Hacker News Reader

> We were given the “internet”, pretty much for free, and we believed it would be a fair deal?

I have to pay to get to the internet. The internet where people willingly create content. People with private information create content to be seen without additional payments. Companies create content to advertise and sell their products and so on.

I see this as a fair deal. Why not?

I agree with the rest of you posting but I don't see this as a price for the Internet. I see it more of a result of the greed that accompanies this economic system. It is something that may bring more money in. Thats why they do it and thats why they advertised and sold it pretty so good. People are happy today to give away their privacy. Happy customer, happy industry. Governments just profit from the advertisements and their effect. Thats why this NSA thing will pass and in the end there will be no solution for the masses.

But I see a way. There will always be those who find ways to improve security. If those develop tools easy enough that the usual internet surfer can use you just need to make this "cool".

This already happens. Recently there was a TV show here in Germany where the host confronted some individuals in the audience with "private" information from their social networks. The people were shocked. Some were even angry. Those people will think about it twice. The angry one will defintly start making their facebook page at least private (or friends only). "Personal-Leaks" could create this effect for huge ammounts of people and they may be a thing in the future.

I still have hope.

That's why I said "pretty much": You may have to pay but the value for money deal is one of the best deals we ever got for anything, worldwide. We can do so many things online with a minimal cost.

The industry can do whatever it wants as long as it is legal. But it's not only about the industry, it's about the bigger picture. It's about a few guys with cameras around you recording every single thing you do and say (yes, yes, only while you are online and only while you are carrying a cellphone). I don't know what exactly they are doing with this information and I don't need to know in order to have the right to say that I don't like it.

I have hope too, but things are currently heading in a very wrong direction.

Reminds me of the "First they came" poem - well written post, thank you:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

I realised this is coming out way more poetically than I intended, I hope it's not taken as dramaqueeny, my purpose isn't that at all.

Poetry is appropriate at funerals, and I too share a grim outlook for this country. That said, I would argue even further back than recently.

The federal government has been exceeding its authority since its inception, hell, if not before. James Madison, as president, couldn't figure out how to reconcile his responsibility to build a system of highways (which he thought was a fantastic idea) with the constraints on the federal government imposed by the Constitution.

Since that time, we've gone well beyond highways; We've implemented social security, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare. We've ratified the Constitution to allow for a federal income tax to support it all. We've banned alcohol, pissed everybody off, and unbanned it again. We've attempted to curtail the first, second, fourth, fifth amendments, etc.

We've got a nation full of people who voted in the last guy largely because they thought he'd give them affordable health care, ignoring that, at least in my interpretation of a limited federal government and separation of powers, our government should never have been allowed to grow large enough to be that way.

We've demanded that the government fix this thing, that thing, the other thing; clean our waters, enforce minimum wages, keep us safe from drug companies, fight our wars -- then we wonder how we've gotten to exist in a nanny state?

As a parent, it's always been hard to reconcile the notion of freedom with parenthood. In an ideal world, my child would be free to take drugs recreationally, sacrifice education for an early entry to the work force (or vice versa), prostitute herself for pay (literally, not figuratively)... but as her parent, I want none of those things for her, so I disallow them. In that same vain, if we treat our government like the father whose duty it is to protect us, it should not surprise us that the father bans us from potentially harmful activities, reads our diary, looks through our phones and follows us around in his car -- to keep us safe.

These are the things parents do. I don't know of a time it's occurred specifically, but I'm sure that I've unjustly grounded my child at least once. I'm sure that I've disallowed her from doing something that I would cheer on if done by an adult peer. I'm sure that I've invaded her privacy, and if she were an adult, possibly even violated her civil liberties. On three occasions in her 12 years of life, I've assaulted her by spanking.

Make no mistake -- I'm not advocating the government's actions, or excusing them... not in any way. I am very dumbstruck that so many share my condemnation of these actions, because so many people are those that voted for health care, for social security, for national defense, for the EPA, the FCC, the TSA, etc., for the safety that only a government all-father can provide. We've allowed this to go on for decades, perhaps most of the time we've been a nation, really. Our founding fathers warned us (well, most of them) that this would happen if we weren't vigilantly watching our government, and it has happened, precisely because we weren't vigilantly watching our government.

Or perhaps it's always been this way, with approximately half of our electorate desperately wishing our government would do far more, with the other half desperately wishing our government would do far less.

Either way, fixing it may be too far gone. As near as I've mapped back to, the idea of federal constraint hasn't really existed since the mid-30s, possibly even earlier than that. I try to vote Libertarian, but at a federal level, that's hard to do, and comes with its own baggage. Rand Paul, whom I agree with on a great many issues, has some views that perplex me, as did his father. I'm also not convinced that he isn't a consummate politician.

I disagree with many of Obama's political choices, but I did sincerely believe that he would try to live up to more of his election promises, promises that now seem like nothing more than the pre-election fodder that we get from every politician in recent memory. I worry that Rand Paul is no better, or that if there are forces controlling Obama's hand, that they won't similarly control his.

