Hacker News Reader

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

So, does anyone here honestly believe we owe these clowns anything?

How many of you in meetings with a VC tweet about being bored and surfing for cats with cheeseburgers?

How many of you would keep an employee who did this during an engineering meeting?

How many of you would keep working at a job when your boss ignores you so they can check their fantasy football teams?

The only funny (morbidly, blackly funny) part of this is that that wasn't what stopped the debate--it was a finicky rule about choice of language, some pieces of which date back over a century and a half.

Folks, these are the people running the US. These are the people who have a monopoly on force, and who claim the moral highground to do with you what they will for the nation.

Why the fuck aren't you doing something?

View on HN

I ask myself this question all the time. My answer is that I try to enact as much dissent as possible in small ways, including HN comments. This is not a satisfactory answer, though.

Even among HN readers there are a lot of people who are still very pro-establishment in the sense that they wholeheartedly defend the NY Times, major political parties, etc. This is part of the same youthful optimism that leads people to do startups... the idea that they will soon be part of the establishment so they might as well defend it now for karma.

What do you think we should all be doing?

you could be participating in your local elections. You could vote in primaries. You could be concerned about who's going to be your next local county sheriff, local zoning board officer, etc. You can get involved in the local political parties and affect them on a local level. (this is assuming that you already vote in all off-year elections, and already vote for president)

HN sees only the top level of the abstraction and assumes that the system is a lumbering behemoth incapable of change. Pushing the system from the bottom, it's actually quite capable of very abrupt change. Unfortunately, those methods of change require copious amounts of time, and will probably replace or supplant much more enjoyable hobbies you'd rather have.

In previous eras, this was considered the burden of citizenship...

For a simpler answer: Call your congresscritter. They're actually very responsive to phone calls and real letters. It's not hard to do.

Local government isn't usually a huge issue (there are some problems, see the shitshow over the sewers in Birmingham). It's federal government, which functions at a high level of abstraction by definition, that has the biggest issues and the worst interface for solving them.

I vote in local elections and cheerfully pay taxes--but look only towards the treatment of the online petitions hosted by our current administration to see how much attention is paid.

The difficulty of participating in government isn't something to be cherished--it's something to be fixed.

I'd suggest something like the following:

Treat this like a software development project, except we're coming up with a government instead of a program.

1. Setup a public bugtracker, where people can submit examples of federal government acting incorrectly (attached to bugs, have relevant news articles, studies, and impacts for why it is important).

2. Setup a repo with a "blessed" version of the founding documents of the government. Anyone can read the docs, and suggest changes. Any changes to the laws would have an easy-to-follow path in the changelog, and linked tickets from the bug tracker demonstrating that they were necessary. These docs can be forked, but the blessed branch gets the "official" reference implementation.

We've had the tools to "fix" government for years now--we should start using them.

Things I'd personally like to see:

1. Who controls the "blessed" version? This is a hilariously interesting problem, and likely would end up with some kind of set of "core" developers. That said, we have the tech to make relatively authenticated, secure votes (PGP or somesuch). I'd suggest using that to accept changes to mainline, and if it becomes obvious the core devs aren't paying attention we fork. This might be really slow to get things accomplished (past the initial bootstrap), but that's okay in government--the more conservative your creation of policies, the better.

2. A creation of a structured query language for determining if an action obeys a law. This would be really tricky, but if the core docs can unambiguously be parsed and tested against so many problems in government simply go away. I don't really expect this to get done, but it's an intriguing idea, no?

3. My personal belief is that a good government is like a good operating system: it provides basic infrastructure when you need it, is invisible when you aren't looking for it, and protects you from other things in the environment (and them from you!). So, a lean, simple, easily-verifiable government that protects basic rights and provides basic needs and which only intervenes when processes (groups) come into direct conflict seems like the correct goal--not this bloated ill-defined overreaching contraption we have today.

This is genius. I love the idea of developing law as though it were a software development project. I always thought that government could greatly benefit (the people) by implementing technology- even something as simple as online voting or perhaps an official online debate forum. But the point of having legislators is to have someone represent a group of people's opinion. With the internet, they are no longer necessary as each individual can state their opinion directly. Politicians, with the use of the internet, are essentially obsolete.

From a less technical point of view, check out Scott Adams's ideas of slowly replacing government with websites: http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/cloud_government/ (Bonus: reusable infrastructure across countries)

So, a lean, simple, easily-verifiable government that protects basic rights and provides basic needs and which only intervenes when processes (groups) come into direct conflict seems like the correct goal--not this bloated ill-defined overreaching contraption we have today.

