Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Well I also questioned whether they should be given as much power, since it can lead to abuse. Would be as simple as changing a law so they can no longer abuse their power. And if it's not that simple, maybe you have to question why.


sort by: page size:

Maybe politicians shouldn't have as much power?

Some people advocate for authorities to have less power over others.

So you want to give the same government who is abusing power even more power?

What I mean by reduce their power, are new laws that reverse some of the victories that they've had previously and create new freedoms that would hurt their bottom line and help everyone else's.

Sure but that’s just a typical example of abuse of power. The initial comment was about dismantling such institutions.

Seems like the problem is that people are being given more responsibility without the necessary power.

Actually they don't have that authority. That's an abuse of their power.

Why give more power to politicians? I really don't get that.

Why not tone down even more to get to the fact that not only can they both abuse their power, but they can both not do so too. Not all politicians and corporations are created equal.

I'm not sure "enabling easier abuse of power will likely have bad consequences for populations of people who are already targeted for abuse by people in power" is moving the goalposts.

That's not a good argument to make it even easier. I'm not saying an argument doesn't exist, just the fact that they have the power in a more limited form is not a good excuse to give them the power at a click of a button across the entire economy.

Seems like separation of power needs to reach further.

This arguement honestly sounds like “we need to change the system so my side isn’t denied power”. No doubt if the situation was reversed you’d be arguing for them.

The only thing that keeps them from harming you is your power relative to them. Handing them more power only increases the probability that they will abuse what powers they do have.

I thought the election of Trump would disabuse people of this idea that it’s smart to hand more and more power to central authorities. But at this point I think it’s hopeless. People just want the state to be Daddy, and assume or hope that its power will always be wielded by people they like against people they don’t.


While I think that's at play, I also think it's entirely fair to hold those with more power to higher standards.

The only power that’s safe from abuse by an errant politician is one that politicians as a category aren’t allowed to wield to begin with.

I think the best guiding principle for government is to ask yourself when faced with a proposed extension to the power of politicians this question: “would I be comfortable with politicians having this power if the Cabinet consisted of people who personally hated me”. If there’s any doubt, these powers can and will be used to abuse. The rights that protect the worst of society also protect the rest of it, we remove them at our peril.


I think the point is that the power is also decentralized making it harder (not impossible) for those type of people to gain control over others.

The ship may have sailed, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push back against further abuses of power. It’s easy to give more power to them, but much harder to remove it.

I disagree with the premise that some unelected individuals should control such a disproportionate amount of ressources, and therefore power, yes.
next

Legal | privacy