What's even worse than that is that I don't even know if our country can exist under the style of government that I want for it. It might well be that we're all better off in a socialist nation, where the government is indeed the caretaker for all, and that in order to have a nation that works, we should just succumb to that. It's not Constitutional, and I would pray that if we were in fact headed that direction, we'd at least try to ratify the Constitution, or abolish it altogether in lieu of its replacement.

Surely, the minarchist type of federal government the Constitution prescribes would lead to a far harsher nation with fewer large infrastructure problems, fewer social programs... but with it, we would indeed get far more freedom. And at least for me, sitting in the comfort of my living room, typing on the DARPA supplied internet, on the Macbook borne of foreign labor, paid for with the government's wage protections, fair and equitable treatment, and contract enforcement, that price is worth paying... but I fear it would be too high for too many, and the end result is a loop back around to exactly where we are.

Anyway, apologies for the rant. I don't intend to make a point, or convert anyone's political beliefs, or even elucidate anyone to my own political beliefs, which I have little confidence in at the moment -- but your reply resonated with me, and I felt it deserved a sincere response, even if it amounts to very little.

To clear any possible misunderstandings, I am not from and I don't live in the US. I was not talking about US-specific governments, agencies or individuals as I believe such phenomena have no nationality.

The "father" example you are giving has been the very exact argument people have against this kind of situations: We don't want any structure to act like it is our father or mother while your daughter (and most daughters and sons) will probably start crying if you tell them you are going to go away from their life.

As a society we have agreed (actively or passively) to a certain set of laws, that should be it. No Uncle Sam or Brother Jonathan.

Can we stop pushing these lines everywhere, everytime there is a topic on the NSA ? It's really starting to get boring, and the OP was saying more than that anyway.

Who have they actually come for?

What group is no longer here because the CIA/NSA have decided they shouldn't exist?

That's classified.

I get that this answer might seem overly terse, but there are a group of unnamed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay sitting there, not getting the benefit of due process that they are obligated.

Under the NDAA, the president has the authority to enshrine anyone he wishes, subject to zero oversight, to a similar fate.

Under the PATRIOT Act, we've bombed American Citizens suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future without the benefit of oversight, due process, or any of the Constitutional protections ordinarily afforded to American citizens.

Aside from that, there are far more instances throughout history, but those are the (IMO) most egregious offenses under the current administration at least.

So no one, then?

Aside from those prisoners in Gitmo, the drone-struck Americans, anyone who happened to be near them, and the thousands of others we've killed with drones, you're right -- absolutely no one.

So how would you rewrite the poem?

    First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a terrorist.
    Then they came for the enemy combatants, and I didn't speak because I wasn't an enemy combatant.
    Then they came for the traitors, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a traitor.

? I'm just trying to see which part of this is not 200+ years old. Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors? If that's the case, then how do you build a bridge from "terrorists" to "random law-abiding citizen", which is the point of the poem.

> Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors?

There were a couple hundred years in our nation's history where we weren't drone striking American citizens without due process for crimes they might have committed in the future.

That should probably be in there somewhere.

Can you stop begging the question for just one moment so we can have a real conversation, instead of you just shoving platitudes down my throat?

A) drone strikes are just a means to an end, the end being "attack our enemies".

B) The people being attacked are classified as "enemy combatants". Do you realize what this means, as far as a "due process" conversation goes? We're not about to start trying enemy soldiers on the battlefield for breaking laws they're not even bound by (our laws). It's a perfectly reasonable conversation to talk about whether or not the people being attacked are actually "enemy combatants", but can we have that conversation, instead of you just ignoring the implications of what you're saying?

It's immensely hard to talk to people who speak in your terms, do you know that? Your cause is hurt by this behavior, not helped. If someone like me can't stand it, just imagine the feelings of someone in actual power, capable of doing something about it.

Some of those killed were designated enemy combatants. Many of those killed by drone strikes were not, and were simply nearby.

Regardless, the protocol for declaring someone enemy combatant should not be opaque to all but the executive branch. I don't necessarily have a problem with our government interceding to prevent a terrorist attack, but the taking of a life that might be innocent should be more informed than just adding a name to a list -- we've seen the efficacy of that with the No Fly List, where someone whose name was only similar to an actual terrorist was disallowed the ability to fly (to hilarious results).

The ability of a single person to add someone's name to a kill list that will be carried out with zero Congressional oversight is a cessation of ultimate power to the Executive Branch. There is simply no arguing that point whatsoever. The only 'check' on that power is that we trust the Executive to be forthright. Perhaps that's good enough for the current administration, perhaps it isn't, but it certainly bodes poorly for the future.

> If someone like me can't stand it, just imagine the feelings of someone in actual power, capable of doing something about it.

I interact with people in power, and demagoguery is the norm, even behind closed doors. That I happen to actually believe the points that I'm making is probably the only distinction between what I'm saying here and the words of the average politician.

