Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmurf | Hacker News Reader

The stupidity argument [1] is a possible trap. The technofascists are making the same argument: The masses are morons. But they extrapolate to claiming the masses therefore cannot self-govern, as evidenced by what has happened and is now happening. Democracy must be swept aside for the superior people, the oligarchy, to run the show.

I don't even know what the question is. Is there a threshold function? Is there a critical mass of stupidity beyond which all hope is lost and we just have to go through the ugly process of tyranny and its eventual collapse? But what if technology can provide a superior tyranny, in effect flawless totalitarianism? The hope part of the puzzle seems unpredictable.

[1] Bonhöffer seems apt here, a Lutheran pastor killed by the Nazis, who consider stupidity a greater threat to good than evil.

View on HN

The argument is mainly false, because regular democracy already recognizes that the masses are morons, and does not let them self-govern.

It's a kind of theatre whereby we elect certain representatives but the vast bulk of the government bureaucracy stays the same.

Trump and Co. are testing/challenging that system in a way: they are trying to wrestle power away from that immovable mountain of bureaucracy, into the hands of the elected government, and that bureaucracy, used to taking their immovability for granted (along with their jobs and budget money) isn't liking it.

This is nonsense. The bureaucracy is created by Congressional statute. The Constitutional order obligates the president to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed and the president takes an oath to that effect. This president is acting deliberately contrary to these statutes, a violation of the oath of office, and reasonably makes the president's motives questionable if not illegitimate.

A president can veto a bill passed by Congress. It doesn't become law. The Congress can override the veto and it does become law, that any law obligates the president. Not even in the most extreme case of the unitary executive hypothesis can a president legitimately ignore the law.

The bureaucracy is a creation of Congress. The president can veto budgets passed by Congress until there is a compromise.

It's not legitimate to call only the president elected government as if the Congress has no say.

I'm speaking in very general terms. The world's democracies have bureaucracies. On paper those bureaucracies are supposed to be responsible to and controlled by the elected government. In practice, they are too complicated, inscrutable and give the government too few knobs and levers, as well as two little visibility. Mainly they're interested in self-preservation.

Sure, there are statutes and chargers and oath sworn and whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com