Hacker News

points by bix6 3 days ago | 0 comments

Exactly. The regular citizens don’t get to participate in the decision.

Are we suddenly acting surprised at the concept of representative government?

I don't understand what people actually want to happen here. Part of living on a planet with eight billion other people is dealing with the fact that some of them are going to do things you don't like. Governments, treaties, and international organizations are how we manage it. I understand if people disagree with the specific process that's in place for these things, or disagree with the decisions that get made, but they're acting like there isn't any process, or they somehow deserve to be personally consulted as part of it.

[–] bix6 3 days ago

In what world is Elon getting to blanket the sky with tens of thousands of satellites a representative government?

[–] wat10000 2 days ago

Are you suggesting that a representative government would certainly disallow such a thing? Why?

[–] happytoexplain 2 days ago

The suggestion is not that the number of satellites certainly would be fewer in any representative government, but rather that ours is not fully representative, and if it were, the number would probably be fewer.

I'm not agreeing necessarily - it's honestly hard to say. There are a lot of pros and cons to convince the electorate of. But there is certainly the simple universal problem of money putting a thumb on the scale in representative governments.

[–] wat10000 2 days ago

"In what world" conveys extreme certainty to me. In any case, why would it even be probably? What's the theory which concludes that it would be unlikely for a representative government to allow a company to operate 11,000 satellites? People like the above commenter express outrage but seem unable to express why they're outraged. I guess it's supposed to be obvious, but I don't get it. It's some moving dots in the night sky. I get why astrophotographers would be annoyed. But it's a massive leap from that to saying it should have been outlawed.

I 100% agree that there's a problem of money putting a thumb on the scale. But I don't understand why that would even be relevant here. As far a I've seen (I'm not an expert but I have been following SpaceX since before they put anything into orbit) there has been no undue political influence in getting Starlink authorization to launch their constellation. We live in a system where things are permitted by default. There's no reason for the FAA or the FCC or whatever other regulatory bodies to deny it. Musk is gleefully using his money to put his thumb on the scale in other areas (spending nine figures in the recent elections is obscene) but why would he even have bothered here?

[–] krapp 3 days ago

He's a private citizen and he's allowed to do it because it isn't illegal.

[–] happytoexplain 2 days ago

Using legality to defend against a criticism that we don't live in a representative system is circular logic.

[–] krapp 2 days ago

No it isn't, because in a representative system what is legal is a function of the will of the people who elect the representatives to write and vote on laws. It's legal because the people don't care enough to have it be otherwise, and so the representative system reflects that.