That you, in particular, find it infuriating isn't terribly surprising. Having looked through your comment profile, the pattern I've noticed isn't one terribly indicative of someone tolerant or especially well-mannered.

In the interest of community preservation, I'm happy to just agree to disagree, and suggest that we should discontinue further conversation.

> The ability of a single person to add someone's name to a kill list that will be carried out with zero Congressional oversight is a cessation of ultimate power to the Executive Branch.

According to the Constitution, that's how it works. Congress can pass laws to require the executive branch pass these lists through congress, but they haven't, so the executive branch doesn't have to. That's how the Constitution was designed.

Want to change it? Petition your congressman/woman.

Drone strikes may be new, but killing "Americans" isn't.

See: Trail of Tears, Civil War, and many, many, many other instances where the US government sponsored the killing of "Americans" (citizenship hasn't always been this cut/dry thing it is today).

They've silenced over 200,000 people with national security letters. Nick Merrill is one example.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpRp-D5v5NQl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT2fQu50sMs

Brewster Kahle is another from archive.org:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/06/what-...

I can't tell if you're being funny or not by linking to two YouTube videos, a New Yorker article, and a Wikipedia page that doesn't exist.

Also, that's not the kind of silencing we're talking about. We're talking about the act of blackmail using data collected by spying programs.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article works in non-SSL mode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill works, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Merrill doesn't.

Edit: more oddly, they now both appear to work?

Edit: far less oddly, it looks like the OP just forgot to include the trailing 'L', and I hadn't noticed.

I apologise for the quality of the sources of information. I can't find alternatives. It's interesting to note Obama's speech on NSL's from 2005 five minutes in to the first youtube video. As an authority on such issues he should be held in high enough regard for you.

"Then they came for the blah, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a blah."

In responding to the above, you said: "What group is no longer here because the CIA/NSA have decided they shouldn't exist?"

The absence of voices contesting this apparatus is used as a defence for the NSL's and a similar mechanism used under FISA.

200,000 is a huge number. Their dissenting voices don't exist legally, they cannot speak out.

Imagine this: "I didn't speak out for the blah because I got a national security letter."

I see no mention of blackmail, who were you talking to about blackmail?

200,000 people haven't been silenced, as there are ways of challenging an NSL in court.

Also, 192k requests were sent, not 200,000 people silenced.

Sensationalism ruins this debate. Please stop.

Do you accept that the NSL is a gag order in addition to a request? 200k was a low ball. Your figure of 192k is from 2006. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter

I guess you're getting down voted because it's an emotional issue. But you're right, so far, the number of people targeted by the NSA/CIA with extreme methods (i.e. drone strikes, imprisonment without trial, rendition, warrantless spying, blackmail) seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about.

That doesn't mean it's okay. Think about what's going on here. The USA has basically created for itself a secret police with powers that, in practise, are very close to those of an agency like the KGB or the Stasi. Sure, as you point out, these new powers are not being used to cart people away wholesale. But you should still be very nervous.

Even now, we might be past the point of no return. That's not just hyperbole on my part. The way I see it, it's very easy to get into in a kind of ratchet situation where powers and abuses can only increase over time. We may already be there. It's politically very difficult to reduce powers for any agency, let one that pushes both military and law enforcement buttons. Even if calls for reform get taken seriously, they may be dealt with by sacrificing a scapegoat and making superficial changes. Even if there was a strong serious concerted political effort to reform the NSA and CIA do you really trust them not to interfere with it? Do you strongly believe, without any doubt, that the NSA and CIA are above blackmailing their own politicians?

> seems relatively small, and it seems to be mostly restricted to non-Americans or people that the American public don't really care about.

For what it's worth - that's the very point of the poem, that it always starts with the undesirables, minorities, or peoples to whom the population wouldn't object to. The tacit implication there is that those people were all portrayed as evil first, allowing public acceptance of their abuse.

For the most part, even after Hitler started murdering Jews, he was still enjoyed pretty strong popularity.

The poem is one massive slippery-slope fallacy, and it's also a poem, not reality. It's fiction. Just like 1984, Brave New World, or any other literary piece that gets bandied about these days. Absolutely zero anchor in reality.

And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists". The US isn't going after people based on what they look like or who their parents are, they're going after people based on what they do and say. I know, it's shocking, that when you try to enter into violent combat with a nation-state, that nation-state is going to kill you. Those assholes.

> And "Jews" isn't the same as "terrorists".

According to who, exactly? Who's to say that it isn't simply a placeholder for 'arab', or 'sheikh'?

It's worth noting that I don't think it actually is, and I don't know of any specific abuses of the powers enumerated by the aforementioned acts -- but the point isn't what they're doing is wrong (though it is), it's that we've allowed the government to grant itself the authority powerful enough that, if they wanted to start killing Jews, or Arabs, or Sheikhs, or whomever, they could. The NDAA and Patriot Act give them the authority to do so.

That is a very, very scary proposition to me. That we have abused such power in the past only lends further credence that we will again in the future, and while I don't mean to offend anyone's sensibilities in suggesting that our current administration is evil, there is literally nothing in place now to prevent us from electing a Hitleresque tyrant and him getting away with committing the slaughter of millions.

