(1) Lack of focus in goals: is this about present economic fairness, political inclusiveness, preserving American hemegony, adjusting the rules of society and the economy to address coming automation, fiscal responsibility, or a return to the past? All of these are cited, with no priorities or uniting structure. This is a messaging problem, sure, but more fundamentally it's a problem of vision.
(2) Lack of focus in methods: this claims to be about California first, but the races Altman says he's interested are the most and, in many ways, the least powerful of California's dozen or so directly-elected executive positions, plus federal legislative positions. If the focus is California-first, then the races of interest should be all of the California statewide Constitutional officers, plus California legislators (and maybe California statewide boards and commissions).
> I was one of the last children of the American Century. I’m not quite ready to let it go. If we don’t take action now, the US will be surpassed as the world superpower. I’d like to get back to the values that made our country the envy of the world. I still believe in American exceptionalism, and even with Trump in the White House, my proudest identity of all is being American.
> and the US should be the technology center for the world.
> US workers are the most productive in the world when they are allowed to compete on a level playing field.
This obsession with America position in the world is so pervasive that i think most thinker don't realize that it has a cost. A lot of bad policies and decisions have been in the name of "American exceptionalism".
> We should require that Californian politicians and senior civil service send their kids to public schools. They need to be aligned.
This would be a game changer...
> 1. Prosperity from technology > Creating prosperity is how everyone’s lives get better every year.
How true is this. Or is it just the author focusing on what worked for him.
> This would be a game changer...
I'm sceptical. Some public schools are great, and what happens is rich people pay the high prices to live in those districts. The parents where I work definitely choose housing based on what schools their kids will go to, and it drives the property values of those neighborhoods.
Forcing politicians' to send their children to public schools won't help the low-performing schools that rich people already can avoid by choosing expensive. It will help ensure public education for wealthy families is good, and little else.
(Disclaimer: I'm mostly familiar with school districting in Texas. Maybe California is different, but this seems like the normal case most places in the US.)
I guess this would fall under his "fair government" policy, although I don't see it explicitly mentioned.
Do libertarians support having super PACs? That would be yikes to me.
Unless that is a primary issue for a candidate, I don't see how we'll ever get back to fair government, with one person one vote. There's just too much money in it already.
Libertarians, of course, support super PACS, people do not lose their ability to speak when they form a group.
To illustrate this point imagine 2 people: a famous movie star and a wealthy movie producer. When the famous person speaks it is news and spread freely, whereas the producer needs to pay to get their message out. If you restrict one, you should restrict the other.
More dollars going to super PACs devalues people's votes. I think it's producing lousy candidates so I would support a law for enforcement that would bring us back to the time when we didn't have super PACs. I understand you disagree. That's fine.
The problem that people have related to Citizens United is that, in the current system, money = free speech.
This isn't about freedom from persecution, unless you count corporations as people.
"Political discourse is off-limits on Hacker News * *Except when Sam Altman feels like talking about it"
If anyone else had posted something like this, it would have rightly been flagged as well.
Of the hundreds of people who might read this, I'm sure only a small handful could do it without looking it up. It's a serious problem that people don't follow state politics at all, and it's not a problem with the people themselves. We need a system that doesn't require people to follow what their president, senator, congressman, governor, state senator, mayor, and city councilman, along with dozens of other elected officials, are doing while in office.
If you're going to promote change, don't just promote a change in who we elect, because there's a Nash equilibrium that leads them to behave as all politicians have. Promote a change in HOW we elect them. Change the rules of the game and a different game will be played.
... so you don't want a representative government? Couldn't disagree more. Sure it's tough to keep up with everything they're doing. But I like being able to look into it at my leisure, and I trust my community to bring important issues to my attention. Just because I don't know exactly how my representative has voted doesn't mean I'm unaware of how government is changing things that impact my life.
Really unclear to me how you would accomplish your goals without eliminating democracy as we know it.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
> Really unclear to me how you would accomplish your goals without eliminating democracy as we know it.
Then you should study other electoral systems.
At the state level, you could have proportional representation and then just vote for the party you want. That would allow for multiple parties, and it's much easier to follow what a party supports and does than it is to follow an individual.
Engineers can be impatient if there aren't quick technical answers. Engineers can also believe the latest research will give them answers, also not true. Quite a few startup founders I've heard have some absolute shit theories about politics. I can understand being a technologist, but a technologist who doesn't take the time to understand politics, or has no experience in politics needs to take the time to listen and learn before trying to impose anything on anyone.
Politics at it's root is civic engagement and it should be back to basics, just like it has been for journalism over the last yr or two.
Engineers can be politicians, would be the name of my non-profit. This new yorker piece is also a good read: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/two-nasa-engineers-tr...
I don't think it was coincidental that both presidents who were engineers were disastrous for the economy (efforts to engineer the macro economy typically fail).
Carter was an evangelical, which might have had a lot to do with his one term in office. Hoover did what he could before Keynesian economics, it wasn't all wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by "engineer the macro economy." what would you say the federal reserve does?
Mr. Altman seems highly capable in affecting change here by funding and encouraging startups outside of the valley.
Of course the encredible story of wealth creation in the valley is the envy of most of the world, and they would kill to be in the situation we're in, as bad as it is.
I don't think government will ever be fair, but at least ours can be changed.
If Altman is sincere about wanting better candidates, I'd suggest pushing for technology-driven direct democracy, candidates who, in real time, act and respond to feedback from their constituencies. Trump was elected because he did an informal version of this via Twitter. John Robb outlined how this would work:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2017/02...
We essentially need to disrupt the notion of candidates and turn them into our true avatars for interfacing with the political system.
*Except when Sam Altman feels like talking about it
You need to focus your efforts on the red south, which are filled with highly uneducated, highly manipulable people, which political parties use to get elected.
