Hacker News Reader

Comment by update | Hacker News Reader

> Most people don't know civil forfeiture

Most people don't care about X (civil forfeiture, whistleblowers, Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act, etc.)

> Pay more attention to the election and government processes.

Yes but this completely ignores the fact that most Americans are apathetic to these issues.

What I learned this year was that (as another poster put it) "Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppression" were visible, they would also be tolerated.

Also, if you're under investigation by the FBI for espionage, most Americans will STILL vote for you. And the other major half will vote for someone who is clearly racist and (imho) dumb as nails.

View on HN

Unfortunately, I've also learned the same in the last year.

My interactions with people after reaching adulthood have also taught me that people have different inclinations, ethics, intentions and internal reward systems. Some people gain satisfaction by helping others, or doing 'good;' while some others, gain satisfaction from hurting others, or feeling superior to them. Unfortunately I've met a lot of terrible people, and that makes me wonder what we should reasonably come to expect in who we collectively elect?

If you consider the incentives and selection filters that operated on those who successfully sought elected office, it's a little discouraging.

We might do better drafting from a pool of otherwise qualified people who really don't want the job!

There was a cool article on why in many cases random selection is better than human choice https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...

I've just never really solved how to apply it to politics. I've long felt that if you're going to have 2 "houses", one ought to be appointed by ballot as a check/balance on the elected members (a variation of hereditary peers in many ways but without the same bias).

It does seem to be the case that someone who doesn't really want the job, but is otherwise qualified, is the best person for it in this case. It seems to me to be very likely that this is true for both politicians, as well as LEO, including the FBI, CIA, and probably all other three letter agencies as well.

    if you're under investigation by the FBI for espionage

Espionage? Jesus Cripes the rhetoric in this election just gets more and more out there.

> The judge in my case was clear about a number of issues. First, the very definition of “espionage” is incredibly broad. Espionage is the act of “providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it.” Period. My judge also said that there did not have to be mens rea, or criminal intent, for there to be guilt in an espionage case. And the concept of “harm to the national security” was irrelevant.

--John Kiriakou (He was the first CIA officer to be convicted for passing classified information to a reporter) [1]

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.

[1] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/all_whistleblowers_shoul...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com