"Slippery slope fallacy" is an odd accusation as well, considering that somewhat accurately synopsizes many distinct periods in our world's history leading up to genocide, politicide and democide.

I'm sorry that you're so cavalier about the subject, but there's a very real argument that this is exactly the kind of authority the Constitution was designed to limit any single branch of the government from having with its separation of powers. If the executive branch has the power to detain or kill anyone it wishes with no Legislative or Judicial oversight, and the executive branch controls the US military, then there is literally no power that we can pretend it doesn't have.

You're basically scared because someone other than you has power. It's sad you can't see past that fear.

That's an entirely meritless accusation. I wouldn't want the power if it were handed to me, and frankly, if I were "in charge" of everything, the very first thing I would do is repeal any and every law that places anyone above, outside of, or beyond the purview of the law.

Our nation was founded on the concept that nobody is exempt from the law, and the NDAA, Patriot Act and laws of their ilk are antithetical to that core tenet. They destroy the fifth amendment entirely, and do severe harm to other rights.

That said, on the quality of your reply, I'll end this conversation here. Regards.

Our nation was not founded on the concept that nobody is exempt from the law (see: Presidential pardons). That's an intellectually dishonest thing to say. What you suggest is quite simply stupid - should every enemy combatant be given the chance to take the lives of US citizens, just in the effort to give that combatant a trial? Hold trials on the battlefield?

Your problem boils down to the fact that there are people out there in this world who have power, and you do not. This bothers you. The NDAA and the Patriot Act weren't created in a bubble, and if you actually want to understand what caused them to be written other than malice (seriously?), you ought to read more about the history surrounding the times, as well as current events today.

Sometimes the US government goes too far, but not nearly as often, or nearly as extreme as you keep saying, and frankly it's just sad that someone like you can have even an infinitesimally small sway in how this country is run.

I'll respond to the little bit of your post that isn't a baseless ad hominem.

Presidential pardons have legal validity for purposes of righting wrongdoings, travesties of justice, and for preventing excessive punishment of those unjustly sentenced for political crimes, etc. It's stated intent is to correct injustice, not perpetrate it.

I'm not suggesting that every enemy combatant deserves trial -- in an active war, it is ridiculous to suggest that bullets are halted mid-air to conduct court. It is equally naive to suggest that the government is justified in the slaughter of everyone who might ever do us harm.

Has it been abused, certainly. Show me a law that hasn't. The difference between pardon and NDAA-type of laws is that the latter has no redeeming characteristic. Its sole purpose is to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, without oversight, without scrutiny, without potential for remediation. There is no justice to be found in its exertion, even when used for noble intent.

There are, or at least were, procedures in place that would have prevented such atrocity from occurring, but those procedures were nullified by the NDAA. There is no need for government oversight whatsoever, nor any reason to suggest that whomever happens to be president cannot simply murder whomever he wants under the guise of national interest.

I understand that the NDAA and PATRIOT Act weren't created in a bubble, but as you have implored me to "study the history" (which I am well aware of, and don't understand what I might have said to convince you of my ignorance of an era that I was actively involved in), I would implore you to study the documents that led up to our nation's independence.

Overwhelmingly, they point to the foulness of this sort of unchecked power, and the founding fathers literally made every effort to ensure that this sort of abuse never came to pass.

Whether or not the NDAA or PATRIOT Act is ever used is irrelevant, their very existence negates the tenets of our central foundation of governance.

> Sometimes the US government goes too far, but not nearly as often, or nearly as extreme as you keep saying

The federal government goes beyond its Constitutional authority literally every single day in this nation. The government exerts federal control in California to arrest the proprietors of legal marijuana dispensaries. They do this by abusing the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" -- and by abusing the 'among', have defined that to mean that they can control any action within a state, whether or not that action may extend beyond a state's borders.

The federal government further abuses the 'Necessary and Proper' clause to extend its powers beyond their section 8 enumerated powers.

There are literally countless examples of federal overreach, some of which are gaining ground in recent times, like the overturning of DOMA (Thanks Obama). I'm sorry you don't see them, or don't see them as the overreach I so strongly believe them to be.

Either way, I won't further engage in a conversation predicated on your baseless attacks due to a relatively minor disagreement on merits. I would encourage you to learn how to converse with others without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Your views aren't invalid just because I disagree with them, however strongly I might, and you'd do well to acknowledge as much.

There's so much wrong with what you've written (I've listed some of them below), I honestly don't know what to do. I think I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me.

* Ad hominems would require I disqualify your argument based on who you are. Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do.

* Presidential pardons don't have any stated intents.

* The NDAA's sole purpose is not to vest a single person with the power to do literally whatever he wishes, whoever not whomever/

* Documents written over 200 years ago would have to be abstracted to the point of mootness to be relevant in the world we live in today.

* The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.

* Same goes with the elastic clause. You're just repeating ancient complaints - people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today.

