Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> By that logic, most of a country's laws should be secret.

That does not follow. Law is public because people need to know what is expected of them and what is the layout of decision-space they navigate.

> Also, only a minority of people should be allowed to vote - maybe only those with an IQ of over 110.

If this is a bad idea, it's not bad for obvious reasons.

> See where I'm going with this? If you want democracy you take it with the good and bad. The solution for some issues not being easily understood by the public, is for the politicians to fight to explain that law better to the public and what it means - not try to pass it in secret.

The reality is that instead of "fighting to explain", politicians will pander to the public to get their support. In democracy, popularity wins.

While I don't have an opinion yet on whether TPP should be negotiated in secret or not, I can understand the desire to actually get something done, which pretty much precludes involving the public. If you go out there and start asking, you'll get dragged into popularity contest.

Also, why the hell are we even bothering with representative democracy, if we can't trust the officials to make good choices in our name?

> Also, why the hell are we even bothering with representative democracy, if we can't trust the officials to make good choices in our name?

How many voters know that their elected representatives have limited access to read TPP drafts, cannot take notes, cannot discuss with staffers? At the same time, TPP negotiations are lead by ex-Citibank staff while industry lobbyists are contributing to the agreements, according to leaked emails, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-...

"At another point, Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. … This is a very pleasant surprise.”

>> Also, only a minority of people should be allowed to vote - maybe only those with an IQ of over 110.

>If this is a bad idea, it's not bad for obvious reasons.

Imagine a political party you don't like introducing this measure, along with the test that determines your IQ. Of course, since you couldn't spot the flaw, you clearly don't get to vote anyway. ;-)

I know :). It's a very valid reason (and exactly because I wouldn't support this proposal if any political party in my country came up with it), but it still is more about people abusing the concept rather than the concept itself :).

It solves the wrong problem. Voter turnout is already horrendous, we don't need to put any more barriers in the way of participation.

That's a bit naive. A vote doesn't mean a do what you want. Trust is not automatic. It comes from transparency and accountability which secrecy inhibits.

There is no concept of trust in a democracy. Everything is about being open and accountable. There is zero need to negotiate a commercial treaty in secret, this is an anti-pattern.

Debating the need for secrecy drags one down a flawed, self serving and fabricated narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com