To be fair, this is a clearcut case where processes have come into direct conflict. After crying wolf dozens of times over the last 100 years, Big Media now realizes that they really are facing an existential threat: loss of control over distribution. At the same time, the Internet, arguably the single most important technological development and economic engine in human history, has thousands of die-hard defenders in its own corner.

Things like the SOPA hearings are exactly what we pay our representatives to handle for us. They have an obligation to do their jobs competently, just like the rest of us, and as these reports show, they are doing exactly the opposite.

Are you familiar with the Sunlight Foundation? You should check them out.

Also, http://www.opencongress.org/ sounds a bit like the document repo you're looking for. Even the official thomas.loc.gov lets you track versions of a bill (though, admittedly, it's hard to read if you don't know what you're doing).

How many of you would keep an employee who did this during an engineering meeting?

My issue would be that they couldn't be polite to their colleagues, not that their being bored by someone speaking means they're doing a bad job.

In this case, the politicians aren't supposed to love each other, they're from different parties. Yes, you want them to be able to work together, but saying that one person is boring you doesn't mean you aren't able to do your job and make the decisions you're there to make.

I think the point is that if you are tweeting when you should be listening, are you actually doing your job? Theoretically, he should be listening to people's opinions on the topic and using points to help form his own opinion. Instead, his opinion (or paycheck) has already been formed and therefore is not doing his job at all. The tweet was blatant proof.

In his defense, it was Sheila Jackson-Lee. Go watch any video of the woman, ever.

They're still human beings before they're republicans or democrats. I expect them to behave in a manner that says they're putting the nation first, not one that says "boo hoo, you don't agree about my pet projects and issues." There is a lack of mature, even-tempered discourse in Congress that wouldn't fly in a grade school.

I do wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph, though.

Nation? Politicians are elected to represent their constituents, and not the nation. Factionalism is a key component of the American system. They are supposed to fight for their state and not for America as a whole. In that light, having a politician say that another is 'boring' is perfectly natural.

I think a committee meeting in the House is quite a different environment than an "engineering meeting". While King's tweet was obviously not offered in a respectful attitude, I don't think that's something that should be sufficiently problematic to stop real "important business". I find it interesting that this comment focuses on the impropriety of King's tweet instead of the impropriety of making a fuss about this, though obviously both are applicable to your main point that the people in charge are grossly incompetent.

I think a committee meeting in the House is quite a different environment than an "engineering meeting".

I mean, they are nominally doing the same sort of work as we'd do designing control flows in software, right? They're looking at a problem, identifying issues, finding dependencies, and then picking a decision-making algorithm (the law) that should address those issues. They use legalese instead of bytecode, but the idea is the same.

The idea that somehow this process should be held to different standards than any other engineering project (especially any other one which impacts so many!) is likely central to the problems we face as a country today.

It's fundamentally a different thing. While the general process of logically working something out should be the same everywhere, the particulars are different. The House is full of politicians and what they say is televised and comprises part of their campaign. Ego always comes first to politicians, not problem-solving, because politicians are elected based on image and appearances, not hard results. Also, when you represent such a wide swath of people with so many conflicting interests, all of your decisions become watered down with so-called "compromise".

Someone wrote on another thread about SOPA that a politician is always campaigning. I believe this to be true. Politics is almost exclusively posturing, and it's reasonable for one to tire of the senseless bloviating, especially when it pertains to technical topics on which the speaker is obviously very poorly informed.

Not saying things should be this way, but that's the way they are.

My read on what stopped business wasn't specifically her objection to King's tweet, but the counter-objection to her objection to King's tweet, where the presiding officer claimed that her use of the word "offensive" was uncivil, demanded its retraction, and then everything stalled while points of parliamentary procedure were debated.

What do you propose?

Armed revolt?

The French had an interesting way of taking care of corrupt government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

This is being downvoted, but I do really intend a real point that isn't in jest. Politicians have zero potential of repercussion. Even in cases of corruption, fraud, etc... jailtime is minimal at best. Seizing assets or punishing those funding and conspiring with them never happens. Once you're a politician, you have free reign for corruption. Much of the US and much of the world even believes that our last President and his cabinet were likely guilty of wrongdoing on several occasions.

We do need to have some method of holding stringent accountability. These men fear nothing, and respect no one. If they get voted out of office, they'll just go work for a lobbyist for 4x the salary. I don't think we have to go as far as the guillotine, but let's face it, the French Revolution was a lot more effective than the Occupy Movement at reshaping France and influencing a great deal of Europe. Find something to add weight to their decisions. Don't let them do wrong with no repercussion.

I do not support violence, but you raise an interesting point in your explanation.

