Hacker News Reader

Comment by klodolph | Hacker News Reader

> I don't know the legal details of NAFTA...

I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA? The legal details of NAFTA are thorny, often surprising, and extremely relevant to this issue. Just search for the case history of the "tantamount to expropriation" phrase from NAFTA, and the crazy way these court cases have played out over the years under NAFTA.

NAFTA is practically the poster child for "trade deals with weird language, that should probably have never been approved by congress, with far-reaching consequences."

View on HN

> I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA?

They've given a good hypothesis. Are you expecting commenters to only contribute to topics they can claim to be specialized experts in?

Personally, I'd just prefer people assert less often what they don't know to be true with a good degree of confidence. I'm including myself in this goal. I'm trying to say, "Why would ...?" rather than, "I don't think ...", especially when my basis for thinking a certain thing is shaky.

I'm expecting commenters to contribute to topics when they have something relevant to say, rather than make guesses in the dark in fields they're not familiar with. If someone's comfortable making guesses about whether something will turn out to be struck down by NAFTA, but doesn't know anything about NAFTA other than the fact that it's a trade deal... well, aren't the details of NAFTA explicitly what's important to answering the question here?

And wouldn't someone with a passing familiarity with NAFTA at least know about the "tantamount to appropriation" clause? I know this much, and that's just from a half-remembered required social studies class I took in public high school in the US, some twenty-odd years ago.

I’ve found on most topics I know something, the top comment is usually a random guess in the dark. They don’t know what they’re talking about and actively harm understanding of the issue. The standard HN top comment will have no grounding in facts but will simply assume the worst intent possible of everyone involved. This cynicism is mistaken for wisdom.

Of course I see a lot of wisdom on HN threads discussing subjects I’m not familiar with … but only because I can’t tell the difference between cynicism and wisdom in those cases.

You’re frustrated that someone would comment on a thorny legal issue while having no understanding of the law or knowledge of the specifics of NAFTA. But that’s how it is on every thread not related to software. See the hundreds of threads where software engineers suddenly became expert epidemiologists overnight for an example of this phenomenon.

I’m not sure what the alternative is. Certainly it isn’t just keeping quiet and not discussing anything we’re not experts in. Maybe sometimes it’s ok to speculate just for fun.

Your reasoning about the cynicism of HN while being cynical is kind of amazing in a good, humorous way. Not sure if intended, but appreciated nonetheless.

> The standard HN top comment will have no grounding in facts but will simply assume the worst intent possible of everyone involved. This cynicism is mistaken for wisdom.

The last decades of politics have shown all over the world that modern politicians act primarily on the whims of those who line their pockets, which is way too often contrary to the best solutions for their constituents or the ability of the planet to support human life.

That cynicism, itself a symptom of the erosion of trust in democracy, as well as populist tendencies, doesn't come from nothing.

> The last decades of politics

There was never an era where politicians didn’t prioritise their self interest above all else.

If somebody say something that is wrong and another person correct it, we all learn something.

I think there is nothing wrong with saying your thing, if you do it in a humble way and you don't pretend to be an expert. It's called having a conversation.

If they declare themselves an expert on NAFTA before commenting would that satisfy your requirements? You sound silly. Everyone please check-in with klodolph before commenting.

Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. A trade agreement doesn't compel a country to accept literally anything that a trading partner wants to export. For instance Mexico couldn't force the US to import cocaine since obviously that's illegal. Mexico is just saying GM corn is banned internally and externally.

Many trade deals contain a catalogue of legal and illegal substances under the deal, often with the requirement to make not-yet-legal ones legal under the deal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com