Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrmffh | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue this is a positive trend. Hopefully it leads to more innovation in governance.

I agree. I find groups of people scary. Not in the anxiety manner. I mean that I don't know of a single instance of a person doing massive damage to anyone or any thing, when compared to damage by groups or by people with group backing. All the worst atrocities of the past few centuries were carried out by groups of people. The US constitution is supposed to protect individuals from groups, but that seems to have been (mostly) subverted in the name of preserving our institutions (banking).

But humans mostly want to be part of some group, and that's the problem with the current trend of ultra-individualism: people will be much easier to influence by dangerous groups that fill their need for belonging. If there were a stronger sense of community in the first place, instead of the strong emphasis on the autonomous, self-sufficient and competing individual, one could wonder if radical religious or ultranationist groups would be as significant.

I agree with the hierarchy generally followed by emergency management systems - protect yourself first and your family, then your neighborhood, then if they are all safe help the wider community.

I see it as the perfect storm, trust collapse is causing apathy, not desire to reform.

when they say government is migrating toward a gerontocracy is not just because politician are from the older classes, but also because younger participate less in the democratic debate, whether in the first line or by voting.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Uk_general_el...

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pict...

We didn't have apathy in the recent UK referendum, voter turnout was very high.

Voter turnout among the young was half compared to voter turnout by the elderly, I think, so that would reinforce parent's point.

Here's a FT article with a graph* of voter turnout by age - https://next.ft.com/content/2994afe4-43b0-3763-a80c-92351473... - it seems like, besides one particular anomaly, voter turnout among young people has been steadily declining and Brexit was a continuation of that trend.

* the graph in question - https://next-geebee.ft.com/image/v1/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2F...

If I understand correctly, there was a significant gap between the turnout rate for the young people and the turnout rate for the elderly.

https://next.ft.com/content/2994afe4-43b0-3763-a80c-92351473...

So? Are young people inherently more valuable or more correct?

no, but are underrepresented because the mistrust trend seems to hit them harder and in a bad way.

also, while I'd argue older people have more world experience, they are also disconnected from society advancements (which is a struggle as old as dirt) and I'd say a healthy society needs not just voting to act as an average between the groups but a dialogue where input from both sides are taken for advancement.

to be honest I'm in the apathy group myself, not because I mistrust politician but because I mistrust a system that promotes a dichotomy between winners and losers on interest groups instead of leveraging both sides needs and wants synergically

No, but they have a lot more riding on the future of their country than pensioners do.

Like there was plenty of "political innovation", especially in Europe, after the Great Depression in the 1930s? I'd argue that didn't work out too well. Hopefully this time its different.

You can hope, but does Trump and brexit look different? And if so, does it look better?

I think that was the point of the original article - the mistrust of "authority" following the financial crisis is leading to irrational behaviour such as blind faith in charismatic leaders (who are typically reactionary rather than progressive). Based on historical precedents (e.g. the swing to political extremes following the Great Depression) I don't think this is "positive trend" for a brighter better future, but I hope I'm wrong.

Yes, very.

Brexit was a decision about a policy, Trump is a decision about a man. The key personalities of Brexit are now all gone. What remains is the policy.

Hm, Brexit seems to me a decision taken for emotive reasons promoted by some larger-than-life personalities.

Yes, they're all gone, which is very strange indeed - most victories have no shortage of fathers. (1) Instead they're all running for cover.

So no, very.

1) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn110295.h...

I can assure you the vast majority of UK voters didn't give a crap about the personalities involved, nor were the decisions taken for "emotive reasons" (sure are lots of people in denial trying to claim that though).

It's a funny sort on non-emotive decision that causes a massive rise in racist violence.

"Massive"? You mean a handful of cases?

> you mean a handful of cases

Not as such, no

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/11/police-blame...

http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/08/brexit-racism-more-than-3000-h...

Brexit should have been a decision about policy, but appears not to have been - that is one of the points of the article.

The EU appears to have been too complex a subject for many voters to fully understand, and there was allegedly widespread distrust of the "experts", leading to large numbers basing their decision on emotional responses instead, such as "I don't trust the experts so I'm going to do the opposite of what they recommend" and "I like this bloke who talks about listening to the 'little people' and 'taking back control'".

I know there are some people who voted Leave for well-thought-out reasons, and that I can respect, because it is rational. But most analysis suggests the majority who voted Leave did not do so for rational reasons. In which case it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And it is not as though this was a local or a general election - this has made England and Wales look very bad on the world stage, and is something we're all going to have to live with for a very long time.

All I see is more draconian measures put in place to keep the status quo (i.e. keeping the rich rich). Nothing positive in that.

And has it been positive in practice so far?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com