Hacker News Reader

Comment by RappingBoomer | Hacker News Reader

stunning..and scary... the root problem here (or at least one of the root problems) is that government workers are not hired or promoted on merit. That leads to people of lesser intelligence being bosses. As evidenced here. That is a bad thing, in my opinion. You want smart people in charge. That's a good thing!

View on HN

Has I said in another comment, it is not about education or intelligence. Read the article. The politicians trying to intimidate the St Louis Post Dispatch have a history of intimidation against journalists. Demagoguery is unfortunately a chronic condition of democracy.

Any thoughts on how to tailor political systems to work around demagoguery but maintain functioning democracy?

What's democracy? Is that when stuff gets done to you by corrupt politicians, and you have to shut up and suck it, except that every few years you get to swap one bunch of corrupt politicians for another bunch?

Yes. You pretty much nailed it.

If only I knew... Might be worth reading de Tocqueville[0] again I guess.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America

We already have it - it’s the 3 branches of government that provide for an independent judiciary.

In theory. I believe the system was setup to ensure that the judicial system is independent from the executive branch. However, we have seen the nefarious influence of money in politics which is now starting to encroach on the judicial system too:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-judges-brokers-traded-s...

https://iadllaw.org/2020/09/more-than-200-lawyers-file-judic...

In USA? Judiciary are political appointees aren't they.

Apologies if that was a joke.

It depends. Some are elected and some are appointed. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

Not having a single person be the executive likely helps. In a parliamentary democracy, the prime minister would have to tell the justice minister to do this. The justice minister would likely refuse. The prime minister’s recourse would be to fire the justice minister and get a new one appointed, but that’s a big step. Assuming that’s overcome, the new compliant justice minister would have to tell the public prosecutor to do it. In many countries that’s an independent office, and the justice minister wouldn’t have much standing. So you’re back to trying to fire people, and the petty vindictive prosecution is turning into a government-ending event; the PM is likely to be seeking alternative employment…

Executive presidency/governor systems, like those used in the US, have a generally higher dependency on individuals behaving properly.

This is nothing to do with government worker competence. Undoubtedly, the governor has been advised that there is no case. It's legal harassment, and a sign of (a) a structurally flawed system (the executive should be in no position to make this sort of threat in the first place) and (b) a sick political system (even if the executive is legally able to make such a threat, it should be politically impossible for them to do so).

> the root problem here is that government workers are not hired or promoted on merit. That leads to people of lesser intelligence being bosses

That's hardly exclusive to government work.

There's the original IT screw-up - but I think the body of the sory is around the ineptitude of the elected governor.

Not specifically that he doesn't understand how the web works - more that he didn't care to find out before opening his mouth.

Or worse is aware, but is disengenuously pushing for a prosecution of somebody he disagrees with.

Let's not equate "lack of understanding of a specific piece of technology" with "lesser intelligence", that is not a healthy way to think.

That no offence was comitted here should be apparent to 10 year old of average intelligence. The governor is either very stupid, very ignorant or very cynical. Or some combination of the 3.

That's true, but insisting that you're right about something that you know nothing about is a sign of lesser intelligence.

Maybe, but there a possibility they know it's not a valid argument but believe they can still use it effectively. Just because someone supports a position doesn't mean they know it's valid, not that they know it's moral. Plenty of people, and especially politicians of some persuasions, are happy to spout known lies and deceptions to get to their preferred outcome.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com