[godelski]

  > when they are only incentivized to lie, cheat, and steal

The fact that they are allowed to do this is beyond me.

The fact that they do this is destructive to innovation and I'm not sure why we pretend it enables innovation. There's a thousands multi million dollar companies that I'm confident most users here could implement, but the major reason many don't is because to actually do it is far harder than what those companies build. People who understand that an unlisted link is not an actual security measure, that things need to actually be under lock and key.

I'm not saying we should go so far as make mistakes so punishable that no one can do anything but there needs to be some bar. There's so much gross incompetence that we're not even talking about incompetence; a far ways away from mistakes by competent people.

We are filtering out those with basic ethics. That's not a system we should be encouraging

[judahmeek]

Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system.

The best fix that we can work on now in America is repealing the 17th amendment to restrengthen the federal system as a check on populist impulses, which can easily be manipulated by liars.

[touristtam]

So your senators were appointed before that? No election needed?

[bitwize]

Yes, by state legislatures. The concept was the Senate would reflect the states' interests, whereas the House would reflect the people's interests, in matters of federal legislation.

[throwaway2037]

For those unaware, the German Federal democratic system works in a similar way. They have two houses: the Bundestag (directly elected) and the Bundesrat (appointed by state legistatures). As a outsider, their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well.

[logifail]

> their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well

This probably depends on your definition of "working well".

In March 2025, after the last Federal elections were held in Germany (February 2025), but before the new parliament was constituted (within 30 days of the results?), the new governing coalition engineered a constitutional amendment which required a supermajority which they would not have in the new parliament, so instead they held the vote in the old parliament.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt...

This was perfectly legal, although if you explain it to an outsider it might seem like an abuse of process.

[throwaway2037]

I added that last line as a honeypot, as part of my ongoing project on HN. No matter what I say positive about some country, culture, or institution, someone will pop into the conversation to say: "Yes, but what about this one incident. See, X is not so great after all." I think we need an equivalent of Brandolini's law for counterpoint of negativity in all HN discussions. It is as though people think they are disproving a maths proof by counterpoint. That's not the way the Real World of Human Society works. Weirdly, I see the same pattern on Wiki pages about living people. There is always a section of a bunch of random one-off events trying to discredit the person.

To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this.

[godelski]

  > Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system.

Okay? And so we just have to deal with it? Give up? Throw in the towel? Not push back?

  > repealing the 17th amendment

Did you read your first sentence?

*By your own logic,* the liars who have already profited from lying will appoint those who will help them defend the current system.

[shimman]

lol what the fuck, no. Can't believe you look at the current system and think "you know what, political parties should be able to choose senators not the citizens." Good lord.