Hacker News Reader

Comment by MattGaiser | Hacker News Reader

> how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?"

By arguing that the other options are worse. Democracy and the separation of powers do not result in great decision making. But it also serves as a significant barrier against absolutely horrible decision making, placing it above the other choices.

View on HN

What separation of power? The country is run by executive fiat and every 4 years the law of the land takes an about face when the next guy comes along to rip up the old guy's diktats. The US legislative branch is kabuki theater and the judicial branch is disgustingly partisan.

Executive orders only allow decisions within the scope of existing laws. So you can move enforcement resources around to prioritize certain things, direct the military to hit different targets, etc. But the executive branch can't just stand up a new daycare program. In plenty of other countries, a change in party control leads to wild changes. Not in the USA.

And whether the legislative branch is theatrical and the judicial branch partisan has nothing to do with the separation of powers. Ok, so they may not work all that well. They are still constrained significantly by each other.

That is really flippant and cynical sounding, but you're right. Seriously. What was the last, actual, substantive piece of legislation to come out of the legislature?

I work in higher education, and a new higher education act has been just over the horizon since what, 1999? Nothing changes, except that which can be changed via executive order, or can be sued and changed in well-established and forecasted voting patterns via the judiciary.

I think you're right. In my opinion, the republic is unraveling. Roman Empire 2.0.

What are you doing about it?

Uhhh, voting? What the hell else is there to do, write to my crooked senator? Tweet to the ether about my woes?

Some people decided to vote for some asshole business guy because it was at least something new and different, but that didn't go over so well.

The one defining advantage of a republic is peaceful and lawful transfer of power, and limits of the exercise of that power. Any fundamental change requires legitimization via a durable political coalition. While you may be better off under an enlightened king, what happens after his lifetime? In a monarchy a new king can be weak or crueler and nothing can be done short of bloody revolution. In a direct democracy 51% of the electorate can try to strip 49% of their rights. Republics avoid a single point of failure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com