frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Radicle: The Sovereign Forge

https://radicle.xyz
128•ibobev•3h ago•65 comments

Booting from a vinyl record (2020)

https://boginjr.com/it/sw/dev/vinyl-boot/
162•yesturi•6h ago•44 comments

AI is a horse (2024)

https://kconner.com/2024/08/02/ai-is-a-horse.html
271•zdw•3d ago•140 comments

Show HN: Whosthere: A LAN discovery tool with a modern TUI, written in Go

https://github.com/ramonvermeulen/whosthere
90•rvermeulen98•4h ago•32 comments

Proton Spam and the AI Consent Problem

https://dbushell.com/2026/01/22/proton-spam/
342•dbushell•9h ago•219 comments

Show HN: Zsweep – Play Minesweeper using only Vim motions

https://zsweep.com
11•oug-t•5d ago•5 comments

I built a light that reacts to radio waves [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moBCOEiqiPs
341•codetheweb•11h ago•78 comments

Updates to our web search products and Programmable Search Engine capabilities

https://programmablesearchengine.googleblog.com/2026/01/updates-to-our-web-search-products.html
160•01jonny01•7h ago•140 comments

Gas Town's Agent Patterns, Design Bottlenecks, and Vibecoding at Scale

https://maggieappleton.com/gastown
6•pavel_lishin•21m ago•1 comments

Three RCEs in Ilias Learning Management System

https://srlabs.de/blog/breaking-ilias-part-2-three-to-rce
4•hack223•51m ago•0 comments

KORG phase8 – Acoustic Synthesizer

https://www.korg.com/us/products/dj/phase8/
17•bpierre•2h ago•21 comments

What has Docker become?

https://tuananh.net/2026/01/20/what-has-docker-become/
153•tuananh•4h ago•163 comments

Tech Is Fun Again: The Tech Monoculture Is Finally Breaking

http://www.jasonwillems.com/technology/2025/12/17/Tech-Is-Fun-Again/
14•at1as•1h ago•0 comments

European Alternatives

https://european-alternatives.eu
152•s_dev•3h ago•44 comments

Show HN: isometric.nyc – giant isometric pixel art map of NYC

https://cannoneyed.com/isometric-nyc/
1139•cannoneyed•23h ago•209 comments

Replacing Protobuf with Rust to go 5 times faster

https://pgdog.dev/blog/replace-protobuf-with-rust
121•whiteros_e•7h ago•77 comments

Flying with Photons: Rendering Novel Views of Propagating Light

https://anaghmalik.com/FlyingWithPhotons/
9•pillars•3d ago•3 comments

GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

https://gptzero.me/news/neurips/
898•segmenta•1d ago•476 comments

Show HN: S2-lite, an open source Stream Store

https://github.com/s2-streamstore/s2
46•shikhar•2d ago•11 comments

AI Usage Policy

https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/blob/main/AI_POLICY.md
378•mefengl•6h ago•192 comments

Microsoft mishandling example.com

https://tinyapps.org/blog/microsoft-mishandling-example-com.html
159•mrled•3h ago•59 comments

Capital One to acquire Brex for $5.15B

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/capital-one-buy-fintech-firm-brex-515-billion-deal-20...
350•personjerry•19h ago•286 comments

Presence in Death

https://rubinmuseum.org/presence-in-death/
44•tock•4h ago•9 comments

Why does SSH send 100 packets per keystroke?

https://eieio.games/blog/ssh-sends-100-packets-per-keystroke/
591•eieio•21h ago•311 comments

I was banned from Claude for scaffolding a Claude.md file?

https://hugodaniel.com/posts/claude-code-banned-me/
648•hugodan•22h ago•566 comments

The state of modern AI text to speech systems for screen reader users

https://stuff.interfree.ca/2026/01/05/ai-tts-for-screenreaders.html
58•tuukkao•7h ago•23 comments

Qwen3-TTS family is now open sourced: Voice design, clone, and generation

https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3tts-0115
671•Palmik•1d ago•206 comments

