Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamnemecek | Hacker News Reader

One of the problems of US is the fact that protesting is virtually impossible. Unless there are 1,000,000 people in the streets of DC for two weeks, no one will care. Protesting in your city has little impact on the federal level. Also The general lack of public spaces makes it hard. And the fact that the police cracks down pretty hard on things after the first display of some sort of "disobedience". Look at the photos from protests in like France. Shit on fire, people throwing shit, but the police doesn't shoot them.

Dystopian police state here we come. Fuck I hope at least there will be a real NeoTokyo in the future.

View on HN

If you want to understand why protesting can be inneffective, I highly recommend "Twitter and Tear Gas" by Zeynep Tufekci (https://www.twitterandteargas.org/ with CC version available - but buy it!).

One important factor: protests are only effective if they demonstrate the ability of the movement to affect elections. There are multiple reasons why the senate is not concerned and they're all... highly concerning.

> One important factor: protests are only effective if they demonstrate the ability of the movement to affect elections. There are multiple reasons why the senate is not concerned and they're all... highly concerning.

Indeed. Furthermore an angry mob literally at the foot steps of the capitol. For a month. Angry as shit crowd. They need to pass through you. There aren't enough cops to arrest all of you in the entirety of the DC area. Don't break laws though. Wait for them to do that.

Furthermore, I've been intrigued by Vaclav Havels (there were more people involved) idea of Parallel Polis. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/vaclav-havels-le...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_Polis

Basically slowly create a parallel government that offers competing services. You can start small. Offer healthcare at competitive price for those who pay you "taxes". If I could pay two grand a year and get some perks (some sort of healthcare and over time more) out of it I would definitely consider it. Provide accredited education (over internet? idk). I believe having read somewhere that the US legal framework allows for this if you establish yourself as a Native American tribe as they can get out of quite a few obligations to the state and federal governments.

There is merit to this idea and it has the potential to be highly effective but also highly destablizing, in both positive and negative ways.

Some destabilization is possibly needed. Like you have to raise to rebuild.

I quite agree but if I were to go into detail about my thoughts on this it would quickly be flagged into invisibility :)

You're welcome to drop me a line.

> protesting is virtually impossible

I call my state and federal representatives and have built rapport with their SLAs. I find my input valued and well considered.

My district is a densely-populated one in Manhattan. Work brings me to the Bay Area, where I also conference with representatives. I am usually the only person calling or caring about most technical issues.

The problem isn't imagined bans on peaceful protest. It is apathy, laziness and an unwillingness to independently engage.

As an activist (both on the street and in legislative fora) that's garbage. People absolutely work on all phases of the democratic process here.

> As an activist that's garbage

What’s garbage?

> People absolutely work on all phases of the democratic process here

One, which here? Two, I think we are saying the same thing. (OP said “protesting is virtually impossible.” I said that impossibility is a myth.)

Garbage saying that people are apathetic and lazy.

Here in the Bay Area.

Sorry if I offended you. When I speak to our Bay Area representatives about privacy, Internet regulation and related commercial matters, I’m usually alone. Few are politically involved, in the Bay Area, on non-social topics.

Thanks for the clarification. Considering the existence of the EFF and the lobbying ability of all the large tech firms, I'm not that surprised if grassroots lobbying is a bit thin on the ground on such topics. I know that people show up to lobby on privacy issues at city council meetings here in Oakland.

> Protesting in your city has little impact on the federal level.

Sure, if you're trying to effect change on a federal level. Do you think that marching in a small town in France or Egypt would have a different effect?

Marching in your town is worth it for changing laws in your town, or possibly your county. Protesting at the state capital would be effective for changing laws in your state. Protesting in DC would be effective for changing the laws in the country.

Is any of that surprising?

Edit: I suppose it is a little surprising as the US and Canada are the only two 'free' countries as big as we are that allow protesting in any real capacity. China and Russia are out of that category (China pretty much always, Russia for most of recent history.) It does make protesting more difficult than in smaller countries, but what's the alternative? Every single protest in every city should be recognized by the federal government?

> protesting is virtually impossible

And look how fast the discussion of an issue (this post) of this gravity is quickly flagged into invisibility.

