Always cute to read people who speak with such confidence but just dole out partial information, seemingly bragging "Ooh I know something you don't".
You sound like yet another conspiracy nutjob, but to be explicit: What website? What controlled opposition, where's your info from? I don't know if I'm just feeding a troll who'll be gleeful because in his brain he "knows" something others don't know, so that makes him special; or if I actually want to learn about whatever other meta-conspiracy that made you special...
qanon was almost certainly foreign agit-prop. it may have started with a real human but if you think they're running false-flags out of 4chan you're literally insane.
the US Gov doesn't need to go to 4chan, they can get headlines in the Washington Post and NBC.
why would Q-anon continue to advocate for Jan 7th and overthrowing the gubmnt even after Biden won?
Am I the only one who has a more circumspect reaction to such finding/claim? The idea that vaccines have unknown (since they're discovered much latter) effects very much separate from what they're supposed to do isn't reassuring to me...
No, you're in the companion of anti-vaxxers, an all-American conspiracy theory spreading globally that denies hard evidence in favor of vague feelings of maybe this and maybe that and maybe the other thing and OMG we're so afraid and what if...
Read your third link, please. The Ministry of Truth not being happy that their policy on "disinformation" isn't being applied as strongly as they wish isn't what I'd call "pushing heavy propaganda".
Yep. Color me shocked that the propaganda state media is unhappy with information being spread that doesn't conform to the views of the state, and so calls it propaganda or mis-/dis-information.
GP means "Ministry of Truth" in the Orwellian-sense. The "Ministry of Truth" was the propaganda arm of the government just as the "Ministry of Love" is the interrogation/torture and brainwashing center.
It is absolutely correct, hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies.
An ill intentioned participant in power will not have unlimited time to do that much damage. A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted.
The downside is that a good intentioned ruler, may not have enough time to accomplish their good vision. But my thesis is that is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the opposite. A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.
> A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted.
The operation of the revolving door would seem to imply otherwise. You set up a situation where politicians are not just expected but required to leave office and then need a job in the private sector. Are they then inclined to do things while in office that make it more or less likely that they get a lucrative gig as soon as their term is up?
> A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.
The assumption is that the ruler is the elected official. What do you do if the malicious ruler is a corporation and the elected official is just a fungible subordinate?
> Group A invests millions of dollars into your campaign.
The problem is elections aren't just about donations. Suppose you're not a fan of Zuck/Musk/whoever, or pick your least favorite media conglomerate. Is limiting their financial contributions to a campaign going to meaningfully reduce their influence? Of course not, because it mainly comes from controlling the feed or the reporting, so limiting money is primarily to the detriment of their opponents. This is one of the reasons you hear some talk about "campaign finance" from the media industry -- it lets billion dollar media corporations pretend they're defending the little guy when they're really trying to cement an asymmetric advantage in influencing politics because they can de facto donate airtime rather than money. But they have a mixed incentive, because they're also the ones getting money from the ads and don't actually want the spigot closed, which is probably why it's more talk than action.
And then there's this:
> Group A provides a lucrative contract to you after you leave politics so that they have a good reputation with the other politicians they finance.
Which isn't campaign finance at all. It's also kind of a hard problem, because after someone leaves office, it's reasonably expected that they're going to work somewhere, but then how are you supposed to tell if they're getting a fat paycheck because they're currently providing a valuable service or because they were previously providing a valuable service? It's not like they're going to put "deferred bribe" in the memo field of the check.
>> power attracts the corrupt
> hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies.
The practical effect of limited terms is a set of hapless electeds who depend on the kindness of lobbyists or other stakeholders to perform core duties, such as write effective legislation. In terms of the Gervais Principle [0], the sociopaths move from elected to lobby (which is a natural career progression already) and emplace more of the clueless as elected officials.
But if you want to take Vienna, take Vienna! Embrace limited power
Limited government power is often rightfully challenged as being unbalanced to the tremendous power of non-government entities such as corporations. However, this claim elides that the power and charter of any particular entity is downstream of what is granted and enabled by government functions. Less government power makes for less powerful corporations.
However, once everything is cut down a few notches, will the remaining power still attract the "corrupt?" Yes, power, status and other social markers will still exist and act like a bug lamp for sociopaths. But on the plus side they won't be as able, as you say, "to do that much damage."
> a set of hapless electeds who depend on the kindness of lobbyists or other stakeholders to perform core duties
You have this already without term limits. An elected officeholder is given more than enough resources to be enabled to perform her duties, if she wants to. It's a matter of willingness, term limits aren't making things worse than they might otherwise be.
> term limits aren't making things worse than they might otherwise be.
I disagree. Term limits make politicians unaccountable to their constituents and thereby more open to bribes from lobbyists. If they know they can't seek reelection no matter what, they have no motivation not to accept a bribe or disregard everything they campaigned on. On the other hand, when politicians don't have term limits, they must at least worry about their next election campaign and whether the things they're doing right now will ruin their chances at being elected again.
