Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmsmith | Hacker News Reader

This attitude is exactly what they are counting on - 80% of the people being oblivious to their crimes and 20% being upset but convinced nothing can be done. There have certainly been times when populist outrage has led to change or consequences for those at the top (in the US, try the 1890s, 1930s, 1960s, late 1980s).

View on HN

The system also does a pretty good job of ensuring the masses are distracted. E.g. plenty of hype & reporting surrounding things like celebrities, sports, movies, and games.

To contrast that very little substantive reporting occurs on issues that matter. Then when finally a crisis ends (like the cold war) and we can hope to focus on improving justice and social issues we end up entering a new period to distract us like the drug.

More recently we can use the war on terror as a distraction from the financial crisis--note our preoccupation with ISIS instead of a focus on the social issues that are becoming an increasing drag on the US economy.

By coincidence I just read an article yesterday by Chris Hedges titled "The Myth of the Free Press" that elaborates on some of your points: http://tiny.cc/2h4xpx

The problem with populist outrage is that it only changes things when an ambitious leader shows up and takes advantage of the outrage for their own personal gain (dethroning the current ruler and putting themselves there).

Let's face it, humans need somebody to be on top. We don't know how to function otherwise. At least not for very long.

> Let's face it, humans need somebody to be on top. We don't know how to function otherwise. At least not for very long.

What's your basis for saying this? Do you have any way of verifying this claim?

> What's your basis for saying this? Do you have any way of verifying this claim?

A leader always emerges.

If you know of a counter-example, I'd love to hear it. But even in the smallest experiments I've run (group of friends trying to agree on where to have dinner), a leader always emerges and then consensus is reached.

Have you ever heard the term "social primate"? If not, or if you do not accept that human beings belong into that category, there is not much of a discussion to be had.

How about something rather than someone on the top? The idea behind successful governments is system rather than person. Lets extrapolate this and design better systems based on rationality rather than short sighted greed. Then, if people like, they can elect a king who is tall and has a nice smile. He can cut ribbons and attend funerals while the real governance is left to rational systems. Kind of like what happens now, except that I doubt the rationality.

This is true, there is a something on top these days. But even in the olden days there was a something on top. Do you really think a king was able to do everything themselves? Much like a modern CEO they had a whole lot of help and only made the final calls and set general guidelines for things.

Incidentally Swizec, you are speaking to people primarily in the US. They have spent the last 200 years convincing themselves that what you say just isn't so regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Don't worry. Everyone here in Europe (and probably elsewhere too), has been spending the last few thousand years convincing themselves that this just isn't so.

And yet, despite all the overthrown governments, the toppled empires, and flat out revolutions - a leader always emerges. After a few years, the common population is always in pretty much the same boat they were before the revolution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com