How to Subvert a Democracy, Stage 2: Condition the Masses

> just having a job on its own is something to be grateful of

Graber's book Debt challenged my worldview in many ways. For instance, the bits about the notions of employment. How the norm went from working for oneself to selling one's labor to another. Our predecessors considered employment akin to slavery.

Years later, it still stretches my incredulity. The gig economy is bad, right? I struggle to imagine an entire modern economy, contemporary society where most persons are not wage slaves.

Youngest me was obsessed with getting a good job, having a good career. Old burnt out me is wondering why I worked so hard to be make other people rich. What a waste.

(But at least I got valuable work experience.)

More jobs increase the wealth of the employed.

More jobs improves the job market for the employees (more demand for their services).

More jobs helps (small and large) business owners (more wealth in the hands of customers).

If there are 10,000 coal mining jobs and 9,000 coal miners, coal mining conditions will improve.

Ok, huffingtonpost.

all ministerial positions are about positioning, not effectiveness.

china has this spelled out in some laws and govt practices. e.g. they assume rural resources will be abused by a central group until they can get a stronger state law presence. but accept it and keep dumping resource till then and then work with those corrupt entities to ease the region absorption into proper state mechanics instead of "fighting corruption" or some other grand but disconnected goal

for and older but more comprehensive view on the article points, there's: Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook

This is HN . . .

Kids biologically can't discern lies prior to that age unless they've had some form of trauma (from what I've been told), and often accept what's read and written as truth. Few re-evaluate those beliefs later as they become part of their identity.

Its why that Florida education issue was such a hot-button topic. They tried overtly embedding some of that junk into math problems.

People aren't sold on debate and discussion, and aren't aligned on goals, and don't have a way to align on goals

This is a very easy intelligence trap to fall into, but it neglects internal bad actors that are doing the same things for profit. That interview is structured to set you up into a subtle us vs. them mentality. If you look at what he says and how you feel when you find out (if you agree, which itself is a subtle lever of influence with consistency [Cialdini]), its hard to argue that he isn't doing exactly what he says they do (creating a demoralized state).

You always have to remember the source, and he is not a good source for this. There are much better sources.

We value freedom of speech, because proper communication enables debate which allows us to come to a fuller understanding of certain issues than in the absence of this.

This understanding often allows us to save lives, whereas those mistakes that would never normally be addressed would result in deaths in a system where this doesn't take place.

That being said, you can never have a debate where the number of real people is less than fake people, and they have some motive to amplify or de-amplify what's being said which is ineffable ahead of time.

Where things have gone wrong is in treating corporations as dual entities. When it suits them they are people, when it suits them best they are a corporation, and in some industries when it suits them they act as arms of government without any of the mandates from the constitution, and are immune from legal repercussions.

I call utter BS on this. You are basically shooting a messenger here (whether said messenger is a baddy is not really relevant). If you had healthy society where fucking lefties and asshole righties were not at each other throats and where poverty, ever progressing lack of education and other social issues were not so rampant political enemies would have no grass to feed on.

Yes, unlike the good old day when legacy media (tv/newspapers/radio) served the people and told them the truth, without trying to manipulate the masses.

Regarding Europe, I think you are on the right track about the role of political parties in democratic backsliding. While heavy disinformation and propaganda (both domestic and foreign) are certainly involved, there are all sorts of other dynamics involved. Oftentimes, things really start to get awry when a dominant party succeeds in capturing state institutions (including the judiciary) and the media sector. It is also noteworthy that such capturing may occur both through "pure" political actors and corporate powers, the latter often in the form of corrupted oligarchic structures, as you pointed out. Also recessions and economic hardship have played significant roles, as they have always done. People's apathy and disengagement are also a factor. In Europe we also have the further issue of backsliding spilling to the supranational level.

That said, I disagree with your conclusion: even with the dangers, political parties are clearly necessary.

As for the Narratively's focus on "fake news", I think a central question is in which stage of the backsliding these play a role. A hypothesis would be that these are particularly important early on. Later on, the entity that has succeeded in capturing can use the fire-hose strategy at its will.

Very interesting to follow on twitter in that he picks apart bad journalism and explains why it doesn't work.

Are you referring to the disinformation campaign that promoted the conspiracy theory that Russia somehow influenced the 2016 presidential elections, or the conspiracy theory itself?

No, it would do exactly the opposite. Short term limits mean you perpetually have a revolving door of inexperienced and naive legislators who are much more prone to a) manipulation by experienced and cut-throat lobbyists and b) grabbing everything they can for their district with no regard for long-term sustainability, because they'll be gone before they can see any consequences.

I'm not picking on you in particular because I see this all over the place, but it really makes me crazy when people default to their gut emotions and desire to punish, and so come up with non-solutions like "shorter term limits!" which actually make the problem so much worse.

I think it is a thing that feels right to a lot of people, but if you ask "What will term limits achieve, and what are possible unintended consequences of term limits?" I think most proponents of it would have a very hard time coming up with a satisfying answer.

I would prefer age limits before term limits.

I think the real question to ask is: "If corruption were against the law, would people still want term limits?" or "Will term limits reduce corruption?"

I think the answer is no and I think it is obviously no for the latter (revolving door).

2) The main downside to term limits is that it tends to put more power into the hands of actors who are not subject to elections—professional bureaucrats, lobbyists, interest groups, and party machines, basically. My perception is that those latter three groups, especially, are behind a lot of this kind of thing—if true, term limits would make things worse, not better.

1. pay them all FU money so they're not corruptible (I don't care how much. Maybe a trust fund for life.)

2. harshly, legally prohibit them from making any money from ever having been in office (the FU money is a cushion here)

And then . . . why limit their terms? If you have eliminated corruption, at least ostensibly, why limit terms?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35747650.

What percentage of income taxes do you think the bottom 50% of tax payers pay? What percentage of income taxes do you think the richest 1% pay?

(Answer key: Q1 - 3%, Q2 - 39%)

We tax the rich.

People on both sides of culture war issues really do care about them. I agree that there are a number of more important issues, but the ordering of political priorities is basically subjective and nobody needs share anyone else's.

Which aside from entertainment messaging and your educational curriculum, should be obvious by the fact that its largely the marginal social tier that thinks as you do.

To see the edge of the actual discussion: think about the dissonance of a worldview that simultaneously sees the nation's problems to be inherent in enforced hierarchy as mediated by the government, as you state, and the solution to that problem being the same government's enforcement of taxation.

There's only room for one of those views in anyone's mind. They cannot logically exist simultaneously. The government will never be simultaneously a marauder and a beneficent tax collector. And nothing changes its stripes.

Culture war topics aren't intended to distract from any of the things that you mention. Your list is a litany of topics barely adjacent to the culture war.

The culture war is about legal control of people whose natural habits and views would otherwise preclude it. When control has reached its limit working through the channel of temptation, then the only avenue left is the one that legally forces norms that are so distasteful to the natural senses that they oppress most normal people.

If it is on the same standards (or a higher bar) than that under which someone who was a political ally or uninvolved would be charged, no.

If it is on a basis on which someone differently politically situated with the same degree of evidence of the same kind of crime would otherwise not be charged, than yes.

If we assume that is true, what should happen?