Note: when I say accept a bribe I'm talking about being wined, dined and lobbied by lobbyists, not literally accepting bribes that would get them thrown in jail.
Sortition is the only system that ensures high quality universal education. If anyone can become president for a year then everyone needs to be able to be president for a year.
I would like to see sortition implemented in one house of a bicameral legislature. Executive office is not where I would want to see it tested first (and I think it’s ill suited even in theory).
Well why not both? It is certainly true that power attracts those who seek to abuse it. But it is also true that a good fraction of those who are demonstrably corrupt started out way more idealistic.
Is it demonstrably true? Or do people just start out with zero record, making them appear more idealistic/allowing them to adopt more idealistic rhetoric without accusations of hypocrisy?
Well it isn't as if we don't have historical evidence on thousands of political leaders including private diaries etc. Robespierre, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Napoleon to name only some of the very high profile ones.
Not that there is any specific number we can attach to this, but yes, there areactual idealists who then abused their powers and we know that because there is ample historical evidence of it.
On top of that I know some people personally who were part of the 68 student movement who also have been true idealists in their youth, but since them became defenders of their own order.
Not really, because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. Those modes of government don't actively select for the power-hungry.
(Granted, in e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China, it was frequently the case that there were dozens of princelings who were, de facto, pitted against each other in contests for the throne. That definitely selected for ambition, brutality, and a willingness to get one's hands dirty.)
Even European monarchs, with the Catholic church holding much of the keys to their authority and being very against it, managed to do a considerable amount of tactical relative-killing. Everywhere else it's basically the norm for monarchies that princes murder each other.
A shattering bow
A burning flame
A gaping wolf
A screeching pig
A rootless tree
A mounting sea
A flying spear
A falling wave
One night's ice
A coiled serpent
A bride's bed-talk
or a breaking sword
A bear's play
or a child of a king.
(Odin listing up some of the things a wise man never trusts, in stanza 85 and 86 of Hávamál)
Being brought up believing you have a divine right to rule and a duty to enlarge your kingdom isn't a selection effect, but worked to pretty much the same outcome in terms of brutality. Even in European states where there were pretty straightforward primogeniture rules of succession, you ended up with hundreds of years of "legitimate" inheritors displaying fondness for foreign military expeditions and tactical ploys to acquire tendentious claims to other territory, and as soon as a direct adult male descendant from a single wife wasn't available succession selected for ambition and ruthlessness considerably more than a parliamentary system.
> because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems;
This… well, I’d urge you to read some English history. I’m choosing English because it’s the one I know best.
It is a litany of power struggles, of brother and sister plotting to kill aunt, uncle and father, nephew cousin, niece and anybody else. Of factionalism in court, bloody takeovers and power struggles. Noble houses vying for position as the monarch’s favoured ones, taking land and riches from less favoured houses, or winning it back. Scions of noble houses at war with each other over succession. Monarchs slaughtering potential usurpers. 9 day monarchies as one successor is positioned against another when the old king died, all based on religious backing…
There were long periods of stability under certain monarchs too, but often these coincide with periods of extrinsic conflict. Sometimes their wars of adventure would come close to bankrupting the country. Other times their choice of who to marry (or divorce) would cause massive loss of life.
They very much select for the power hungry, the venal, the egotistical and those capable of subterfuge and great violence to their own blood.
In theory, born into it. That was just a foil to put an air of legitimacy over the institution.
In the real world, there was (and is!) an incredible power game over who decides over what, who gets to live, who must abdicate, how much the real power lies with the King and how much with aristocracy or the Church and so on. It's a constant rebalancing of power factors.
Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't. One can point to dozens of historical examples of well-run and stable monarchies, just as one can point to "monarchies" where the power rested with power-hungry and corrupt eunuchs, bishops, or chancellors -- or where the entire process of succession was as red in tooth and claw as anything in nature.
The trouble with representative democracy is that it always selects for the most power-hungry of its denizens.
And now we're in the midst of a situation that Polybius would immediately recognize: The crossroads where one path leads to rule by entrenched and corrupt oligarchs, at least as bad as any of the court eunuchs of old, and where the other path leads to ochlocracy. I'd take my chances with the latter, especially in this era where direct democracy is possible, but I'm afraid that's not likely how things are going to turn out.
> The crossroads where one path leads to rule by entrenched and corrupt oligarchs, at least as bad as any of the court eunuchs of old, and where the other path leads to ochlocracy.
I'm a bit confused; assuming you are aiming at the US situation with this, I kinda fail to see a clear contrast between entrenched oligarchy and ochlocracy.
Isn't the Trump side a pretty good example of combining both?
Riling up the masses, promoting selfish "got mine" attitude from the top down, partial and weaponized use of the law are basically textbook fits for mob rule?
