good that everyone is involved.

Its bad, on the other hand, that the form of the debate in this concrete instance has been directed to trying to make decisions on specific medical procedures as electoral politics issues.

Belief in democratic franchise does not imply belief that all democratic decisions are equally correct, or that all possible framings of debate within a participatory system are equally correct.



I do believe that the details should be left to people who have some understanding (preferably not because they're in the pockets of those their decisions affect). It's why I support the idea of a regulatory state, despite some concerns about non-legislative bodies making rules with the force of law. But that didn't seem to be what my interlocutor was talking about.

> There's no reason whatsoever why random people like my mom

I very much doubt that their mom is a legislator, or on any regulatory agency's board, where these decisions are actually made. They were sneering at the common voter, suggesting there's "no reason whatsoever" for them to participate even at that level. I happen to believe that high barriers to participation for voters or even legislators undermine democracy, and I believe so quite strongly, hence the equally strong response.


Unfortunately on this topic, institutions that could typically have been trusted regarding the details, have largely been captured by ideologists and by the medical industry, the latter of whom are eagerly seeking to create new revenue streams - manufacturing a lifelong patient from childhood onwards does this rather effectively, especially when the 'illness' is iatrogenic and malleable via cultural norms.




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

Search: