Hacker News Reader

Comment by wonder_er | Hacker News Reader

You're right, both parties are different.

But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum.

Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power.

Sure, the republicans occasionally give lip service to the idea, but they're all the same as the dems.

I guess I'm a bit fed up being told "pick a party that represents you" and finding absolutely zero options who don't make me feel dirty or stupid.

I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change. (A perfect example is the last US presidential election. Trump and Hillary? FFS.)

View on HN

>Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power.

Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant.

>I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change

I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.

You're completely right on both points.

I am too quick to elevate my political _opinion_ to that of fact, and in doing so, commit the exact same mistake that drives me bonkers when other people do it.

Also, my own use of "real change", as soon as I read your comment, made me hang my head in shame. "Real Change(TM)" is just a stand in for "something that I think should be done, and until it's done, nothing else matters!"

It's related, I suspect, to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

So, you're right. I worded that entire comment poorly.

This is one of the reasons I enjoy dipping into the HN comments now and again - I sometimes get really high-value feedback like this.

So thank you, /u/mejari, for taking the time to comment what you did. It's a good gift. :)

> Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant.

It kinda depends on what you mean by "across-the-board reduction of government power." I do believe that everyone is interested in peace. And justice. And creativity. And hope. And being able to relax and do what they want.

And even if government isn't in opposition to these things in every case, empire certainly is. And people recognize that.

So yes, deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support; certain aspects enjoy consensus.

> deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support

While 'No Empire' seems to be a Good Thing, in general, if the question was instead, "Which country should lead the global Empire if not America?" I wonder what the survey results would be.

> ...both parties are different. But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum.

That is (by way of the Median Voter Theorem) a consequence of the two-party system, which is (by way of Duverger's law) a consequence of winner-takes-all or first-past-the-post (and not proportional) voting, I'd say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

Reply on news.ycombinator.com