Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstalin | Hacker News Reader

I'm reminded of a George Washington quote:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

In other words, government is, at its bare naked minimum, the monopoly of force. It must be contained, mistrusted, and treated as a necessary evil.

Despite the USA being screwed up in so many ways, I still thank my lucky stars for the anti-federalists, who gave us the bill of rights. Without them, we would be much worse off today than we are.

View on HN

"Despite the USA being screwed up in so many ways, I still thank my lucky stars for the anti-federalists, who gave us the bill of rights. Without them, we would be much worse off today than we are."

The current administration and the previous administrations don't care about the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately we have a legal system that, to some degree, does. Thus the outrage over secret courts which wave everything through (and the disturbance that a single unelected Supreme Court justice is responsible for the secret kangaroo court's appointments.)

> Fortunately we have a legal system that, to some degree, does.

A large body of decisions in trial and appellate courts at both the state and federal level, up to and including the SCOTUS provide plenty of evidence that this is not the case.

Hamilton argued that the very existence of the bill of rights invited the expansion of government into all those areas not expressly forbidden therein, but one might question Hamilton's motivations.

That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.

Sorry if it's an apocryphal quote.

I see what's happening in the UK, where people are prosecuted for speech and there is no limit to parliament's power (other than watered-down EU treaties and such) and I'm glad we have the first amendment, which prevents prior restraints and criminalizing unpopular speech.

> I'm glad we have the first amendment, which prevents prior restraints and criminalizing unpopular speech

Then why is it that the US ranks lower than the UK on the Press Freedom Index? How exactly has allowing the most vile and offensive hate speech protected you or improved your nation?

Because back in the 1960's, someone speaking out about giving black people equal rights could have been called "vile" and "offensive." That which the majority considers "hate speech" one day might be considered good the next.

Long story short: if you stifle the speech of anyone - say, if they're objecting to an overzealous monarch who demands taxation without representation, OR objecting to puritanical standards that don't allow for interracial marriage - progress will not happen.

> That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.

Amusingly, in checking this out myself, I found this:

"If they have real grievances redress them, if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it at the moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once."

I kind of doubted that the guy who sicced the army on the Whiskey Rebellion would find the government dangerous and fearful.

And Hamilton's argument was (partially) countered by the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unfortunately, that hasn't worked out so well, has it?

It seems that you agree with Scalia and Stevens [1], who also ignore the 10th Amendment of the bill of rights [2].

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html (control-F "Tenth Amendment")

[2] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This philosophy is precisely why I was so dumbfounded to hear a congressman talk on the topic of the Patriot act on NPR. He recently flip-flopped from having been instrumental in writing it to being categorically for reform of it.

What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible. Anyone who's taken 10 minutes of a law class knows that you write laws defensively, presuming the most evil motherfucker imaginable will have the reins some day. And this retard is one of the few running the country.

> 10 minutes of a law class

Out of curiosity, what was the name of this class that you took and expect that most others have taken?

Introduction to Law

> What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible.

What makes you think he genuinely thought that? My (admittedly limited) experience with state and national politicians is that most say in public exactly what benefits them the most at the moment.

Because I don't care to consider the more insidious alternative, that he wanted this outcome.

F. James Sensenbrenner - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2139021...

I heard the same thing. His position is that there is a common sense definition of "relevant" that they did not define in the law, and that the NSA would be cool and only look at what they needed.

EDIT: A quote.

>What Congress intended and what I intended is that the target had to be a foreign national and not a U.S. person. He would be targeted, and then they would find out who that person was calling, both in the United States and elsewhere, rather than grabbing all of the phone information and working backwards to the target. The relevant standard was intended to limit what NSA could do. They took the position that it expanded it. And that tips the commonsense definition of relevance on its head.

Thanks for posting the link. I got all worked up and forgot to go back and edit it in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com