I'll say what I said before: you're not in power, and that scares you. Your reaction (a natural one) is to lash out at those who are in power, and come up with some kind of conspiratorial explanation of why the world is the way it is. Why? Because at least, if SOMEONE is in charge, then there's a plan, even if that plan is nefarious. To you, and people like you, the idea that events aren't being planned or orchestrated is a terrifying thought. No one in charge?! So you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night.

But that doesn't make them true.

It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point.

> you're not in power, and that scares you.

> Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do.

Let's compare and contrast those, for a moment, shall we?

> The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.

The Interstate Commerce Clause has a definition, and whatever its definitions where, judicial precedence precludes it from trumping a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action.

> people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today.

False. There is document stare decisis on record indicating a massive shift in these interpretations under FDR's reign. While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument.

> It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point.

You haven't actually illustrated any points that are supported by fact. You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable.

In short, I shouldn't have responded to this post, but for some odd reason, I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth.

This is the last topic I'll post on the matter, and I apologize to you and everyone else on HN for not having quit some time ago.

> Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action.

> While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument.

> You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable.

> I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth.

The first quote is in response to me saying, "The Constitution is, by definition, constitutional."

The second quote is you saying, "I could prove this but I won't." It reminds me of the schoolyard habit of claiming to know what a big word means, but then saying, "I'm not telling you!"

The third quote is exactly the kind of thing you've been railing against in our correspondence - that is, the focus on self rather than content.

The fourth quote is functionally an appeal to authority ("I've studied this for a long time, therefore I must know what I'm talking about!"). In reality, you may just a) suck at studying, or b) have caught yourself up in a feedback loop where your confirmation bias prevents you from actually learning anything.

Are you proud of yourself here? Have you presented the best form of your argument? What do you think I believe, at this point? I know your argument, but what is mine?

I just don't understand how a human being who thinks as much as you apparently do on this topic can write so little about it when asked explicitly to elaborate.

Fine. You win, because I can't let this go on as being seen as possibly true.

> The first quote is in response to me saying, "The Constitution is, by definition, constitutional."

False equivalency. What you said was, in fact:

> The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.

Because today is repeal day... The 18th amendment is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional, right? Clearly, wrong. Judicial precedence supersedes it. The 18th amendment, and resultant Volstead act, was repealed by the 21st amendment. Per your assertion, the 18th amendment still holds Constitutional weight because it is part of the Constitution, despite the notion that it was expressly repealed.

Whether or not the 18th had been expressly repealed, it wouldn't even necessarily matter. If the 21st amendment did not expressly repeal the 18th, but instead stated less explicitly that "the sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors is not prohibited", then it would still supersede the provisions of the 18th amendment on the grounds of judicial precedence.

Judicial precedence applies to amendments, contracts, compacts, stare decisis and other forms of precedent. As such, the 21st amendment would, with that pithy statement, _de_ _facto_ have repealed the 18th amendment on grounds of simply being newer. The newer law, where contradictory to the older law, takes precedence.

The Commerce Clause, on those grounds, cannot infringe either states' rights or any of the amendments enumerated within the Bill of Rights, as each were ratified into the Constitution ex post facto which, under judicial precedence, prohibits its effect being interpreted as you've stated.

Beyond that, I also stated this:

> Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action.

In the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, under much political pressure, having recently denied Constitutional rewrites to FDR, who threatened to replace the whole lot, had to bend language to make the written word match the intent. "Regulate", which had always been interpreted to mean "make regular" was now being interpreted as "to prohibit", despite almost 150 years of precedent to the contrary. "Commerce", which had previously been interpreted in the same way one might interpret "trade", as in bulk transactions, had to be construed into a far broader term, indicating "any possible economic transaction", and "among", as in "among the several states" had to be construed to mean "within any state", despite, again, ~100+ years of contrary guidance, much of which is also codified by founder intent.

Common Sense, the Federalist Papers and even Hamilton's (the more expansionist founder of the day) papers all collect to codify the intent of the day that trade regulatory authority should be non-interventionist, and act as a bulwark against trade exploitation -- you see, in the day, the common maliase of organized trade was the lack of a central authority to settle extra-state disputes. I could order a truckload of ale from a manufacturer in Virginia, have it shipped to Maryland, and then simply refuse to pay. The state courts of Maryland would be beholden to me, as a local business, so the Virginian would not get a fair trial in Maryland, and vice versa.

The power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" was expressly solicited as protection from mass exploitation in commerce.

> I just don't understand how a human being who thinks as much as you apparently do on this topic can write so little about it when asked explicitly to elaborate.

For the same reason I won't expound further on the other points, because I believe you're intractable on the subject. I haven't made attempts to impugn your character, or called you names, and it genuinely confuses me that you think resorting to such tactics improves _your_ position.