Douglas Adams on the English–American cultural divide over "heroes"

https://shreevatsa.net/post/douglas-adams-cultural-divide/
507•speckx•1d ago•506 comments

Your app subscription is now my weekend project

https://rselbach.com/your-sub-is-now-my-weekend-project
479•robteix•4d ago•324 comments

Why medieval city-builder video games are historically inaccurate (2020)

https://www.leidenmedievalistsblog.nl/articles/why-medieval-city-builder-video-games-are-historic...
194•benbreen•16h ago•127 comments
Open in hackernews

Is liberal democracy in terminal decline?

https://www.ft.com/content/b4d2c7a3-587d-440f-a7a9-7e5e85b93a88
40•alephnerd•2h ago

Comments

mstank•1h ago
The pendulum is swinging back slightly, but I wouldn’t pronounce it dead just yet.

We are seeing a decline of American hegemony, accelerated by this current regime. And the ascendancy of a non-democratic superpower.

However, the largest chunk of GDP and growth still sits firmly in democratic countries and very consequential American elections are happening this year, and in 2028.

The real question is, will Europe find its spine?

mjanx123•1h ago
The European countries leaderships were each put in place by its responsible CIA compartment supporting liberal candidates/parties and undermining the competition. With the current conservative US admin they are supposed to interact with they don't know what to do and likely will do nothing.
kreetx•44m ago
Where would you say the "CIA influence" is the strongest, so I could see better what you mean?

I've observed that it's the messy process of democracy that has put the people in power. Sure, big countries (i.e, mostly Russia) would like to tilt governments their way, but it isn't succeeding. I can tell you though that local Facebook pages for newspapers are full of strange comments, seemingly Russian trolls (but I have no proof).

pyuser583•39m ago
CIA is fanatical about following the State Department's foreign policy. Aside from gathering intelligence, they just take the State Department's lead.

A lot "CIA influence" isn't the CIA at all, but the US Government, usually State or DoD, projecting soft power.

I know this sounds pendantic. But whenever someone starts talking about the CIA like it's responsible for "supporting liberal candidates" - all seriousness leaves the room.

alephnerd•31m ago
> CIA is fanatical about following the State Department's foreign policy

From past personal experience, inter-service autonomy over policymaking is tightly guarded, and arguments always end up with the NSA (advisor, not the agency) where the president essentially becomes the tiebreaker.

Under the current administration, this rivalry has gotten much more intense due to the relatively hands-off management style that has been adopted.

pyuser583•11m ago
I'm sure fights happen all the time over inter-service autonomy. There was a book written recently about very nasty fighting between the CIA and DEA over whether to support a group of anti-communist guerillas who financed by running drugs.

The CIA and DEA switched positions repeatedly: one day the CIA wanted to support them to fight communism, and the DEA wanted to cut them off to stop the supply of drugs. When communism fell, the CIA saw the group as a liability who knew too much, while the the DEA wanted to pay them to destroy their drug labs and plant licit crops.

The group ended up destroying their drug labs, and focusing on money laundering, ransomware, and crypto-scams, which neither the CIA nor DEA cared about.

But the CIA is very consistent in following state department policies. They jealously guard their ability to delivery intelligence that conflicts with State Department priorities, but they don't have any strong priorities that conflict with those of State.

I'm sure things need to be ironed about by the NSA/NSC. That's normal. But the CIA isn't going fight the State department like they fight the DEA.

I'm open to correction on this. Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation.

alephnerd•2m ago
> I'm open to correction on this. Maybe I'm just not understanding the situation

It's much more gray simply because there are multiple agencies per department that can interpret and conduct intelligence operations.

The current administration also decided to adopt the private sector practice of letting "middle managers" conduct and implement what they want on their own and only disturb "upper management" if there are irreconcilable differences.

This is why policies change on a dime in the current administration.

igleria•29m ago
> But whenever someone starts talking about the CIA like it's responsible for "supporting liberal candidates" - all seriousness leaves the room.

