Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitchypat | Hacker News Reader

>But one can understand the position.

It is perhaps understandable in a communist dictatorship, but how exactly is that understandable in a representative democracy? They act as representatives of their constituents, they do not work for anyone except their constituents. And 'work' is imprecise verbiage - they serve. Undermining the constitutional freedoms of the people they serve is far from an understandable position for any elected person.

Maybe you understand it because you accept sociopaths as your representatives?

View on HN

> Maybe you understand it because you accept sociopaths as your representatives?

Now, now, let's not be like that. You do NOT have to agree with something to try understanding someone else's point of view or thought processes.

Understanding a point of view gives you a better chance of bringing someone around. Also, this isn't limited to politicians. Almost any form of authority, public or private, comes with the same attitudes. Think prosecutorial immunity and the like. Or how some company management views things. There's usually a fair amount of "the ends justifying the means" in there somewhere.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. Understand the problem first. To merely disapprove does nothing to change anyone’s mind.

I understand perfectly well the stated position in circumstances OUTSIDE of a ELECTED representatives.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-can%E2%80%99t-pe... #emotivism

Honest question: do you find, say, police enforcement in a representative democracy also non-understandable? Is the idea that only a few designated individuals have the right to arrest or interrogate someone equally revolting, and that in an ideal society we should either all have this right or nobody?

> the idea that only a few designated individuals have the right to arrest or interrogate someone

Might want to keep in mind that they don't. Anyone can make a citizen's arrest, and the police don't have the right to interrogate you, you have the right to remain silent.

You can make a citizens arrest, sure, and you will then likely be sued into oblivion, in addition to whatever criminal charges the DA may file against you.

Only a few designated individuals have the right to do so with enhanced protections, if not outright immunity (to much dismay, in these current times...)

You're right, but with a few asterisks. Citizen's arrest can only be for felonys. The citizen who is arresting also is liable in the scenario where the arrestee isn't guilty--- because then the citizen arrester could be liable for kidnapping.

(Fact checking myself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_Stat... I'm almost right. It's any crime in your presence, or a felony not in your presence. And for an incorrect arrest, the charge would be false arrest, not kidnapping.)

The fact that legislators have a different legal status from the general population is documented in the Constitution -- they can not be arrested or detained while in session, or on their way to or from a session. There's a clear legal doctrine that each branch of government should be free from interference from th others.

Not to say that it's OK for the NSA to spy on American citizens in general ...

If one accepts representation, one inherently accepts the sociopaths that are attracted to such circumstances. Reject arbitrary authority.

But does this position argue for anarchy or mass democracy? Either seems terrifying in its own way.

but how exactly is that understandable in a representative democracy? They act as representatives of their constituents

It's easily understandable if you spend some time thinking about who their constituents are. If you think that group includes you, then you are thinking just like the "gov't officials" mentioned by the grandparent: believing your society is one that is different in kind.

Ink on paper... USSR Constitution (1977) [1]. Please note articles 54, and 55. (& I am sure you know of the preferred method of boiling frogs.)

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.h...

Nixon orders one little intelligence gathering operation and everybody goes crazy #NotACrook

A lot of easily offended Nixon supporters here it seems, judging from the downvotes...

I think the explanation is that the HN crowd appreciates mature discussion and could do without the derpy comments regardless of what president is punchline.

I believe there was a deeper point being made there about executive branch abuse of authority, it's just that many people may have missed it.

The people that have reached the highest levels of the political system are understand better than anyone that we don't really have much democracy remaining. They know what the system does value and are devoted to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com