Because I believe you are unswayable, I only correct this point here in the event that some unfortunate reader might stumble upon your points, and actually believe that the Commerce clause has the intent that you suggest. It doesn't frankly, and your assertion that it does exposes more than a single fault in your logic, rather, it exposes the very foundation upon which your logic is predicated. You've illustrated an ignorance of several of the core legal principles upon which the Constitution relies, and dismissed them in favor of false equivalency and name-calling, while accusing me of failing to make the best form of the argument.

Now, with that out of the way, I may later return to respond to the other points on which you're factually incorrect, but I will not engage you further in any other regard.

Again, My sincere apologies to anyone on HN who might be reading this tripe.

Alright, Jesus. It's like you took a vocabulary word-jumble and decided to throw meaning to the wind. Here we go down the rabbit hole:

> False equivalency. What you said was, in fact:

That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency. In your example, you go on to mention the 18th amendment, which is part of the constitution, and is therefore constitutional. And it is. But so is the 21st amendment.

> blah blah blah judicial precedence (you say it a bunch)

You missed this concept entirely. In no way does judicial precedence rewrite the Constitution whatsoever. It provides an interpretation of the Constitution, as that's the formal function of the judicial branch - to judge the laws of the land. Crazy, I know, but you don't say "judicial precedence has repealed law x y and z". That's not how the term is used, and so no, judicial precedence has not repealed the 18th amendment. No one says that, as that's not how the term is used.

Furthermore, you go on to mention the time in which a law was passed. That has absolutely nothing to do with judicial precedence whatsoever. Judicial precedence is when a judge sets a standard for how a law is interpreted. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the novelty of the law. So, this is not true:

> The Commerce Clause, on those grounds, cannot infringe either states' rights or any of the amendments enumerated within the Bill of Rights, as each were ratified into the Constitution ex post facto which, under judicial precedence, prohibits its effect being interpreted as you've stated.

It's actually kind of laughable that you think this is true, because of your massive beef with the PATRIOT act. Weren't you just saying how unconstitutional the PATRIOT act is, and how it steps on all kinds of other laws?

You're not even internally consistent.

> For the same reason I won't expound further on the other points, because I believe you're intractable on the subject.

It's fairly ironic you say that, given how similarly I feel towards you. I'm fairly certain you've built up a bubble of ignorance, and anyone who challenges that bubble is, well, treated as you've been treating me. You pretend like I've been insulting your character (I don't know you character, so that's literally impossible). The little I've been able to discern about you has been based on my observations of what you've been writing, and how offended you get when I've challenged your opinion.

It will be readily apparent to any poor soul who decides to read your text how little you know of the topic at hand, and this is not what you call an "insult". It's an observation. You think the commerce clause has been rendered moot by other constitutional amendments, you think the Federalist Papers are worth reading beyond their historical significance, you think "judicial precedence" is when new laws supersede (the word I suspect you're looking for in the first place) old, and you get super offended on the Internet over what amounts to normal conversation.

But please, we'll continue this until you tire, because I'm going to break your bubble of ignorance - I'm determined to. I want you to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't actually know very much on this topic, and to admit that you aren't nearly educated enough to say what's wrong with this country.

We'll start simple - what is it exactly you think I'm intractable on? I suspect you haven't the faintest idea anymore, if you ever actually did understand my viewpoint (again, this is an observation and not an insult - I can't believe I have to label these things for you).

To keep things simple, I'll again refute the factual errors alone.

> That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency.

Wrong again. "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution" != "The Constitution is Constitutional". It isn't true generally, it isn't true practically, and it definitely is not true in this instance. Beyond that, the deliberate misconstruing of its meaning, a meaning for which we have clear precedent and case law, is simply farcical. You are wrong here, I've explained why, and your refusal to accept that isn't a rebuttal.

> In no way does judicial precedence rewrite the Constitution whatsoever.

Yes, it does. Ratifications to the Constitution, and in fact any contract, defer in authority to the more recent amendment wherever terms are equally asserted. The term for it is "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which states, as I asserted, that subsequent laws repeal predecessors that disagree with them. The recency of precedent matters, whether you care to accede that it does or not.

> It's actually kind of laughable that you think this is true, because of your massive beef with the PATRIOT act. Weren't you just saying how unconstitutional the PATRIOT act is, and how it steps on all kinds of other laws?

I assume the point you're making here is that I'm being inconsistent by asserting that recency reigns supreme, so the PATRIOT act, being newer than the Constitution, should be most current legal interpretation? Because that is easily falsifiable.

16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 states the following:

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law 
    cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute 
    runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Since the passage of the 21st amendment, Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the sale or transport of intoxicating liquors, because it would be unconstitutional. The most recent stance, in the Constitution, states that the sale and/or transport of liquor is allowed, so if Congress were to pass a law prohibiting that, it would be void. It would not, under Constitution scrutiny, _even be a law at all_, despite it being on the books and in the Congressional register. No citizen would be obligated to uphold it, no police bound to uphold it, no courts, etc.

For this reason, where the PATRIOT act infringes the Constitution, it is null, void. The language comprising the PATRIOT act, specifically as referring to the 'secret lists' that lack oversight have been found unconstitutional on no less than two occasions, and predecessors to the PATRIOT act were struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality. Regardless, Congress passed it again, with minor tweaks to confuse the issue, which was found unconstitutional as well, for which the mitigation was the insertion of the FISA court, to provide oversight, which is currently what's being challenged in various places as well.

If the PATRIOT act wishes to supersede portions of the Constitution, there's a Constitutionally prescribed process for that, and it's ratification. The process of ratification is not the same as simply "passing a new law" through Congress, but I'll leave the procedure as an exercise for you to Google, as it isn't terribly relevant to this discussion.

> You pretend like I've been insulting your character

> you're not in power, and that scares you.

> you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about

> I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me

> you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night

> it's just sad that someone like you can have even an infinitesimally small sway in how this country is run

Those are character evaluations, that you claim not to be doing. Well, actually, they're character judgements, and one of them is a self-affirmation of your own intractability, which is something you're apparently trying to push onto me.

> I want you to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't actually know very much on this topic

You have no idea how much I know on the subject. As every counter you've offered is literally riddled with falsifiability, I don't know how you can continue to make the assertion that I'm under informed here. Regardless, I don't wish to impugn your character as baselessly as you have mine, so I demur, but saying things like "[when a law was enacted] has absolutely nothing to do with judicial precedence whatsoever" and then expect one to take you seriously as you insult their intelligence... it's a bit of a tough sell.

> and how offended you get when I've challenged your opinion.

I'm not offended that you've challenged my opinions. You really haven't. To suggest that you've challenged my opinions is to suggest that by asserting that 2+2=42, you've challenged math.

As for answering your questions, I confess, I really don't desire to continue this conversation any further, and haven't for some time. This thread is a disgrace to HN, as has been both of our conduct. I've tried, and failed, to conduct the argument civilly. I'll concede that if you're trolling, as I suspect, you've won. I've been trolled into violating my own stop-loss on three separate occasions, but of course, there's an XKCD for that, and I'm as human as the next guy who argues on the internet.

You do this thing, when you write, where you take what you're trying to argue, and presuppose it as correct. You've done this in a number of places.

First, you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all. Had I actually written something like that, you'd be correct, but I didn't. The disagreement we're having revolves around that fact, but instead of actually arguing the point, you simply assumed it to be what you said, and then continued to draw conclusions. Every conclusion you've made on that topic after you presupposed what I said as something I didn't actually say is therefore incorrect. If you want to argue, then the point you'd be arguing is whether or not I said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution". The rest of your argument hinges on it, and I don't believe I said that at all.

Then, you begin talking about "judicial precedence". I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law". A judicial precedence is, as far as these [0][1][2][3][4] sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law. This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise. This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments. A ruling may interpret a particular part of a law or the Constitution in a certain way, but it doesn't literally or figuratively "rewrite" said law. Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling. THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves.

Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written. There aren't "revisions" of laws, where you have to know which law was passed when. There is one set of laws. This set of laws gets changed over time - rewritten, modified, redacted, etc. There is, at any given time, only one body of text that constitutes federal law[5], and one body of text that constitutes state law[6]. Again, when a law is appended to these bodies of text, this has nothing to do with how or when rulings on these laws are passed down. When a law is passed, and when it's first ruled on (setting precedence, as in judicial precedence), are completely irrelevant.

Then you start getting confused, and go on a bit of a rant. You're in the middle of talking about judicial precedence, and you seem to kind of mold that in with Jurisprudence, which deals with the constitutionality of laws. It seems to me you think they're related? They're not, just to be clear. You also don't seem clear on what happens to a law when it's found unconstitutional. You say, "It would not even be a law at all" which isn't true. It'd be a law. Just an unconstitutional one, at least until a higher court rules, or another court of equal level rules differently.

And then we get to the part of the comment where you act like my observations are without cause or justification.

Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic. It's that very certainty that undermines your credibility, however. People who are actually educated on the topic of constitutional law don't have your confidence. It's not a very consensus-oriented topic, even among experts. I think you know where I'm going with this, but in case you don't, here are some links: [7][8][9]. Suffice it to say, you share all the hallmarks of a fanatic. And I know you think this is a personal attack, and not relevant, but I just urge you to do more than you usually do for this specific belief.

    [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
    [1] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-meant-by-judicial-precedence
    [2] - http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-judicial-precedent
    [3] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Judicial+precedent
    [4] - http://nuweb2.northumbria.ac.uk/bedemo/Sources_of_English_Law/page_10.htm
    [5] - http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
    [6] - http://leg1.state.va.us/000/src.htm
    [7] - http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/people-are-overly-confident-in-their-own-knowledge-despite-errors.html
    [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    [9] - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/10/19/when-in-doubt-shout-why-shaking-someones-beliefs-turns-them-into-stronger-advocates/

Edit: I can't reply any further (no 'reply' message appears), but it genuinely frightens me that you've written laws. I'm going to live on the assumption that you've just lied about that.

> you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all.