Nobody likes to admit their vote (or lack of) has consequences outside their little bubble.

alephnerd•59m ago
Hungary isn't the only illiberal democracy within the EU - France, Italy, Slovakia, Romania, Poland, Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, Latvia, Belgium, Lithuania, Croatia, and Bulgaria are all either Illiberal/Flawed Democracies or Hybrid Regimes according to the EIU ranking [0].

Now that Babis is back in power with the backing of SPD and AUTO, it will also revert back into an Illiberal/Flawed Democracy.

Furthermore, all states on the cusp of EU membership (Albania, Montenegro) are also Illiberal/Flawed Democracies.

> largest chunk of GDP and growth still sits firmly in democratic countries

The only Full Democracies in the 10 largest GDPs are Germany, Japan, and the UK. Japan under Takaichi Sanae is pro-Trump and Germany is likely to see the AfD break it's cordon sanitare by 2029.

[0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu

pydry•37m ago
The Economist (who runs the EIU) celebrated the Romanian democratic vote being canceled: https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/05/18/maga-misses-the-...

When they refer to liberalism or democratic values they mean neither. These are bywords for western hegemony, which is what they really care about.

This is what was under threat when they celebrated Romania's democratic first choice of president being denied.

anon291•34m ago
Reminder that in the full democracy of the UK , you can be prosecuted for social media posts questioning the governments immigration policy.
pjc50•32m ago
No, you can't. You can be prosecuted for encouraging people to burn down a hotel though.
pydry•21m ago
There are hundreds of elderly people in prison right now in the UK charged with supporting terrorism because they opposed a racism inspired nazi-style genocide.

0 have ever threatened or supported any kind of violence against any person ever.

Greta was among them.

pjc50•16m ago
Yeah, the proscription of support for Palestine Action was extremely indefensible. Different goalpost to your original post, though.
inglor_cz•25m ago
Don't rely on these magic figures too much. Some of the parameters judged by the EUI are very soft and prone to subjectivism/manipulation.

Is Greek government really more functional than Polish/Czech one? My personal experience would say "nope".

alephnerd•24m ago
Functional doesn't mean "more democratic". What matters is institutions, jurisprudence, and norms.

And after having dealt with the experience of opening a large foreign office in Czechia, there absolutely is a democratic deficit (sure it's extremely efficient, but we just needed to keep a handful of decisionmakers and "phone a (now deceased) friend" in a non-democratic manner).

inglor_cz•22m ago
The index you just cited is calculated out of five sub-numbers, one of whom is literally "functional government", and Czechia for some reason gets rather low 6.4 on this, less than Greece.

First, this is not my experience, and second, much like you I don't think that this is particularly relevant to the democratic character of the country.

I also would like to hear more about the democratic deficit you describe. Most problems around opening anything are caused by bureaucracy, which is obliged to follow norms produced by the lawmakers. Some of these norms are stupid, but that does not mean that they are undemocratic. Voters have the right to be stupid and to elect stupid representatives who produce stupid norms.

alephnerd•16m ago
> democratic character of the country

The core crux of "democratic character" is providing an even playing field as much as possible institutionally, organizationally, and politically. If functioning is subpar or requires "hacks" or misaligned institutions, it undermines democratic character itself.

Chest-thumping while ignoring the real degradation of institutions in a large portion of Europe is only going to put you back in the same position as the US.

> I also would like to hear more about the democratic deficit you describe

I'd rather not given the incumbent in power and how small the Cybersecurity FDI community in Czechia is. Maybe Vsquare, just not you.

inglor_cz•9m ago
OK, you prophesied that Czechia will lose its current EUI number under the incoming government.

Which of the five numbers that, averaged together, result in the total score, do you expect to lower and why?

latexr•41m ago
> very consequential American elections are happening this year, and in 2028.

Let’s hope they are (happening).

tdb7893•25m ago
There's no way to stop them federally without a full coup since they are administered by the states. The US has a long history of not cancelling election but suppressing votes (e.g. literacy tests, gerrymandering, closing polling locations, etc).

I would look more for voting place shenanigans, voter ID laws with only a weird subset of IDs allowed, radical gerrymandering, and stuff like that. Some of it will be blatantly partisan but also people are using justifications like "restoring trust in elections" to advocate for things that reduce the general franchise. They don't need to do a lot since a few percent is enough to swing the general balance of things.

LightBug1•1h ago
Terminal velocity achieved ...

The only question is whether it'll hit the ground before the next US election.

Any emergency 'chute's available?

roromainmain•1h ago
I can’t access the article… but honestly, I’ve been asking myself the same question for the past ten years. The best answer I’ve found is: not yet — but the current backlash and drift toward authoritarianism in many democracies is actually the sign that something real is shifting. In a way, the situation looks weirdly similar to Europe before WWII. Democracies were starting to integrate some of the socialist ideas that had emerged in the 19th century, and the dominant forces of capitalism pushed back hard. They let fascists rise, sometimes even supported them. That led to a war, millions of deaths, and then a massive change of mindset: after WWII, every European country implemented strong social protection and regulation. Today, the shift is less about social security and more about cultural transformation — the end of patriarchy, and with it the decline of imperialism and Western dominance. Those foundations started being seriously questioned in the 60s. The dominant forces are resisting because, deep down, they’ve already lost — there’s no going back. But as always, they can still cause immense damage on the way out. And yes, if they refuse to let go peacefully, it could lead to conflict, and a lot of casualties. But after, democracy will make a come back. I may be too optimist.
alephnerd•1h ago
The article's argument follows your track of logic but is much more pessimistic:

"Is liberal democracy, then, in terminal decline? The rise of Carney himself offers a glimmer of hope, fuelled as it was by a reaction against Trump. But electoral trends in Europe do not suggest a repeat. A broad-based recovery of the liberal order will probably depend on a turnaround in the underlying trends, and here the signs are less promising. Attempts to soften the impact of worsening demographics are routinely rejected by voters and parties on both left and right. And the most promising source of renewed economic dynamism — AI — is likely to worsen inequality and increase societal instability, further undermining faith in democracy and hastening the slide into a zero-sum world.

Events of the past year have shocked the democratic world out of its daze, but it is these more powerful and slow-moving forces that should be the lasting cause for concern. Trump may fade from view in a few years, but any expectation that the liberal order will snap back flies in the face of the evidence. The old system was one that worked under a particular set of conditions. Those conditions are no longer present."

kreetx•42m ago
"Events of the past year", what has happened the past year?
Havoc•1h ago
Unfortunately I suspect yes - for practical reasons not directly linked to demographics

It’s hard to beat the raw power of central control when you need something specific done sharpish at any cost.

See chinas quest for catching up with asml. Asml arose under the western order certainly but I don’t think the western order could will it into existence the way an autocratic government can. And that i think is going to become a big problem as progress speeds up and more of these pivotal junctures come up in quick succession

rawgabbit•1h ago
In the US, we are witnessing one of the flaws of the Constitution. The Executive branch, which is supposed to carry out the laws, is ignoring the law. Both Congress and the Supreme Court are acquiescing. The only people who are pushing back are the lower courts (which again are ignored by the Executive branch). This is dysfunction on a national level.
gregbot•54m ago
So do you oppose DACA? That was the executive deliberately refusing to enforce the law as passed by congress.

Edit: Here’s what a federal judge had to say in 2023: "The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation ... The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution — even to fill a void." https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199428038/federal-judge-agai...

> Also, as an aside, if the bad actors in government who were screeching about DACA's constitutionality put even a fraction of that effort into protecting the Constitution when the First and Fourth Amendments were on the line, that would be great.

This is actual whataboutism

aappleby•53m ago
Oh boy, whataboutism!
plagiarist•39m ago
I'm reading through the Wikipedia and you'll have to explain this because it looks like that version of the federal government respected injunctions that were issued. Or we can drop the pretense that you want to start a discussion in good faith with this whataboutism, that's fine with me too.

Also, as an aside, if the bad actors in government who were screeching about DACA's constitutionality put even a fraction of that effort into protecting the Constitution when the First and Fourth Amendments were on the line, that would be great.

wan23•39m ago
Obama deported more people than Bush or Clinton, but chose to deprioritize (defer action) on the most sympathetic and focused more on troublemakers. Some might call that pragmatic use of limited resources.
pjc50•33m ago
And - crucially - did not have indiscriminate sweeps or raids. The number of false positives, people deported or arrested who had a legitimate right to remain, was nowhere near as high.

Almost everywhere has immigration enforcement. Most of those will do the occasional raid on homes or workplaces. Very rarely do you see the kinds of conflict that ICE is (IMO intentionally) causing.

tokai•47m ago
Who would have know it would be a disaster to base your system on the Roman Republic?!
pjc50•42m ago
All three parts are controlled by the same party, so of course it collapses to a unitary executive.

It's not dysfunction, either. It's functioning exactly as intended, by the people who spent years setting it up, and is delivering their goals. Top of which was abortion bans, which required spending years patiently stacking the Supreme Court.

That the goals are stupid and evil and incoherent is a separate problem.

dylan604•32m ago
The patience of waiting for "their guy" to be given 3 posts to SCOTUS in one term was the ultimate pay off. It just so happened that "their guy" has got to be one of the most malleable to anyone's position as he has no position of his own other than being "the guy".
wat10000•19m ago
A major purpose of the Constitution was to design a system with independent components that would jealously guard their power against the others. This has been eroding for decades, and has now spectacularly failed.
paganel•40m ago
The Constitution without the people willing to "respect" it is just a piece of dead wood, it has always been like that. That applies to all Constitution-like covenants, no matter the time and the geographical location.

What's changed now, compared to the past, it's that the people deciding that what's written there is bogus have started changing things a little bit faster compared to the usual, hence all the brouhaha. Also a reminder that the Slavery System was very much alive and all under this same US Constitution for more than half a century, which goes to show that's it's really just a piece of dead wood.

psunavy03•33m ago
The Supreme Court has told Trump to pound sand as often as it's upheld his policies. As dangerous as many of the things the Trump administration is doing are, there are other dangerous narratives out there, and the caricaturing of the Supreme Court is one of those.

There's a huge difference between "I disagree with this legal rationale" and "this court is illegitimate." Like it or not, every Justice on the Court is there legitimately. One of them via bare-knuckle hardball politics, to be sure. But according to the rules.

dylan604•29m ago
One of them is there because Congress made up rules to deny a sitting president his legitimate right to make a nomination. So I would say that judge is illegitimate to a lot of people.
pjc50•25m ago
Do they get to stay there legitimately regardless of what outside influence they receive? https://theweek.com/in-depth/1022846/a-running-list-of-clare...

(Thomas was appointed by GHW Bush, pre-dating the first Iraq war)

wat10000•14m ago
Legitimacy can mean more than just following the letter of the rules. There's a pretty good argument to be made that refusing to even hold hearings for a nominee is a violation of the Senate's Constitutional duties. And refusing to uphold norms is a completely reasonable basis for calling something illegitimate as well. A pretty big chunk of our legal system is based on precedent and norms rather than written law.
Yizahi•6m ago
You are forgetting about legislative branch too. Congress fist voluntarily "gifted" their right to the executive branch, in the form of the eCaNoMic ImErGenCy. And then Congress passed a measure which blocked every single member of Congress from legally questioning that "gift", in the form of legislation that whole year 2025 is one single calendar day, and thus a legal requirement of waiting 10 (or 15?) days before protest couldn't pass. Essentially Congress blatantly broke Constitution twice. At minimum.
ultropolis•56m ago
A trick I learned recently that you can apply here is the following:

If a headline asks a yes/no question, the answer is "no".

blenderob•51m ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

> "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

ultropolis•45m ago
I immediately tested the premise in my newsreader, and saw that modern clickbait gives us headlines like "How many weeks till Blandars Gnob is released?", So I added that it must be a binary question.
latexr•39m ago
Either way, research suggests it’s not true. See the “Studies” section in the linked Wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

> A 2016 study of a sample of academic journals (not news publications) (…) were more often answered "yes" in the body of the article rather than "no".

> A 2018 study of 2,585 articles in four academic journals in the field of ecology (…). Of the yes/no questions, 44 percent were answered "yes", 34 percent "maybe", and only 22 percent were answered "no".

> In 2015, a study of 26,000 articles from 13 news sites on the World Wide Web (…) divided into 20 percent "yes" answers, 17 percent "no" answers and 16 percent whose answers he could not determine.

inanutshellus•28m ago
> research suggests it’s not true

You misread. Betteridge's law says it can be "no"...

I think though his "law" is referring to clickbait that imply a falsehood to get you to read it.

"New Research asks - Can your baby live entirely off of kelp?!" ... "wow can she? that's nuts! lemme read! oh. no."

pinnochio•17m ago
Hm, not much of a law if we boil it down to a tautology.
cosmicgadget•51m ago
Ultropolis's Law of Headlines, they call it.
pif•50m ago
mandatory reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
paganel•43m ago
Hopefully, yes.

Also hilarious how even on this downward trajectory the liberal order's main propaganda entities (like the FT here) run with geeky and nerdy stuff like charts (?!), that will show 'em!! A true sign that they know nothing of the real (ideological world). Just the other day they (the FT, that is) were also running with that mantra of "Trump is invading Greenland only on account of him getting messed up by the Mercator map projection!!", which was straight West Wing [1 ]heavy-liberal territory. Like I've said, they know nothing of the real world.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLqC3FNNOaI

thomassmith65•38m ago
Social media incentivizes small 'creators' to espouse outrageous views that mainstream media does not, and that seem vitally important. An easy way to pump out a stream of unacceptable, important-sounding views is to (a) be outrageously wrong or offensive, and (b) claim everything mainstream is part of an evil plan to ruin the world.

This leads to constant messaging against whatever the underpinnings of a society happen to be.

So liberal democracy is in decline where it has been healthiest.

I have hope that liberal democracy will rise in regions where it is scarce. The Middle East first, then perhaps China, which we have all written off based on a couple decades (the blink of an eye, in the long run)

prometheus76•31m ago
Liberal democracy is rooted in Christian ethics. It does not make sense to a Muslim culture or the Chinese culture.
wat10000•21m ago
I imagine the people of Malaysia and Taiwan would be surprised to learn this.
thomassmith65•14m ago
Democracy is pre-Christian.

Liberalism is rooted in Christian sectarianism.

stfp•29m ago
Unfortunately I think the social media thing is key. At this point I'm convinced that we need a ban, at least before elections. That probably seems unrealistic but these novel entertainment options have proven to be so toxic to democracy that I don't think there's an alternative.
somenameforme•11m ago
What some do not see, and it may even be an age thing, is that over the past ~2 decades the definition of liberal has changed in a very substantial way.

In the early 2000s I was anti-war, anti-intervention, pro free speech, pro freedom of equality, against politicians trying to legislate morality or speech in any way, and thought we should have a strong border but with good immigration opportunities to allow the best to come and make the country even better. I was a fairly text book liberal, perhaps a bit more left than average. I still hold, more or less, these same values - yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative.

Why this happened is an interesting question, but it's ultimately irrelevant. It has happened. And so it's predictably going to have long-term consequences for the parties. Basically we keep using the same names for these ideologies, but the values they represent shift, and even flip flop, in dramatic ways over time frames that, in hindsight, seem extremely rapid. Yet paradoxically, it's not like there's any given year or election where you can officially say that issue [x] suddenly flipped.

pjc50•4m ago
> yet somehow in contemporary times that's deemed conservative, if not very conservative.

