Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

>>How can anyone have faith in such a system with such gross inequalities?

The system is working as designed and as intended.

I think people need to rid themselves of this romantic notion that the government serves "the people" and cops in particular are supposed to protect the innocent. Both of them are ridiculously childish beliefs. The reality is much harsher. Adam Smith laid it out more than two centuries ago in his book Wealth of Nations:

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

View on HN

> I think people need to rid themselves of this romantic notion that the government serves "the people" and cops in particular are supposed to protect the innocent. Both of them are ridiculously childish beliefs. The reality is much harsher.

That may be so. But if we don't stick to these ideals and try to enforce them again, and again, and again we'll end up for sure in a much worse situation.

What ideals? The institutions' roles? The government's structure and architecture? The people working for the government? The policies being passed?

The ideals you reference are vague. Do you mean Democracy? Surely you don't think hierarchical/technocratic institutions legitimized in the use of force is a necessary arm of Democracy or Liberty?

The idea that any of these institutions commit any morals good is hilarious. There are people, and there is power. Some people commit acts of moral good with power (Some Police, Most Firefighters, Most Medics, Some Teachers, Some Doctors, Some Lawyers, etc..) but many abuse that power to dangerous levels.

But sure. Let's assume the people at the absolute top fight for our interests. I would much rather have a discussion on power/authority, and what the absolute minimum is we need to function.

The absolute minimum we need to function is less than the achievable minimum. A power vacuum will always be filled.

> What ideals? The institutions' roles?

Yes, the Institutions' roles.

> Do you mean Democracy? Surely you don't think hierarchical/technocratic institutions legitimized in the use of force is a necessary arm of Democracy or Liberty?

Are you referring to the US democracy or the democracy I have in my european country ? What are you really talking about ?

> [..] But sure. Let's assume the people at the absolute top fight for our interests.

Not what I said. Don't make it look like I mistake people who abuse ideals for those ideals, thank you.

edit: Do you really think life was so much better before humans came up with some institutions to rule themselves ? The outback isn't that far.

PS: of course ideals are vague. We aren't some machines that would just need the right code to run as an "ideal" society.

Ultimately, the whole thing comes down to trust.

My point was that power corrupts, and that centralizing that power will only serve to expediate the process.

That said, if you trust your government, then the whole thing is awesome. Central planning leads to tough decisions being made to benefit the collective as a whole.

The problem with this is that I see this collective force being used to subvert the populace putting it's time/money into it. I know you're probably coming from a different perspective, but I'm talking about Western Politics in general.

I understand the goal of trying to make government work, but I just can't see people having any effect on the government's decisions in Britain and the US at present time.

Again, I'm mostly speaking in economical terms. The people do get social progress from time to time with protest and reform. But all economic policy since the labour uprisings of the 20's/30's/40's, the upper most classes have been tearing down all of what our (again general Western politics) ancestors fought for.

Ah, I now understand your outlook on these matters a bit clearer. I do agree with all your points, our governments are failing and betraying us.

Frankly, it would take me thousands of words to express my opinion on the subject but in the end it would just amounts to "I don't know if it can be fixed or if humane nature will prevent us forever to live together".

Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems" as big and complex as societies and economies. I doubt that the results the US is seeing were indeed foreseen and designed by anyone.

And I would like to add that civil governments also protect the poor from the rich. Just look at undemocratic systems to see who needs protection from whom.

> Engineers tend to overestimate the impact of "intentions" on "systems"

Everyone does. The comfort of the loonier conspiracy theories is that someone, somewhere, however evil, has a plan and is in control. And you can blame 'them' and their competence for your misfortune.

Denying that conspiracies exist by people who do have some influence and leverage over systems is the other wrong extreme.

There are plenty of good and evil intentions and plenty of conspiracies. Some of them kind of work out, rarely exactly as intended, and there's also lots of chaos.

I think that romantic notion is just a part of childish naivety. When most people grow up they realise the government doesn't serve the public's interests. However, I don't think we should abandon the romantic notion that the government SHOULD serve the people. It's not entirely clear how to make that happen (or if it is possible), but I think along with social change, technology could help (e.g. crowdsourced political debate, security for whistleblowers, personal surveillance, etc.) So I'm all for hackers being a bit idealistic :)

I agree with the "those who have some property against those who have none at all" part, but in modern times the "rich against the poor" doesn't hold as strongly, given the existence of the middle class.

But in a way isn't it tautological? If you create a system of "private property" obviously it's a system to protect those who have property from those who don't. The same thing is true for systems to protect bodily integrity. Obviously they protect those who are strong from those who are not.

I think the "romantic notion" that people need to lose is that the civil government is some neutral level playing field, even in theory. Giving preference to certain kinds of people is part of the system by design.

They may not be true in the current system, but the problem is with the system, not with those beliefs. The government should serve the people, and the cops should protect the innocent. That they don't, is a sign of corruption in the government and the police force. It needs to be fixed.

I don't think it's reasonable at all to reduce the entire function of modern government to a platitude written 200 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com