Hacker News Reader

At first I was agreeing with you - it's hard to find consensus when asking "what is good?" It's a problem as old as politics. You hit the nail on the head!

Then you started on a partisan diatribe about how the other side of politics is wrong (and stupid).

What I think you've failed to realize, is that the other view is necessary. A single party state is totalitarian by definition if not by fact. There must be other views, and there must be a struggle for dominance among ideas. The struggle for dominance is natural, and healthy, and we should embrace it, even though it might sometimes be painful, it's the only way to grow personally and as a society.

> the other view is necessary.

Yes. In fact, so necessary that fake opposition becomes necessary to legitimize totalitarian policy, if organic opposition has been silenced or removed.

Almost all of the stuff said in this comment ranges from misrepresentation ("A significant contingent -- significant enough to swing elections -- of one of the two major political parties in the most powerful nation on earth would prefer to literally deny the laws of physics than admit that anything said by a "liberal" might actually be true.", "Some people are not happy, for example, unless women are quite literally forced to bear children under threat of fine or imprisonment") to outright falsehoods (the challenge to Roe in the context of the above statement).

And it's not even on-topic. This is an off-topic tangent (there's no particular connection between the specific issues mentioned and the article - they were picked because they're partisan issues that the author wants to bring up, not because of any relevance) that looks like an attempt to start a political flamewar, and I don't believe that it belongs on HN.

> And it's not even on-topic.

It's an illustration of how we as a society cannot agree on what a good outcome looks like. If we can't agree on that, then there is no hope of agreeing on what "better designed regulation" looks like.

> And BTW, the person making that argument before the Supreme Court yesterday was a woman, and one of the justices who is going to vote to eviscerate Roe is a woman, so this is not just the patriarchy at work.

That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the supporting statements, though I agree with your overall sentiment.

(also the person, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, does not to my knowledge identify as a woman)

My mistake apparently. I remember reading yesterday amongst all the coverage that the person arguing for Mississippi was a woman, but now I can't find that story. (Maybe it was retracted because it wasn't true.) I'd edit my comment but the deadline has passed.

I totally missed that! You're right, I was just more focused on the logic.

You seem absolutely certain you are right about certain issues. One of the big draws of America originally was that is was huge and open and you could join a community that agreed with what you mostly.

Yes some people view abortion as a right, others view it as murder. The process shouldn't be to gain enough power to force everyone to follow what you want. It should be to establish rules we can all live by and then live and let live. Mississippi wants strong restrictions after 15 weeks. Let them. New York wants on demand until birth. Let them.

Honestly, if I know your opinion on abortion I shouldn't be able to guess your opinion on taxes. It would be good to allow more diversity in options and long term we can see which ones work.

I assume you'd also have felt this way about e.g. segregation? An equally controversial issue in its time?

"All men are created equal" is a pretty compelling reason to end segregation. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is a pretty compelling reason to end gun control. "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is a pretty compelling reason to require a trial to have an abortion.

You can make really good arguments from our established principles for and against most controversial issues. There is a clear method to add rights to the Constitution. I would say that happened for segregation and it took awhile to be enacted. If someone wants to change something for abortion or gun control let's amend the founding document otherwise let people live within the rules we have set.

IMO the actual big draw of America was that it was a nation of laws and ideals, rather than a nation of men. Those ideals are that there exists a fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every person. The problem with the idea that we can all join a community that agreed mostly with ourselves, is that some people mostly agree that some humans can be considered property based on the color of their skin. Or that women should be subservient to men. Or that the final solution to their problems is that one religion or ethnicity should be excluded from their society. These people exist today, they were not defeated in the Civil War or WWII. See: Charlottesville.

The process isn’t about forcing everyone to follow what you want. It’s to force everyone to permit everyone else the fundamental rights protected by the Constituiton. We know for a fact that when you let people organize into autonomous groups based on their own preferences, some will tend to organize into a group that is at stark odds with the idea and ideals of America. We’ve seen it before with disastrous consequences.

This is not a problem with a simple solution or only a few dimensions.

"better designed regulation" is all that is needed in some cases, when it is possible at all. I also know of plenty of places where the only option people have, if at all, is to vote with their feet.

Some people can throw money and time at changing the system from within, and that's okay. But for those many cases where it is futile, if I had a bag of money of a pertinent size and wanted to throw it at philanthropy, I would think of ways for people who want to vote with their feet to be able to do so systematically.

You could say that the distributed system of politics has bad regulation.

The regulations constrain the system in such a way to produce two huge opposing parties, and encourage corruption of their members.

Regulations like the voting system(s) in use, the regulations on who can donate how much to whom, or how corruption and other rule breaking by politicians is investigated and punished (or not punished, as the case may be).

And I'm not just talking about the US here - although US politics is a giant dumpster fire in this regard.

It might not be deep and profoundly insightful, but if it sets things up in such a way that it can credibly utter the phrase "properly designed regulation" then it's moving in the right direction.

In other words, properly designed regulation might not be a deep and profoundly insightful solution, but it might seem that way at first glance because our political discourse is so screwed up these days.

That's a really hard problem though. There are too many powerful interests, on too many sides, all trying to influence the regulations to give them a leg up.

The best regulations come as a balance of the competing interests. But that requires the different interests recognize each other as legitimate, or at least as needing to be met halfway as a practical matter. It can't be done in a scorched-earth atmosphere - all that can come out of that is regulation that is differently bad.

The call for better regulation is not inherently in conflict with this being a people / culture problem. There is no set of rules that cannot be subverted from within if those enforcing the rules wish to subvert them. Presently the U.S. is experiencing a culture war where a significant group of people are “the ends justify the means” types. No system can withstand that sort of attack indefinitely. On top of that, I notice a fatalism in U.S. politics which results in reasonable people bowing out of trying to make things better. You single out the conservatives, but I see plenty of reason as an outsider to also point fingers at the liberals.

Speaking specifically to pro choice vs pro life both of the viewpoints have merit, but because people in the culture war are so entrenched in their “side” this can no longer be admitted. Back in reality though everyone agrees there is a time past which the child has a right to exist that trumps the mother’s right to choose, even if for some that is at 8 months of pregnancy and for others it is at conception, and everyone agrees that it is wrong to force a woman to carry a child she does not want. So, in a sense, everyone is both pro choice and pro life. All we’re talking about is at what point in the pregnancy one gets priority over the other. This can be negotiated like anything else, and the usual principles of negotiation apply. But, because of the culture war, people have stopped negotiating and are trying to get the rules (supreme court) to protect their point of view, which as a rule cannot provide a lasting solution. People have got to learn again how to talk with each other.