undefined | Better HN

0 pointsben_w6y ago0 comments

The world would be a much better place if it was possible to raise the average education level that high without negative side-effects.

The last time that was possible was something like 100-200 years ago, before specialisation became so important.

I don’t know anything of note about pharmaceuticals or civil engineering, rhetoric or national security, trade or industry. But I think it’s a safe bet that 90% of the people on Hacker News knows far more about computers than the average UK politician.

If everyone in a nation has to learn politics well enough to govern, nobody would have time to learn anything else. The only measure by which I can even judge politicians is their character, their honesty, their morals — and I do recognise the problems with even those as my measure.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

sdenton46y ago· 2 in thread

A couple things to consider in the US context:

a) Most elected politicians, especially at highest levels, are spending a HUGE amount of their time on the phones, working on (or being worked on by) donors. Most of the 'real' work of governing is done by staff.

b) About half of the US elected officials believe that the best way to govern is to not govern at all, and furthermore undermine any projects which might make it seem like government can do anything successfully. (For example, Grover Norquist is on record opposing pre-filled taxes because he believes taxes should be as painful as possible. Similar examples of 'we can't do that, it might work' abound.) Which is to say, random people may well still be better than deeply ingrained active saboteurs.

ben_wOP6y ago

Thanks for that info.

Why are there politicians who are trying to undermine their own thrones? How does that even work?

I’m not doubting you, I just don’t understand what’s going on.

sdenton46y ago

Some background reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Regan: "The nine most terrifying words in the english language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Norquist, again: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

What's ACTUALLY happening here is a combination of goals, ultimately about cutting social programs and reducing taxes for the wealthy. "Government doesn't work" => "We shouldn't pay them taxes" => "We should cut lots of taxes" => Tax breaks which overwhelmingly benefit rich donors and party members, while reducing services for people that need them... It's a straight up wealth transfer, and it's been exceedingly efficient.

If government does something well, then the first link in the chain is broken. So to keep the whole chain of reasoning intact, it's best to keep government inefficient and ineffectual, especially as it relates to people's everyday lives. And every failed program is another bit of fuel for the nihilist campaign strategy.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse