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

But it’s such an unexpected power structure in a modern democracy some people don’t really believe it even when told.


sort by: page size:

I've always seen that they come into power with a surprisingly small amount of support.

People with power wanting to retain that power is not as insightful or surprising as you think it is.

That’s not really a gotcha, instead just feels like naivety of how the world works and is controlled by those with power.

I think the actual power of political leaders is overstated. In many countries, the political system seems de-facto paralyzed, ineffective, and incapable of pushing the drastic changes required.

Why is that? Potentially they have a lot of power, but did they exercise it in a wrong way in public so far? I don’t think so

Too true. In most other countries, no one office holds this much power.

It scares me when people with power over things have very little understanding of those things.

This is a really interesting contradiction that I come across a lot. There's a narrative that the majority weaves for itself that it's under attack despite having a near total monopoly on power.

This seems like a ridiculously uncharitable explanation to the point of bad faith. A better interpretation that is also accurate would be that the people in power are people with money and influence.

Yeah, given recent history it's so odd to me that most people can't seem to imagine that a leader they don't like or agree with could also wield the power they are happy to give to government.

Would you be OK with your enemy having this power should be a litmus test for any power we grant to government.


That's simply not how political power works.

Unfortunately the people who seek power don't think like that.

It's a political power.

It's very powerful individuals having a meeting, and what they decide, in secret, can have wide-ranging repercussions for people who lack their power—which is almost everybody else. It is not "conspiracy theory bullshit" to be highly skeptical of the motives of these individuals and impact of such meetings.

Sorry I was taught as a kid that just power is derived from the consent of the governed. Must be weird for some people.

There's nothing surprising in it for two reasons:

1) People have a kind of illusion that their rulers are (or at least should be) good. But historically speaking, this was almost never the case. Most of the time the rulers thought only about themselves, how to keep power, how to benefit from it and so on. Even most of the things they were commanded on were done of selfishness, too.

2) The people who should actually go into politics never will. Some of them are very active in their local communities, though, but have no desire to participate in this ridiculous show trying to sell themselves to millions of unknown people. Moreover, they have the humility of knowing they can't promise the crowds anything - the opposite of what the crowds expect.


It's almost like centralizing power into the hands of a small number of people makes it easy to abuse that power, who knew?

Whatever the historical reasons for power structures, once enacted they tend to serve their own ends. That they're disenfranchising some of their own members should be a big red flag.

When votes can be easily bought by the politicians, the power resides with wealthy and few. Religion and caste still play very important role in politics. Outsides won't understand and insiders fail to accept the truth. Because democracy is considered to be "untouchable" just like religion.
next

Legal | privacy