Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>>Care to provide specific examples of what you have tried and been unable to say because the government explicitly tells you not to?

Looked at Canadian news lately? I am not even talking about those blocking a major bridge or anything like that. They are seizing bank accounts of people they politically disagree with, or supported "indirectly" those they politically disagree with.

"Without the freedom to transact, you have no other constitutional rights"

>>People dying in auto accidents costs the government money in lost economic activity as well as things like medical care.

WOW... you understand you are providing an authoritarian justification for literally controlling everything about a persons life. These type of justification for the imposition of state authority into peoples life is one of the main reason I continue to oppose single payer healthcare for the US.

This idea because it would cost the government money in medical expenses is all the justification the government needs infringe on my personal autonomy / liberty is frankly terrifying, but less those then the idea of "less economic activity" being justification. That is freaking dystopian right there, am at a loss that anyone could think that is a valid justification for state power / authority

> Looked at Canadian news lately? I am not even talking about those blocking a major bridge or anything like that. They are ceasing bank accounts of people they politically disagree with, or supported "indirectly" those they politically disagree with.

Yes I have. You're ignoring the relationship between these two things. A group of protestors has occupied a city and created a massive public disturbance in the process for those that live and work there. People have a right to live in peace, undisturbed by others, do they not?

What's even more bizarre about this situation is that now, the leader of the movement has been arrested and now wants out of the entire thing because he didn't think the authorities would actually take action.

When you look back at history, you see leaders of real movements like MLK getting arrested because they lived under actual tyranny, and they weren't afraid of it because they spent their entire lives under oppression.

MLK was arrested multiple times throughout his life, and anyone who's serious about participating in civil disobedience knows that arrest is always on the table, and has been since the founding of the country.

The leader of the truckers buckled after a day in custody, what conviction he has in his rights.

>> A group of protestors has occupied a city and created a massive public disturbance in the process for those that live and work there.

Yes, that is the point of protesting. Which is a fundamental right in free society. As long as they are not rioting, destroying property, or using violence they should be free to protest.

Protesting is not standing to the side quietly holding a sign not getting in the way of anyone, relegated to a "free speech zone"

>>When you look back at history, you see leaders of real movements like MLK getting arrested because they lived under actual tyranny, and they weren't afraid of it.

He also "created a massive public disturbance" and was justified in doing so. The fact that some or even all of the "organizers" of this protest did not have the same moral conviction does not change anything.

That is a very very weak argument, it is also a weak argument that because racial discrimination was an objective moral wrong that we both agree with, so we both support those protests, but since you view body autonomy to be lessor, and violation of body autonomy to be less of a moral wrong then those people lose their right to protest.

That is a very dangerous position to hold, and one that highly doubt you would like to be used for something you think is very important, but maybe I don't. The difference is I would still defend your right to protest and assemble even if I disagree with your cause. Remember in politics, you must always, always, always invert.

You really shouldn't be surprised about Canada, of all places, doing stuff like that. I mean, we're talking about a country which, when it wrote its equivalent of the Bill of Rights, had to add a clause to it that basically allows state governments to nullify it pretty much whenever they wish, so long as they explicitly say that they do so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...

And if you look further back, one could argue that the Canadian equivalent of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is "peace, order, and good government":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_order,_and_good_governm...

> People have a right to live in peace, undisturbed by others, do they not?

Including not being disturbed by helmet laws?

Honestly, yeah. That particular law is idiotic and all it does is lowering amount of people who bike for practical purposes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com