Hacker News Reader

> Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No.

If you lived in Rome this time 2000 years ago, well, you'd be going through a period of relative stability (Tiberius was, well, a bit odd, but things were mostly stable enough), but just coming off about a century of civil war, and looking at, well, interesting times in 2038. And, post the end of the republic, that stretch from start of Augustus to end of Tiberius was about as good as it got.

Even ignoring the civil rights issues (unless you were (a) a man and (b) pretty wealthy you were an unperson; while Rome had a concept of citizenship some citizens were very much more citizen than others) it was just very messy relative to just about any developed country today. Your chances of being collateral damage in a civil war at some point in your lifetime would be, well, quite high.

Even if you assume wealthy man, btw, don't think you're off the hook. In fact, in the period covered in the article that might even put you in more jeopardy than a normal person. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription#Sulla's_dictators... - have the wrong politics, or even just the wrong friends, and you might end up on the extrajudicial murder list. Cicero, one of the lawyers mentioned in the article, died this way.

> Tiberius was, well, a bit odd, but things were mostly stable enoug

If you were a rich aristocrat it’s likely that you lived under a constant threat of being killed during one of his “stalinist” style purges. Which to be fair wasn’t that odd even the “good” emperors like Claudius engaged in stuff like that.

Rule of law wasn’t much of a thing during the imperial period.

> I think you're romanticizing the present.

You might be right, actually. Common bias eh? But I suggest we look at it practically.

> Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No.

How do you suppose that technology came about? I don't wish to trivialize this, but I'm convinced systems of government and levels of technology have a very strong connection. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree on that.

> It's a fantasy to believe the ruling class are not in an eternal struggle to take more, or that they have ever only restrained themselves due to the threat of revolt.

I did not proclaim otherwise. Elite assholes are exactly the same. It's just that they are less capable of actualizing it now. In my experience they lack the privileges they used to have. Sure, they are rich and fuck you over, but that doesn't come close to what they were able to do in the past. I am only interested in results, nothing else. Human souls are as murky as they ever were and maybe it's worse now. I don't know about that.

> You're trying to make it an all or nothing thing, but it's not.

I'm sorry, maybe I did come across like that indeed. I meant to imply that whatever is between cockroach and omnipotent, it is more now, not less. Cockroaches these days have way more power than they ever did.

> And what does "winning" mean?

It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight.

> How do you suppose that technology came about?

By people, inventors, creatives, entrepreneurs, explorers. Certainly not government or bureaucracy. Many of the most incredible inventions, discoveries, and creative works came about under governments that were not free or democratic.

I'm sure some amount of government is needed for a society to keep running. I have seen no evidence that it is what gives rise to technology and production rather than the other way around, or that bigger, costlier, more complicated, and more imposing is always better.

[snip]

> It's not just money. This could also mean forcing them to change course. We had something called "Urgenda" that took our gov to court (and won). In this case our government was blamed for doing too little about climate change and they had to adapt. There were also cases that for example challenged governmental oversight.

These are trifles. Corporations are all "on board" with climate change now. Petroleum profiteers have ESG scores. As far as the government is concerned, "doing more about climate change" means nothing for the people involved beyond making the commoners pay more for their food and energy.

Would I prefer to live now than 2000 years ago? Certainly. Is that because of today's systems of governance, rather than today's technology? No.

The hockey-stick-like growth in technology, quality-of-life, and economic activity generally coinciding with the rise of modern market economics and liberal democracy suggests you might not be able to have one without the other.

You might not, but you might. And there's nothing about a liberal democracy that says government must have a massive centralized concentration of power, it just happens to be going that way because power begets power.

> there's nothing about a liberal democracy that says government must have a massive centralized concentration of power

That seems like it simplifies a few things like national security, civic safety of any kind, health care, migration, education. I can see a lot of arrows pointing towards centralization of power and for good reasons.

Not saying I'm happy about it, but I really, really struggle to imagine a solution for it that is as stable.

> national security, civic safety of any kind, health care, migration, education. I can see a lot of arrows pointing towards centralization of power and for good reasons.

Many "liberal western democracy" governments do very badly and and make ruinously expensive decisions that go against the interest and will of the citizens on some or all of those things.

In contrast to … ? Systems of government in your utopian visions?

You have made a sport out of oversimplifying complicated matters before attacking them unfairly. These “governments” you are so fond of attacking are the best we can do in the present and they require enormous, continuous support from regular civilians. It behooves us all to be mindful of this.

These “bureaucrats, politicians, judges, police, and other officials” are normal people, probably including members of your family. The enemy you are envisioning might actually exist, but I believe you are pointing your sword(s) in the wrong direction.

> In contrast to … ? Systems of government in your utopian visions?

Non sequitur. One does not have to contrast something with something else to make a statement about it.

> You have made a sport out of oversimplifying complicated matters before attacking them unfairly.

Strange how fragile a lot of people are about daring to attack the government they are subservient to. I disagree, in fact I see you have made a sport out of oversimplifying complicated matters to defend them unquestioningly.

> These “governments” you are so fond of attacking are the best we can do in the present and they require enormous, continuous support from regular civilians. It behooves us all to be mindful of this.

That's just some declaration you've made. You've asserted it. And I disagree. It behooves us all to be mindful of government's corruption, incompetence, and growing dangerous power and greed.

> These “bureaucrats, politicians, judges, police, and other officials” are normal people, probably including members of your family. The enemy you are envisioning might actually exist, but I believe you are pointing your sword(s) in the wrong direction.

The fact you've equated holding people to account for their actions as being their enemy is telling.

"And what does "winning" mean? It means the government decides that it must take some money from other citizens and give it to you. "

It can also mean countless other things. Like that government has to stop excessive surveillance. Cannot take your home away to build a road. Or has to lift a regulation for your buisness, ...