So, allow me to offer a condensed set of your listed problems there, and please correct me if I miss/misrepresent something:

1. No mechanism for holding politicians accountable exists. 2. In the event where a politician is found accountable, no meaningful mechanism for punishment exists.

I'd argue that it's not just about holding politicians accountable but laws accountable. What percentage of laws accomplish what they claim to? But rather than admitting this and going back to the drawing board, people dedicate their lives to blindly supporting or opposing specific laws, placing loyalty above problem solving.

That our political system (in general) rewards loyalty over problem solving is strong evidence of corruption.

I agree with you completely, but that seems to be another issue overall.

#1 is partially fulfilled. There can be 'investigations', such as the one done on Newt Gingrich in 1997. They levy a fine of $300K (slap on the wrist for someone with a net worth in the millions), and then he's able to go and run for president 13 years later.

The problem that is inherent to #1 however is that, at least initially, they are investigated by people closest to them. Few people in Congress was to open up any Congressperson for deep investigation. Everyone has skeletons so investigations seem to generally be done in a way to kick up the least amount of dust, yet appear to be in motion.

And you're absolutely right for #2. Rarely are the rich or corporations punished in a serious way. Deceptive business practice that makes you billions? Fine given for millions. Unless you get caught in such a bad and terribly obvious way that they simply must go after you with jailtime, they won't.

There is no way to punish a politician or a group of politician for non-performance, corruption, failure to uphold the US Constitution, etc. You've basically gotta kill someone. And even if you do that, you're likely going to face less time than the average person on the street who does the same. Afterall, all your best friends are lawyers and lawmakers.

Well, let's treat it like a systems architecture problem, right? If you can orchestrate a cloud of servers, you should be able to at least make some progress on a union of states, yes? Good government, I think, is probably like good OS design--freedom, function, and security from others.

Join the discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3361424

Fix Congress First -- Now Rootstrikers http://www.rootstrikers.org/

Occupy.

What? No. That's rubbish.

The failure of the Occupy movement has been that it is primarily been driven at an emotional level, and (if my own experiences have shown anything) has lacked serious thought.

So, here, we're all designers/engineers/entrepeneurs, let's talk about this.

Goal:

Fix what is broken with the US federal government.

Constraints:

Any proposed solution cannot disrupt current economy significantly (avoid riots, breaking public services, hurting people. etc.).

Any proposed solution must be straightforward in implementation and simple in explanation (average Joes and Janes need to be able to get it--no GNU cat() implmentations, please).

Any proposed solution must gracefully integrate or deprecate existing systems where possible (see defense, messaging [postal service], FCC, IRS, etc.)--this need not include existing legislative organs, however (those are command mechanisms, which probably would need to be replaced wholesale anyways).

Any proposed solution must allow active participation by the governed and allow for expression of their will. This implies any solution must allow for equal, open, and easy access to the functioning of the government.

Suggested starting point:

1. Identify what is actually wrong with the government.

EDIT: Updated example list of existing systems example. Added constraint for "expression of governed's will".

Any proposed solution cannot disrupt current economy significantly (avoid riots, breaking public services, hurting people. etc.).

I think you're missing the point of the Occupy movement.

I think before any fixing takes place.. a lot of people still need to be convinced that something is broken.

Identify and visualize the "broken wheels". And no vagueness either: Name names, quote figures and compare track records to campaign platforms then get that information out there in clever, "viral" ways. Large, detailed infographics might seem popular with us nerds but general population needs very specific, dramatic examples of just how fucked up things are.

Lawrence Lessig argues that the fundamental problem in government is money. Getting elected is expensive, so candidates have to build a network of donors, which creates an obvious conflict of interest if they get elected. A decent introduction to Lessig's ideas can be found here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/...

Public financing of elections would be a definite step in the right direction and meets all of your constraints.

It's worth noting that Occupy movement was started in the pursuit of one clear, simple, publicly and plainly stated goal: to get the money out of politics. [1]

Everyone who pushed forward the meme that the Occupiers had/have no clear agenda did nothing but expose their own ignorance, ineptitude or intellectual dishonesty.

[1] http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstre... "Beginning from one simple demand -- a presidential commission to separate money from politics"

To be fair, the confusing structure of anonymous, and the multitudes of 'alternative' press releases under the name of anonymous certainly confused the issue. As more people joined the occupy protests in SF, new issues started getting mixed in (from prosecution of banking board members to banning circumcision), and the press naturally published what was most interesting to the general public.

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with that. This is the first time I've ever heard of that specific demand, and I've been actively seeking information about the movement.

