Hacker News Reader

Comment by buckbova | Hacker News Reader

> Governments never give up power once you let them have it

This is a universal truth.

No, it isn't. Unless you mean that governments don't relinquish power unless they're designed to, but that's a big difference. Nor is it true that governments can't due anything well by virtue of being governments. What is true is that governments are complex (and thus difficult to get right) and usually have a high inertia. It's also true that individuals tend not to relinquish power, both out of self-interest and a lack of trust/belief in the other guy.

> Unless you mean that governments don't relinquish power unless they're designed to, but that's a big difference.

No I mean once they've taken it or the people give them that power, they don't relinquish it.

Consider the extensions to the Patriot Act.

"The provisions -- passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack -- deal with roving wiretaps, the tracking of alleged "lone wolf" terrorists, and the ability of law enforcement officials to obtain records they deem relevant to an investigation after securing an order from a federal court."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/27/congress.patriot.act/

> Nor is it true that governments can't due anything well by virtue of being governments.

Governments can't do anything well because they are bureaucratic nightmares.

> Governments can't do anything well because they are bureaucratic nightmares.

And what's the difference between a government and a large corporation? "No government can do anything well" is lazy thinking.

Prohibition, price controls, so many monopoly regulations, financial regulation, etc,etc.

The word government defines a broad group of entities. Using any absolute terms here likely is a mistake.

In general, people in power resist giving up power. Seizing additional power acts as a conduit to keep the existing power. The greater ones power, the more numerous one's enemies become. There are different reasons why this occurs. In some circumstances it is because those individuals did things that were illegal and face either prison or death at the loss of power (typical of an absolute ruler, Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe.)

Groups of individuals can behave similarly in shared self-interest. Private citizens and corporations can also be viewed as behaving the same.

What separates government from the private citizen or group is the general ability to use lethal force, theft, and imprisonment over very long periods of time and on a massive scale. Historically the relinquishment of power is generally one of a transfer of power, or some other bargain; sometimes through outright force and demand (Magna Carta and subsequent events, etc.)

The private citizen and corporation is certainly capable of using lethal force, theft, and imprisonment. However, without government complicity it is not possible forever or at scale.

Government only keeps as much power as its citizens allow it to.

typical approach of blaming the victim. You miss completely on the fact of force and information asymmetry.

My statement was a bit to hasty, I admit that. Resting control of your rights back from the government in the US is probably fraught with a lot less peril than doing so in Russia (i.e. Pussy Riot).

As a US citizen, I am dismayed at the situation, and like other posters here, my sentiment towards government has shifted greatly over the last six months. As a US citizen, I don't know what the solution is other than radical transparency in government and citizens as a whole having violent disdain for apathy in the political process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com