.. no, I think that sounds pretty capital-L Liberal to me. I think you may have confused the views of a few incredibly online leftists for "contemporary times". Or we get into specific issues and find out what the extreme conservativism actually is.

OutOfHere•35m ago
Liberal democracy was never about the people anyway. It existed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The poor would be better off being more enterprising and putting their savings in inflation-resistant assets, e.g. gold, stock indexes, and major cryptocurrencies. Don't call it investing because it should be the default vehicle.
mise_en_place•35m ago
As King Reddit Rocket Man is fond of saying: "Demographics is destiny".

As the White population continues to decline globally, so too will liberalism.

You cannot separate the ideology from race, at least not cleanly anyway, regardless of what Blank Slatism says.

mothballed•29m ago
It is interesting to note Liberia has(had) a similar constitution, although they seem to have done better at preserving freedom, and overall a quite different result in what they've got. You can build a house without code psychopaths condemning it because you broke some silly rule, you can raise your children mostly as you see fit without fascist CPS agents who pretend to be the ultimate parent scrutinizing you, they do not have much of any functioning immigration police, not much of any enforcement on the "war on drugs", the government is overall a pretty low % of GDP, and they only have 10% the amount of prisoners per capita as the US.
rune-dev•26m ago
Can you elaborate on this? Surely you don’t mean only white people can form/sustain liberal democracies…
eudamoniac•3m ago
Sad but true. White (western European) culture built these institutions and nonwhite cultures will have a hard time upholding them in their current form, if they even wanted to.
mindcrime•27m ago
Terminal? Hard to be sure, but I think there are glimmers of hope that the answer is "no" in the short-term.

Corollary question: should it be? Eg, is "liberal democracy" really the best we can possibly do? My take is that the long-term goal should be a society based on Voluntaryism with no use of force for anything other than self-defense. But if we ever get there, it won't be soon, and in the near-term the collapse of liberal democracy is trending towards the full-on advent of fascism and totalitarianism.

So at least for now, I believe liberal democracy is something worth fighting to protect.

vfclists•26m ago
How can liberal democracy not be in decline if it can only be discussed or seen behind a paywall which costs £59 a month to get over?

Are the voters a joke to the people who write such articles?

Am I a joke to them?

Is there a browser addon which can mark links on HN as behind paywalls?

Some sub-reddits tag them as such.

pjc50•23m ago
The paradox is that, because it earns a decent amount of money from readers, the FT provides generally sound content. Free media tends to be ideological advertising for whoever's funding it.
Yizahi•11m ago
Yes it is, partly because it was never democratic, and more like a an elective oligarchy. While people's and oligarchy intentions roughly aligned, we thought that "yay, democracy is working!". But as soon as the intentions diverged, this social order is slowly being exposed for what it is.

Why is it not democratic, you may ask? Because not a single one of use across the world had ever voted for or against any of the laws we must comply with (except for some lucky blokes in Switzerland). Laws were written and approved by a small number of individuals and not people.

mothballed•6m ago
I think it's drifting further from even that.

The people have discovered they can vote OPM to themselves and their pet causes. ICE now has a budget 4x the size of the marine corps. SS fund is on its way to bankruptcy. Corporations get all kinds of subsidies. Farmers get their own subsidies. And it goes on and on.

Meanwhile the national debt just keeps going up.

As each guy pays more OPM to the next guy he keeps asking more for more OPM for himself to cover the OPM he's losing to others. Eventually the portion of the economy that is one big circle jerk ratchets up and then if it goes on too long the whole thing collapses.

wat10000•10m ago
Democracy has been a pretty consistent desire among large numbers of people for a long time now. I don't see that ending any time soon. I do think things will get worse before they get better, because we have a hard time learning from history. The reasons for wanting democracy are too abstract right now. Once enough people get smacked in the face by them and learn why democracy is good, it will turn around. Unfortunately, those of us who do understand history have to learn this lesson alongside them.