Feel free to blame "the media," but I've personally asked more than a few people at Occupy to be specific about what they were demanding or what success looks like and I never heard anything like that. I heard a lot about jobs and employment. A bit about the banks having too much power. And one person talked a lot about middle east politics.

> "I've been actively seeking information about the movement."

You've been looking for information, yet never read the original call to Occupy? Or were you just keeping an eye out for more background information in what is provided to you by the press?

The former. I just told you that I talked personally to Occupiers. I wonder how many of them are aware that an "original call to Occupy" even exists.

Actually, it sounds like you're describing the Tea Party movement. While it remains to be seen if it has run out of steam, it made a big impact on the 2010 elections.

The "Occupy" movement identifies the problem as "money in politics."

You will have a difficult time convincing them otherwise.

Except: the Occupy protests mainly caused problems for city and local officials.

Cities and localities have issues, too, but are far more representative of and responsive to their own residents' needs than Congress. (None of the cities blessed with Occupy camps proposed censoring the internet, for example.)

> None of the cities blessed with Occupy camps proposed censoring the internet, for example.

Mostly because internet regulation has been federalized. When they can, cities attempt to ban things left and right; many of the Supreme Court precedents on film censorship involve municipal statutes. Not to mention their love of "free speech zones".

What are you doing?

Like, vote in the upcoming elections?

I hate when people respond with this like it is a novel concept that nobody has every tried before. The new boss will be the same as the old.

You are missing the point. There are established mechanisms for change in this country. I grow weary of people acting like we need to rise up and take drastic action, when most people have not even gone through our established processes.

And the new bosses can change. Obama's election was the result of almost nothing other than: "I'm not the status quo." And he won.

So vote out every incumbent in the next election, and the message will get across loud and clear. Maybe the next generation will start with similar problems, but they just got told clearly that if they want to keep their jobs, we want CHANGE.

And politicians do what it takes to get re-elected. A clear message that change is desired will change this country.

I voted against every incumbent last election.

Good. Convince all your peers to do the same.

> Obama's election was the result of almost nothing other than: "I'm not the status quo." And he won.

Considering Obama's record, that's an argument against your point.

Everyone wants to act like Obama ran some sort of grassroots campaign. The man was a millionaire and a politician before he ran for president. What we have in our country is the illusion of democracy. We can elect anyone we want, so long as he or she comes from the static pool of wealthy, corrupt, brainwashed offspring of existing politicians.

Disclaimer: I don't have a problem with rich people, I just have a problem with the fact that if one isn't born into wealth and/or politics, it is for all practical purposes impossible to even get on the ballot.

I used to subscribe to the theory that everyone should vote. Now that I am older and smarter, I still vote, I just realize that the chances of it making things better in my country are slim to none.

meh, Bill Clinton came from a pretty middle-class background; I mean, I think my family has more financial resources than his.

I mean, sure, coming from wealth is a huge advantage; Few people go from being that poor to being one of the most powerful people in the world, and, of course, if you weren't born with the money, you have to come up with it in other ways.

Now, I agree that far too many of our politicians seem to come from the same pool; I'm just saying that they do let new blood in, from time to time.

And the new bosses can change. Obama's election was the result of almost nothing other than: "I'm not the status quo." And he won.

Wow. Gun, meet foot.

for who? equally corrupt or incompetent morons seeking personal status and financial gain?

The completely honest answer to your question is that I'm not willing to start killing people. Seriously, no troll.

I understand that the popularity contest driven plutocracy we currently operate under will never create a sane government. This is not because voting doesn't "work" - I am not suggesting conspiracy here. But affluent societies don't give a shit. On the whole, so long as you feed, clothe, house, protect, and entertain your electorate, you can do whatever you please, and your power will likely not be challenged. My vote does not, and never will, count, when I am vastly outnumbered by the votes of people so comfortable in their lives that they don't bother with silly things like political introspection.

So, my only alternative is to participate in the only historically viable means of effecting meaningful change: a violent overthrow of the system. I am not willing to do this. That is why I don't "do something".

I have felt similar in the past...these feelings pass. Your perspective is at least partially dishonest. You don't have to kill people to start making a difference in a society where you can vote and possibly more importantly educate others on what's happening. You seem to feel that the undereducated coddled masses wouldn't be moved if you spent a bit of time trying to talk to them. I think you'd be surprised at the impact you could make in your day to day outings in the city. Get some leaflets made with your local rep's name and photo and contact info on it and put some useful info on SOPA or other things you think people should know about. Add a message to the top of the web sites you operate!! Education is a great place to start. Please don't tell me this approach won't work if you haven't bothered to try it yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com