Not every government activity is money redistribution.

Sounds like the kind of "win" where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance and the government promises the government it will and then it doesn't, and it also starts spying on the parts of the government that tried to stop it so it can bring them to heel.

You can change a few roads around from time to time, resulting in the government taking more of your money to build road that takes a longer route so you and your fellow plebs have to commute 10 minutes longer. That's not the "real" power previous poster was talking about, going up against the ruling class.

You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite? If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing? If nothing, what kind of political system do you propose?

And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.

> You seem to equate government with the wealthy elite?

Strange.

> If not, do you think, there is anything positive, the government is doing?

Yes.

> And the question was, if it is possible for a lowly citizen today, to do anything against the all powerful leviathan. And yes, you can. And I would argue, easier than in the roman empire. But easy? Surely not.

I can't understand what you mean.

The "government" is a behemoth multi-armed monster of gigantic propertions. It is utterly incapable of even observing itself in full. The best we can do is look at parts.

You are throwing the separate branches of government on the same pile, which I think is unfair to say the least.

The judicial branch tells the executive branch to stop or adjust whatever it is doing. The executive branch is not happy about this, but if it wants to survive it needs to listen or at the very least project the illusion that it is listening in some way shape or form. We haven't touched the legislative branch here which is also a force to be reckoned with.

All these branches are filled to the brim with people of various background and motivations. They might not be happy about eachother, but they are stuck with it.

I don't know about American politics, but these branches are pretty well separated in the Netherlands. Maybe not as much as we'd like, but I'm hard-pressed to call it anything but a clear improvement over the past.

I don't see how your comment address what I wrote. Systems of government are set up to gain and keep power over their citizens, and western governments have this down to a science, which is to give people the illusion they have freedom and self-determination.

I promise you your government does not give the slightest shit if it forces itself to force its citizens to pay more taxes on food and energy. Funny that they have people believing that is a "win" -- socialize the cost of climate change to the commoners. Have you not noticed that it has become fashionable for governments to apologize and promise atonement for such things? Have you ever wondered why that is? It's not because they are looking to take down the banks or the petroleum cartels or the billionaires or whatever. It's because government ~= people. They are accepting blame on your behalf to shield their friends and owners from the blame they deserve.

Wake me up when they dismantle the carbon profiteers and seize their profits and the profits of their profits from the past century or so. Then the war profiteers, and so on.

You have conflated major separate branches of not only government, but also society in general. You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed.

I get it, I really do and I am biased as well so your underlying points may just as well be 1000% correct. It’s just not something I can productively engage with.

> You have conflated major separate branches of not only government, but also society in general.

Where?

> You then build on top of these simplifications in the most general of terms in an attempt to strengthen your ideas about power and how it is distributed.

How exactly did I do that?

Pretty weak response to my post tbh. I get it though, it hurts to realize the benevolent and omnipotent protector and provider you are subservient to is anything but. Lashing out is not an unusual response.

> where the government tells the government that the government has to stop excessive surveillance

That is how to conflate branches of government. IMO it also is an unfair characterization of the underlying complexity of the situation.

I love it when you disagree, because I believe lively civic debate is very important. It’s just hard for me to become concrete when we get stuck in generalities about “the elite” and “those in power” without precision about what it is exactly that is the problem.

I also recognize my bias, because I am actually a (small) part of this omnipotent dangerous government filled with “others” you hate so much so I think we need to agree to disagree on just about everything.

> That is how to conflate branches of government.

It's the government though. The point from the start was that the judicial branch is part of government control. You are the one confused if you don't understand that.

> IMO it also is an unfair characterization of the underlying complexity of the situation.

IMO it isn't.

> I love it when you disagree, because I believe lively civic debate is very important. It’s just hard for me to become concrete when we get stuck in generalities about “the elite” and “those in power” without precision about what it is exactly that is the problem.

And yet you seem to know that the government is the solution to them all apparently without knowing what they are.

> I also recognize my bias, because I am actually a (small) part of this omnipotent dangerous government filled with “others” you hate so much so I think we need to agree to disagree on just about everything.

I think you're angrily lashing out at strawmen of your own making because it has become difficult for you to reconcile the scary new ideas in this conversation. But I do find it very interesting how wildly irrational and angry governments and bureaucrats become at the suggestion that they should be held to account for their actions, or that anything they do could be questioned or disagreed with, and by those "hateful commoners" of all people!

I cannot deny your enthusiasm for the matter which I can only applaud.

Yet fun as it was, I will now cease my demented rage, but not before profusely apologizing for my irrational and unforgivable lashing out.

Also, sorry HN. I have indulged forces here that shouldn’t be. I thought it would be interesting, but that is.. doubtful in hindsight.

So just to confirm, you are in the government, and you view people who say the government should be held accountable for its actions as "the enemy", is that right? If not it should be simple to explain how you thought I saw you as the enemy for my comments.

What would real winning look like to you? And whatever you pick: do you think it was easier to win in this sense in republican Rome for the average person, as compared to now?

Would be a government which is bound to work in the in the interests and to the will of the people, and one where bureaucrats, politicians, judges, police, and other officials receive hash punishments if they are found to have lied or profited from office or been negligent or corrupt in carrying out their duty.

I notice a lot of dirty corrupt western politicians have started a lot of unpopular wars and "interventions" that have killed countless thousands of people and stolen trillions of dollars from their citizens since WWII, and all have escaped justice for it. Worse yet, they have the gall to blame victims of their crimes and force them to bear the consequences, "we meddled and caused wars and destabilization, and therefore we (read: you) need to shoulder burden of the consequences and 'help' more". That's not winning. Avenues of hanged war criminals would be winning.