Hacker News Reader

Comment by notch656c | Hacker News Reader

There were some books that some segment of voters didn't approve of that certain school libraries were providing. This seems like a backdoor way to stop that while bypassing having to go through controversial school board meetings and/or 1A constitutionality issues to block those books.

Not to say this isn't insane, just explaining how I think it happened.

View on HN

> There were some books that some segment of voters didn't approve of that certain school libraries were providing.

I mean, so? This is small minority of people we're talking about. Why do they get veto power over everything present in the classroom? It's the teachers' job to teach the kids, manage/provision the classroom, etc.

At some point you have to just tell people "No".

> This is small minority of people we're talking about.

This group of people you are talking about are well organized to take action on anything that aggrieved them. It just so happens that they are aggrieved by anything that isn't explicitly what they believe. Instead of accepting that some may not agree with you, they believe that anyone not in agreement is wrong and must be stopped at every turn.

If a law is passed the presumption under democracy is it has the assent of the majority.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of democracy, but you're looking at it.

To be clear, this isn't democracy, it's republicanism. Laws get passed in republicanism all the time that the majority of the people don't agree with, because their representatives aren't actually representing their interests.

If the government doesn't have the assent of the people is it not illegitimate? I thought the whole presumption under our system was the representatives have the assent of the majority.

There are plenty of people in the US that will agree that the current federal government is almost entirely illegitimate. That majority of things our government currently does are not powers granted to it in the Constitution.

There is a massive corrupting temptation of corporate money for all members of congress. We might elect somebody that we believe will represent us but ultimately they are swooned by the siren song of fat sacks of cash. However, I think more often than not, the people that get elected spent the most money on their campaign. The majority of money spent of campaigns comes from contributions that we are supposed to believe don't buy influence.

Whatever you feel about Matt Gaetz, his interview with Tim Pool illustrates the corporate influence issue we are up against.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2dgVuS2QY

If you can get your population to believe that the other choices are literally demons trying to condemn them to hell, it's an easy fear based decision for uneducated voters.

I still remember that in 2010, the approval rating of US Congress was 10%, and yet 90% of incumbents was reelected. How the hell is that possible?

"Congressional approval rating" is a dumb and misleading stat and I hate that it's reported on so much, especially in contexts like comparing to to e.g. the President's approval rating.

Maybe you love your representative and Senator(s) but your party is in the minority. So, you don't approve of Congress.

Maybe ditto on the liking your reps, but Congress is always doing really stupid shit even when your side's in charge (like the goddamn own-goal "debt ceiling" bullshit) simply because they can't rally enough support to make that junk stop, so you don't approve of Congress. Or maybe your side controls both houses and the Presidency but still can't do jack-shit because of Senate rules, or because some other Senator or two (not yours) in your preferred party like playing both sides to advance their state's interests at the expense of everyone else—so you don't approve of Congress.

Maybe you like your reps and your side is in charge but you've really taken anti-politician stand-up jokes to heart, or follow media that highlights and exaggerates all the stuff you hate about reps on the "other side" even when yours is in charge, so you tick the "disapprove" box.

And so on.

To make an extreme example, let's say that 99 senators are great and everyone loves them, but 1 senator is terrible and the rules of the Senate happen to allow filibusters. You could have a situation as a result where 98-99% of people approve of their senator, but a small minority approves of the overall output of the Senate.

I think it is because their state's congressman they think is acting in their interest, while the other states' congressman are not. And they're not wrong...

Personally I also find it bizarre system where the majority vote of the other 49 states tells your state what to do, under federal law, particularly in wholly intrastate matters.

A lot of federal-law-telling-states-what-to-do is not tied to criminal punishment, but rather financial punishment. Federal taxation basically permits the US government the first share of our income. The US government then chooses to redistribute large chunks of money back to the state government, but only as long as it plays by the rules. So states can either play by the rules, or have to make up that money by essentially double-taxing their residents.

I'm sure states would love to just take that money in directly, but the federal government gets first dibs and states complete with each other on the remaining taxation. For instance, Florida is not just a popular retirement spot for the weather -- it also has zero income tax and a property tax with capped year-over-year growth.

Republicans are generally much more moderate in their personal ideologies than what their representatives do. But it doesn't matter because they still vote them back into office no matter what.

"If a law is passed the presumption under democracy is it has the assent of the majority. "

Why would that be the presumption instead of, you know, looking at polls?

Because then you would realize the whole charade about the social contract and consent to be governed under the law all falls apart and there is nothing left but whether you decide to defend against the violence of enforcement.

You do you, but I'd think most people can look at poll data without the accompanying feeling of existential dread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com