This bill doesn't fundamentally change very much besides the corporate tax rate, so the explosive reaction seems unnecessary. You aren't going to get a million people in the street because their tax bill went up, or down, several hundred dollars, which is what this amounts to for most people.

It changes a lot more than that. Although we don't know precisely what, because the House and Senate bills need to be reconciled (or the House will just pass the Senate bill) and the Senate bill was literally written on the floor tonight. Nobody has done a serious analysis of its effects. What we do know suggests that it will increase the uninsured rate substantially, increase the deficit dramatically, and trigger automatic cuts to Medicare and other programs.

increase the uninsured rate substantially

If people choose to drop insurance because they aren't mandated to buy it, then it is on them

increase the deficit dramatically

certainly true

trigger automatic cuts to Medicare

This is the only reason I'm replying, because there is no way that it will happen. No one wants cuts, and it would be political poison. Claiming it is fear mongering (not you, but the people using it to attack the bill).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DP_dYbWW4AA0-8h.jpg

Mitch McConnell's word is worth nothing. Republicans are already talking about "entitlement reform", aka cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Any hope that the GOP will avoid a particular course of action because it's "political suicide" should be dead and buried after the last year.

As for the uninsured rate, eliminating the mandate will not only cause people to voluntarily drop insurance but also involuntarily push people out of insurance due to the resulting increase in premiums. That's what happens when you kick out one of the legs of a three-legged stool.

Republicans may well attempt to cut/reform entitlements, but it won't be because of the tax bill triggering mandatory cuts. That is the fear mongering piece.

The effect of eliminating the mandate is unclear. People paying the fine to not have insurance will surely stop. People who have insurance now, should keep it. But it the insurance is so worthless to them that think it isn't worth having, hopefully it will motivate smarter fix than simply mandating it. Poor people will still continue to get their insurance paid for.

Because of the PAYGO law, it looks like Medicare would be cut by $25B in the first year:

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2017/sen...

Yes, that is what I was specifically addressing (see link), and it is nonsense.

The elimination of the State and Local Tax deductions will be huge for California and New York.

They weren't eliminated, but ended up capping them at $10k.

see, you read the senate bill that was proposed yesterday. the current bill that passed, afaict, eliminated SALT completely.

Hrrmm, you must have read the bill 12 hours ago, before Susan Collins got her amendment added.

The Senate tax bill will include my SALT amendment to allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 for state and local property taxes.

https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/936647024417615872

But as others have pointed out, this still can change as it goes to reconciliation.

State and local property taxes, which I don't believe were ever in question. I'm fairly confident SALT, in this context, referred to the deductibility of state and local income taxes.

You are right that state income tax is no longer deductible. SALT in the Collins context was referring to just property tax.

>Fuck I hope at least there will be a real NeoTokyo in the future.

This is my hope as well. I mean, if the future is going to be one big dysoptian hellscape, then I feel that having a cyberpunk noir metropolis to play around in would be only fair.

> Unless there are 1,000,000 people in the streets of DC

Im no expert but it seems to me its pretty doable. In France, we sometimes have 2 million people protesting.

The thing is protest has been criminalized. The people who protested Trump's inauguration are facing what amounts to life in federal prison. Yes there was one car damaged but the Nazis who's protest lead to the death of that young woman face no charges.

And the Baltimore rioters? Police actually let them destroy property. And who is facing life in prison protesting the Trump inauguration?

And what was the purpose of protesting the inauguration? I get it you are MAD and you want to break things.

But did you vote? How many of those protesters did? Statistically, very few.

You get the government you deserve.

"who is facing life in prison protesting the Trump inauguration?"

Here you go:

"More than 200 people who were arrested on Trump’s inauguration day risk up to 60 years of jail. Meanwhile, the white supremacists in Charlottesville walk free"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/22/donald...

You may not be aware that people are being charged not so much with breaking things but being part of a crowd in which some people broke things. And yes, the potential sentences run into decades despite the extremely minor nature of the property damage.

A slanted editorial but one grounded in fact rather than a particular ideology: http://georgetownvoice.com/2017/12/01/j20-defendants-face-a-...

Protest what? Trump could pardon a turkey and it would seem to inspire riots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com