Hacker News Reader

Comment by MaxHoppersGhost | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

A few years ago a bunch of protesters damaged a federal building and endangered federal workers and elected officials. They all got pardons. What is your opinion of that event and its outcome?

Jan 6 was also not ok. I’m good with lethal force to protect federal buildings and federal workers.

Nice try.

> Nice try.

I asked a question and you answered, it was not a "gotcha". However I have asked other people (in person) over the past few days who do support the pardons and Jan 6 and also support deploying the military against civilians in CA now. Glad to know you're consistent in your views, sad to know you can't tell a question from a "gotcha".

You can prevent that without using the army. A country using its army against its own people is not a thing a democratic country does.

>is not a thing a democratic country does.

It is if the majority want it to be done.

> It is if the majority want it to be done.

Democracy does not mean the majority gets whatever it wants. Part of being a democracy is protecting the rights of the minority.

>Democracy does not mean the majority gets whatever it wants.

Yes, it does. By definition democracy is doing whatever the majority wants to do.

>protecting the rights of the minority

Under democracy the minority opinion can be ignored. Rights only need to be protected if the majority wants. And the majority can decide what is and isn't considered a right.

> Rights only need to be protected if the majority wants. And the majority can decide what is and isn't considered a right.

Then you no longer have a democracy.

Why? Rights are orthogonal to something being a democracy. A society could decide to have no human rights yet still make decisions democratically.

If minority rights are not maintained, then the first majority to win will change the rules/system so that the minority can never become the majority. In the extreme example, the 51% votes to eliminate the 49%. For a democracy to function minority rights and checks on the majority power are fundamental requirements.

Originally from the Dept. of State: https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority

>so that the minority can never become the majority

So you are trying to say that a democracy that is unable to find a global maxima is not a functional democracy? I would disagree and say that a democracy moving towards a local maxima is still functional.

That is still not how democracy works! Non-commissioned officers don't swear an oath to upholding the constitution or the people's vote, only to the Commander in Chief. The majority of Americans (and even Congress) could vote in favor of a military invasion of Mexico, and it would be fully constitutional for the sitting president to ignore their vote.

"The majority" changes the Commander in Chief, who in turn can be held liable for violating constitutional democracy if they abuse discretionary powers (see: Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon).

Was there a vote taken on this that I missed?

Not every decision by the US government is made democratically. Sometimes a delegate is voted upon. In this case last year a new commander and chief of the US military was voted in who has this power.

Are you supporting all of this?

Have any federal buildings been attacked?

> Are we supposed to let protesters smash our federal buildings and endanger federal workers?

Doesn't LA have a police department?

What did the LA governor had to say about it?

Newsome wont do enough to protect federal buildings. He doesn't care.

> Newsome wont do enough to protect federal buildings. He doesn't care.

Is that so? What did he had to say about it? As I understand it, the LA governor is adamant in how illegally mobilizing both the national guard and the armed forces is being used to fabricate a crisis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com