Can’t wait for the comment thread here about how the US gov is actually worse than the CCP
Also, as an aside, I wonder if 1930s HN would have guidelines against "nationalistic flamewars" vs. nazi Germany.
> Not worse, just as bad in a different way, it has nothing to do with geography. It is just that absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of the players of this power game.
How are either of these "breathless fulminations"? Or this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28439648 ? To give this as the reason is just reading from the teleprompter without even looking at what's in front of you.
Meanwhile, rants about programming paradigms or coworkers, big companies, all of those and more can be rather colorful, it's mostly when stepping on the boots things get painted as rabid rants at the drop of a hat.
Yet, what intellectual who is more than a vulgar stooge of power doesn't have a violent and uncompromising antipathy against those who would murder people for expressing the wrong opinion, or even simply for acknowledging historical facts?
edit: I love how this was downvoted within a minute.
> If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners.
-- John J. Chapman
While I agree with the sentiment, I also acknowledge others disagree and my no means do I wish to argue about it. Friendly conversation, sure. =)
Yes, bad actors can thrive in any climate. But the US is set up with an immune defense against totalitarian authority and exploits.
If you go back a hundred years, Europe was still governing like it was stuck centuries in the past, ruled by monarchies. The rest of the world was even more backwards.
This says it all: https://i.imgur.com/4QhaQkn.png
I don't know history of countries in Europe, but in regards to stability some form of democracy was a form of government in Poland since XV century with pauses for getting raided and split up and ruled by our strong neighbors. We had kings but they were elected by the people (who owned land) since XVI century on average every 19 years [1] and had their power limited by political influence, in quite similar manner that US presidents have. And in nearly all elections our people had wider choice in candidates for kings than Americans had with candidates for presidents ever. We had a written constitution just 4 years later than the USA had it. So yeah, democracy can be stable and evolve without being a two party system.
Recently Poland had a few rough years but it's mostly due to our recent tendency to get polarized towards 2 party system by intentional messaging of one party over last 20 years.
So if your argument is USA must have all the dysfunctions because keeping every last detail of the system that is unable to fix them is the only way to maintain stability, then you are probably not quite right.
> Particularly in the late 17th and 18th centuries, the political instability from the elections led numerous political writers to suggest major changes to the system
That doesn't sound very stable?
I called it stable because it was a kind of a democracy for all that time. It wasn't petrified like US democracy is. Changes were suggested and some were implemented for the benefit of the people and the system.
In Europe democracy wasn't our secular religion with founding dogma. It was just a good idea that was allowed to evolve rapidly to become better.
Whatever your response to this is, I concede. I'm way too ignorant about history (of USA and in general) to discuss those subjects. Apologies.