On the other hand, if you put Harrison or Waltz on a "entrenched oligarch" scale, there is no way they weight as heavy as Trump and his cronies in the current administration, at least in my view? Both of them did an actual job instead of just enjoying a life in the spotlight funded by generational wealth and the work of others...
I'm very interested in conflicting viewpoints-- if you disagree with my perspective, please tell me how instead of just downvoting!
That seems an entirely false sense of inevitability. Once perfectly possible outcome is that representative democracy keeps chugging along as usual in most of the West and we don’t have mob rule or rule by a corrupt group of oligarchs. The present situation in the USA isn’t encouraging, but Trump hasn’t canceled the midterms yet.
Things in Europe aren't looking good. The consent of the governed is being eroded and manipulated just as badly as it is in the US. The UK, for instance, is a tinder box, where the share of the population that simply votes against the status quo is growing to become an absolute majority.
The UK is a country where the Prime Minister may very probably have to resign because he is unpopular. See also Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. Prime Ministers in the UK don’t usually last that long if the public turns against them. Compare to the US, where Trump is deeply unpopular but also in an essentially unassailable position as POTUS. If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day. So no, things are not going “just as badly” in the UK as they are in the US. You’re comparing general problems of discontent in a representative democracy with a total breakdown in standards of public life.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by Brits “voting against the status quo”. That’s what happens any time you change from one party to another in a democracy. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if everyone kept voting for the same party and same policies all the time?
> If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day
Gordon Brown did an interview with a member of the public and forgot to take his microphone off when he got in the car. He said (in private) he'd just spoken to a biggoted woman. That was broadcast and it lost him the election.
> aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it.
That's not what the Crusader Kings series tells me. Or Brett Devereaux's description of pre-industrial states as a "Red Queen's race" where the strong had to devour the weak to stay ahead of the competition.
In a world where the best ran country on earth is a "enlighten despotism" AKA Singapore, Nope.
They think we just need more LKYs, or really, AI systems controlling everything. A benevolent dictatorial AI running society is exactly what all the futurists think is coming. Go read Orions Arm.
Why is that only a problem for democracy? It’s one of the central problems of civilization and has been discussed by philosophers since the Greeks.
In monarchies you’d often end up with kings and people in line for the throne being murdered and all kinds of palace intrigue to select for the most conniving psychopath.
In theocratic systems you get hypocrite self dealing priests.
In socialist and communist systems you get an aristocracy of political pull where high ranking bureaucrats are basically identical to our billionaires and political elites.
I’m not aware of any system that durably protects against being taken over by deranged dark triad personalities. Democracy’s virtue is that it provides some way to clean house without destroying the stability of the whole system, at least when it works.
Because democracy at least pretends to give power to the people. Except letting a few individuals wield enough wealth and power to buy media, politicians and judges is completely antagonistic to the basic ideals of democracy, and not many realize this (yet).
> I’m not aware of any system that [...]
Liberal democracy is better than feudalism, I see no reason why our systems of governance can't be improved further. And, at least to me, the obvious path forward is to keep any of those "deranged dark triad personalities" from gaining too much power, maybe by limiting the amount of wealth any single individual can hold unto.
> It took a disease killing a massive portion of the working population to weaken feudalism in Western Europe.
Erm... sure, but I don't see what that has to do with my comment? Transitions between political systems are rarely pleasant and are usually motivated by crisis.
> And don’t underestimate the portion of population that yearn to be peasants.
I don't buy that. People learn submission, it is not inherent to the human mind.
I see things the same way as you do. Human behaviour and conflict can never be solved, and especially not by any kind of "system", which is just thin air of imagination.
The closest we can get is striving to elevate our cultural and spiritual level as individuals, family, friends, neighbours and strangers.
The entire power of the psychopaths in charge all stem from corrupting normal people, and the more that can be avoided, the less power they have.
But it is difficult, because they corrupt our strongest feelings: fear, greed, pride, laziness, desire, community.
Millions of young men have died in senseless wars because they didn't want to be seen as "cowards", they thought of their "honour". Who remembers them now?
Who even thinks about the thousands of young soldiers dying in the battlefields in Ukraine? Why is Trump the only leader who talks about their deaths?
Billions of people are paying taxes to support their psychopath rulers, because of simple fear. If everybody stopped tomorrow, the world would be liberated. But people are held in fear.
Hello, I read the FAQ and didn't manage to find (perhaps my fault) if users had to store data they didn't explicitly/manually cloned; like Freenet. Is it the case?
No. Please refer to https://radicle.xyz/guides/user and read this to understand the concept of "policies". This should answer your question, but otherwise of course I am happy to explain further.
AD: You have control over what you seed, if you are a permissive node you accept all content on the network, but by default your local node will only seed what you instruct it too.
QAnon was always controlled opposition, unlike the website that was monitored then closed by the feds (CF) via false flag attack.
reply