Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cyphertruck | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cyphertruck

Ah the old “violence makes it moral” argument.

The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws.

Problem is they have done it so much you think its not only legal, but moral!

Innocent until proven guilty.

View on HN

In democratic societies, the state has the monopoly on violence. This is, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly. Crypto or smart contracts do not circumvent those principals.

No, in Iran the government has the same monopoly and uses it to pursue its own ends alright.

It’s the process that leads to its use, and the purposes that differ.

And how exactly is Iran a democratic society? I think I made a point about totalitarian regimes being different in the way the legitimize that monopoly and use it.

Iran gets trotted out as a strawman in these arguments, but its government is really quite democratic compared to many US allies which have the mere trappings of democracy painted on a dictatorship. Iran has an elected president, and a parliament and multiple parties. As I understand it, the biggest issue with the government as a functioning democracy is that the unelected supreme council can prevent candidates from running and and dissolve parties. I don't mean to defend its actions against protestors right now, which I believe are heinous, and the government is lacking in respect for many human rights, but as a strawman for absolute dictatorship it's a very poor choice. Democracy is a spectrum, Iran is definitely on the spectrum, and if we Americans look in the mirror and think deeply about the structure of our government, we might find out that we're a lot closer to Iran on that spectrum than we were taught in school.

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

The thing that makes Iran not a democracy is that all those bodies (parliament, president, parties) answer to the supreme leader and religious authority.

It’s not a democracy if the elected bodies all answer to unelected ones.

> It’s not a democracy if the elected bodies all answer to unelected ones.

Like the supreme court?

The Supreme Court of which country?

It is not a spectrum. USA and eu might be. But if someone above you can prevent your from running or electing then it is NOT democracy.

Once you are free to do so then may I say no one promise heaven on earth. It is bad human and good in democracy. Sort it out. It is hard. But it is not the same as other sort it out for you.

By your own definition, pretty much no countries, including the US, are democracies, as almost everywhere has mechanisms through which the courts can prevent you from running.

Bingo! Well you can’t have a perfect “pure” democracy but you want to try to get as close as possible. The court isn’t just a king who decides to veto.

Separation of power, judicative, legislative and executive, are the basic principal of democracies. The other being, fair, equal and secret elections.

They didn't say it was? They were contradicting your claim that the state having a monopoly on violence is limited to democratic states.

A claim I never made, at least I hope I never did.

I misinterpreted your original comment. I suspect the other person may have misinterpreted it in the same way.

The same way US is a democratic society?

If two party system with hard barriers for a new party to enter needing additional approval from board consisting of the existing parties is a democracy, then so is Iran with all their limitations. Maybe a lesser one than US, but not that different.

Any state, democratic or totalitarian, gives itself the monopoly on violence or there won't be a state, only factions vs factions, large and small ones down to single persons.

> governed through laws passed by the people either directly or indirectly

This is so disingenuous it may as well be outright fabrication.

There is is indirect way, were people vote for a form of parliament (the legislative) that then passes laws, and then there are systems, Switzerland comes to mind, where people vote directly on laws. Both approaches are equally democratic.

How exactly is that disingenuous?

I cannot be the only one that sees politicians promise things and then spectacularly not deliver when they get elected. If the folks you vote for don't do what you want and you cannot vote for someone that does, there is no way for you to influence policy with a "democratic" process. For most people "just get elected" is not an option, because for that to happen you need to be rich, well connected and relatively well spoken.

Oh dear, you really argue that every single parliamentary democracy in the world is not actually a democracy because, what, they are parliamentary? Something else?

I don’t think your “democratic society” will remain that way for long, unless your Putin, in which case Ukraine is eager to join your country.

Why did they seize his coin? Did the person who seized it back actually break into something?

Principles are fine and dandy, but why are principals of innocent until proven guilty ok to be broken by “democratic societies”?

I mean it’s just an appeal to might makes right. My mob is bigger than your mob, so I take what k want.

It’s like we’ve lost the foundation to what the idea of a free country was.

Anyways Bitcoin is stupid still.

My passport has the wrong color. Banks often ask me for bullshit documents.

People are guilty by default on AML world and the burden of proof ALWAYS fall to the accused. This type of perversion of democratic values is loved and applauded by "well mannered and civilized" tech types whom are totes ok with de-risking strategies that are pretty much based on xenophobia. I'm yet to debate one of those oh-so-enlightened persons that didn't resorted to the "its your fault to have been born in the wrong place!" argument.

You know those people who love and pray to the altar of the almighty GDPR? They don't bat an eye to the fact that it doesn't apply to financial records.

> The government cannot do those things under the law, but only by violating the laws.

They can and they do

Feel free to explain to your lawyer how you're digging your own hole even further

Then we're supposed to hear sob stories about people who thought it was "just a prank" and got in serious trouble because they didn't know when to stop?

It’s moral because he’s a scammer who stole money and violated the law. He shouldn’t keep ill-gotten gains because he’s good at using computers and his victims weren’t. If this were Edward Snowden (say what you want about his dealings with Russia in exile, what he did should not have been a crime) I’d have a very different opinion, but as it stands this guy is a scammer getting his just desserts

Reply on news.ycombinator.com