Hacker News Reader

Comment by wheelerwj | Hacker News Reader

> "Mr. President... Call Mr. Trump."

Having been detained by CBP several times I can see the smug look on this officers face. Like, "It's not my policy but I'm happy to do my job."

You see, this is the biggest problem that no one is talking about. Sure, these policies (mass surveillance, unlawful detention, violation of human rights) are handed down by edict by a powerful faction at the top of the food chain, but they are enforced by every day people. People against people, that's what this is about. Its our friends, our colleagues, and neighbors that are doing this. People, the people who have these jobs, have the moral right to resist these policies. They must fight their supervisors or they must resign if they cannot fight. We as a society have to agree that we won't mindlessly follow such ignorant leaders.

Do you know why we still hunt down Nazi's 80 years later? Because "I'm just doing what I'm told" isn't a good excuse.

View on HN

I've been downvoted in HN before for posting this, but I have to say it again: It's not Trump who put jackbooted thugs in US airports. I'm no fan of the new president, but the US has been arbitrarily exercising unchecked power over noncitizens long time before Trump came to power.

I don't think anyone can deny this, the CBP has been at entry points for decades and decades. But its the current officers who have to deal with the biggest mess.

I suspect this might be something people outside Germany or Europe are unaware of but

> Do you know why we still hunt down Nazi's 80 years later?

is actually a thing. There are still warrants out; Nazis (without the "Neo" part) are still arrested and convicted from time to time. Although I suspect this will come to an end soon, since people tend to die of old age now. Iirc some of the more recent trials ended with a conviction to incarceration, but no actual incarceration due to old age / medical issues.

> People, the people who have these jobs, have the moral right to resist these policies.

IIRC, the percentage of people who resisted against the nazi here in France if only by quitting their jobs was around ~5%. This makes this kind of resistance highly inefficient when there are millions people willing to do the dirty job which thanks to government propaganda is considered moral and right anyway by most. The only way is to remove the people on top sending those orders (not easy) and by trying to avoid anyone from having so much power at the top in the first place (easier). The only way to do this is to distribute the use of force among society and not give the monopoly of force to one single entity as we tend to do.

That's why I'm in favor of the RW libertarians view of big government and how it's in the best interest of society to have as much small a government as possible to avoid situations like these as large bureaucracies tend to corrupt over time and when they turn evil, they hurt innocent people that come close to them.

This isn't the right answer. There are times when you need government intervention, and there are times when you don't. The trick is figuring out which is which.

As they often say, libertarians didn't defeat Nazism.

I'm a left libertarian and therefore I have a natural allergy to statist solutions for problems but I acknowledge that government is a necessary evil that in many instances do good things but the fact remains that large bureaucracies, whether governmental or not, tend to corrupt over time and that's why the smallest size of government possible to carry out its function should be the goal of society.

The original Libertarians were left wing anti-government anarchists. The word was appropriated by the far right in the US, and The ones today are Ayn Rand fanatics- the likes of Paul Ryan, who are anti-labour and pro-business. Reducing the power of the government - an institution in which people have some kind of say in - while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in - leads to oligarchy.

There are interesting approaches to reducing government size from left-liberterains(Libertarian socialist and Anarchists) but they are not mainstream in the US, which has shifted so far right over the last few decades that Eisenhower would in many policy matters be considered a far-left unelectable today.

I'm a left libertarian, the real deal, and that's why I prefaced the libertarians designation with the RW label to avoid upsetting my leftist friends here :)

Well, large parts of the Right "Libertarians" are already in charge. All they do is remove healthcare, slash spending on PBS, environmental agencies and Science, while giving corporations and billionaires gigantic tax breaks.....These people are the ones in power.

Small government just means making the parts of the government that actually help the people smaller, according to these people.

I totally agree with you on this and your previous comment to me that right wingers are giving libertarianism a bad name by appropriating it to advance their agenda of screwing poor and other disfranchised groups while enriching their donors and paymasters.

> while allowing corporations to flourish - institutions where citizens have absolutely no say in

Wrong. Corporations are the one of most sensitive organisation types. Stop giving them money, see how soon and peacfully they die. Remind me a state that has given its power peacefully ?

Difficult to stop giving them money when they sell products billions use, and also employ millions. It's probably easier to overthrow the half the states in the world than to bring down Apple.

Oh cmon at least be realistic. Are you sure, 5 years from now, Apple is going to be as powerful as today ?

Market always tend toword decentralisation. More so in AnCap one.

I've stopped giving my money to plenty of corporations. Nobody noticed or cared and nothing happened.

I've called a corporation and asked for transparency and data so I can see what they're actually doing. They oddly didn't return my call.

I've called a corporation and told them how I want them to represent my interests. They oddly didn't return my call.

I've complained corporations have no reason to do things which are good for me, the consumer or employee, and all the reasons to do things that are bad for me. By design. Not because of corruption or because of malicious actors who fail to do their jobs. My complaints fell on deaf ears.

I once complained about a long line at the customs and immigration in the United States. The CPB officer's response was "Call your congressman."

Sure, so that you can ask your congressman to increase funding for the CBP.

Telling someone to call the president isn't exactly related when its the person's legal defense asking to speak with a supervisor who can help.

The answer people seek when calling their representatives about schools is to decrease funding and further restrict teacher autonomy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com