If only there was a party on the ballot that supported universal healthcare. (I know there are third-parties that do, but they are pretty effectively excluded from the process.)
> If only there was a party on the ballot that supported universal healthcare
There are plenty of advocacy groups for universal healthcare. You could join them. You could also support electeds pressing for this, and call your elected to make it known it's a priority.
Civic engagement doesn't start and end at the ballot box.
It was set up the way it was because the founders didn't trust voters. Voters don't always make optimal choices. Nobody said democracy was perfect. It's just a lot better than every other system we've ever tried. Benevolent dictatorship is good in theory, but quite rare in practice.
> Nobody said democracy was perfect. It's just a lot better than every other system we've ever tried.
This has bugged me for a long time: Why do people repeat this ?
I mean this on the fundamental core of it: not on the merit of the argument[0], or whether people deeply believe it, but on making the argument in these terms in the first place.
I don't remember people running around saying Christianism isn't perfect, but better than every other religion _we tried_. Or using the same rhetoric for Object Oriented programming. Or touting as a mantra that frying chicken isn't perfect but better than every other cooking method we tried.
IMHO we usually don't do that kind of vague, but short and definitive assertion. The statements would usualy be stronger with specific limitations, or an opening for what we don't know yet. Why did it take this form in particular for political system? (I am aware of the starting quote, but it wouldn't have caught on if people didn't see a need to repeat it in the first place. I think it hit on a very fundamental need of people, and I wish I knew why)
I feel understanding that would give insights on why we're stuck where we are now.
[0] We're two centuries in western democracies, and many other regimes lasted longer than that. I personally don't think there is any definitive answer that could bring such strong statements, but that's not my point.
> The statements would usualy be stronger with specific limitations, or an opening for what we don't know yet. Why did it take this form in particular for political system?
It's claiming an empirical fact, rather than pure opinion (cooking preferences) or a fact with a well-characterized theory behind it (OOP, anything physics, ...).
The phrasing is way too blurry for it to be a reasonable fact. The original quote came from a politician, and how people convey it today are as vague as it was initially.
For instance, thinking for a minute about "who". Who are we talking about and who is judging the results ? When did the experiments happen and what do we actually know about it ? On the "what", What other forms are we referring to ? What period are looking at ? etc.
It would be the same for the theory. Which well know political theory do you see related to this ? Political science doesn't deal in "better" or "worse", and I'm not even sure there is any consensus on the different systems.
IMHO, the more you think about it the stranger it becomes. I invite more people to get on the journey.
If HN is social media, then so are PHPBB, NNTP, BBS, etc. and the term loses its semantic relevance.
My heuristic is that social media focuses on particular people, regardless of what they're talking about. In contrast, forums (like HN) focus on a particular topic, regardless of who's talking about it.
Doesn't matter what you want it to mean. What matters is what those in power want it to mean. It's very easy to stretch the definition to cover all sites where people can post content for strangers to see, or stretch it even wider to all digital media where people can interact with a social group.
AFAIK nobody here is. The point is that with relevance to the current discussion on potential future age-verification laws, only the widest definition matters, because that's what's at risk.
I think the phrase "fair distribution on social level" is doing a lot of work in this comment. Do you consider this to be a common occurrence, or something our existing social structures do competently?
I see quite the opposite, and have very little hope that reduced reliance on labor will increase the equability of distribution of wealth.
Doesn't matter. The countries with most chaos and internal strife gets a lot of practice fighting wars (civil war). Then the winner of the civil war, who's used to grabbing resources by force, and the one that has perfected war skills due to survival of the fittest, goes round looking for other countries to invade.
Historically, advanced civilizations with better production capabilities don't necessarily do better in war if they lack "practice". Sad but true. Maybe not in 21st century, but who knows.
Yeah none of that fever dream is real. There's no "after" a civil war, conflicts persist for decades (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Colombia, Sudan).
Check this out - https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart. The US is increasingly a miserable place to live in, and the worse it gets the more their people double down on being shitty.
Fun fact: Fit 2 lines on that data and you can extrapolate by ~2030 China will be a better place to live. That's really not that far off. Set a reminder on your phone: Chinese dream.
I continue to be of the opinion that many of our economic problems could be improved with more competition. (Depending on your definition of "problem" of course. The current state of affairs is fantastically profitable some.)
Oh for sure. Why are movies scattered all over oblivion? Because there's no simple marketplace for licensing movies, it's a closed market that requires doing lots of behind-the-scenes deals. Healthcare? Only specific providers can make medical equipment, tons of red tape, opaque billing structures, insurance locked out in weird ways, etc.
To understand how healthy a market is, ask 'how easily could a brand new startup innovate in this area'. If the answer is 'not easy at all' - then that thing is going to be expensive, rent seeking, and actively distorting incentives to make itself more money.
I've been working in this direction as well. I treat it like a game. Sure I /could/ just order thing off the internet, but if it were a scavenger hunt, where could I find thing at a locally owned business and pay cash?
Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard, sometimes I give up and order it online. But the more people do this the more it will (continue to) be a supported use-case.
I've had some interesting conversations, interacting with people in the real world, just by going into a store and telling them I'm trying to find a thing. I tell them what game I'm playing, they're usually pleased to hear it and happy to help if they can.
I'm curious about a system where capital gains are 100% for the first... I don't know, let's say a month. Then you ramp down over the course of the next year until it matches the regular income tax rate. I'm less concerned about the specific time periods than I am about the idea that it would be beneficial to society to have our financial systems encourage long-term thinking.
I've read / watched a few different stories now, where what happens is the police / ICE assault a protestor, then charge the protestor with assaulting the officer and resisting arrest.
You don't bump them, you attack their fists and clubs with the softer parts of your body.
Speaking as a U.S. citizen, I think the problem should not be approached as "stop people from doing frivolous things", but rather "government should fund the commons". Of course this doesn't make government perfect, but generally it appears to be the most successful way to achieve things like caring for the elderly and disabled, building monuments, protecting wild areas, etc. Turns out we do all these things to some extent, just not as much as some (myself included) might like.
Which is to say, a well run society should have room for BOTH frivolity AND supporting the general welfare of its people. Perhaps our current troubles are the result of many people thinking that supporting the general welfare IS frivolous.
I had a similar experience helping a disabled family member. Without being too specific, it's amazing how much effort and expertise it takes to access benefits to which a person is legally entitled. It's almost as if the means testing is inverted, you cannot access benefits without the means to navigate a system designed to prevent benefits from being distributed. We have a homelessness epidemic for a reason.