> The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.

The second quoted statement there is an interpretation of a part of the Constitution. "Any usage" of a part of the Constitution is not necessarily Constitutional. The Commerce Clause has a meaning, but we should be able to agree that "any usage" of the text is not necessarily valid. I could use the text to suggest that the federal government, for example, has authority over interstate that are not in the United States. I could apply the law to apply to any solid state hard drives that happen to be on an interstate by contorting the statement "among the several states."

So, am I wrong in suggesting that your interpretation is an interpretation? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution?

That you later change the statement to the broader "The Constitution is Constitutional" is a false dichotomy. The narrower does not agree with the broad, despite your suggestion that they are equal. They are not.

> I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law"

No, I'm not. I am admittedly watering it down for your benefit though.

> A judicial precedence is, as far as these \sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law.

That is correct, but far from complete.

> This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise.

That is incorrect, and I've already explained how, but I'll expound. The federal register lists every law on the books, whether valid or invalid, constitutional or unconstitutional. The register, as a result, has many contradictory laws, and statutory interpretation must be used to divine which has bearing over which ones do not. A first principal of statutory interpretation is leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, which uses recency as the proverbial 'tie-breaker' against otherwise co-equal provisions. The newer law invalidates the older one. I'll concede that it does not in fact rewrite it, in the sense that the original law is not physically altered, but for all practical purposes, it loses any gravity in lieu of the newer, and is considered all but re-written, invalidated, nulled, or whatever way you'd like to put it that doesn't require further arguing of semantics.

> This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments.

The applicability of the Commerce Clause toward the constraint of the Bill of Rights has everything to do with the ratification of Constitutional amendments. On what grounds do you suggest that they do not?

> Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling.

This is correct.

> THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves.

This is incorrect. If a law is passed on Tuesday that allows for the theft of sandwiches, and a law is passed on Wednesday that prohibits the theft of sandwiches, the theft of sandwiches is illegal. I don't know why this concept is so baffling to you, but this is established law. The latter may not specifically repeal the former, though it does supersede it. The result is that there would be two laws in the register, one allowing for the theft of sandwiches, and the other disallowing the theft of sandwiches. Only one of those laws has any teeth. I'll leave is as an exercise to the reader over which one it is.

> Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written.

While not attempting to invoke deference, I have authored or co-authored parts of laws and amendments that have been enacted within the state of Maryland, and have been involved (though as more of a support role than active) in research and construction of legal arguments successfully employed in the MD circuit courts, the MD Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but this really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be. That I've had to explain the concept of implied repeal no less than three times tells me that you're not arguing from a solid foundation. Saying it doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't.

> Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic.

Well, by comparison, I can speak with a high (very high) degree of certainty that you are wrong.

You say things like 'time has no bearing on precedent', which is patently, provably false. You say things like 'there aren't "revisions" of laws' as easily as saying that trees don't have leaves. You go on to say that because those statements are true, that they have no bearing on the ratification of the Constitution, which is, again, provably false; That exact argument has been made before the Supreme Court, and won. In short, if I'm wrong, then so is every judge and justice.

You assert that Congress can pass a law that supersedes the Constitution, and while, as a practical matter, I concede that in practice they often do, and then you misconstrue the timeliness of judicial preference to assert that any law that Congress passes supersedes the Constitution because it's more recent.

That really, really isn't how it works, and despite how well-written and confidently stated your arguments are, they are built upon a foundation of exactly nothing. It's like we're writing an application here but refusing to accept that 'scope' exists, or that it has any bearing on whether a variable is available within a given method.

You go on to assert that I'm intractable, despite a demonstrable history of acknowledging when I'm wrong. You go on to assert that you're not intractable, despite having previously admitted to being so. This argument is entirely fruitless, and I honestly can't imagine how continuing it isn't just feeding the trolls, so if your intent is to keep dragging me back in, which I admit that I'm vulnerable to, you'll have to try quite a bit harder next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

In a generation or two, those positions will be staffed by completely different people, as the "THEY" of today retire.

When the "THEY" of tomorrow are handed the keys to this vast panopticon that they didn't have to build themselves, how will "THEY" behave. No one can be sure.

Consider the men that inherited the ash heap of Europe after WWI. What did those men do?

They started WWII.

If you think the world today is anything like post-WWI Europe, you're either immensely blind, or you don't know what post-WWI Europe looked like.

I don't think parent was equating current times with post-WWI era Europe in the least. He was simply saying that people who inherited a challenging/dangerous geo-political landscape went on to create an unimaginably worse geo-political landscape.

The current challenge is global terrorism, but the swing towards authoritarianism by Western governments may end up being FAR worse than the threat of terrorism.

Then what he was saying is immensely broad and basically useless as guidance for today. "Bad thing happened at some point in history" is worthless, as a sentence.

And we're not swinging towards authoritarianism. That's absolutely a lie. Want to know the irony in you saying that? That you can say that, and not fear your door being knocked down and you being questioned. You don't know authoritarianism if you think the US is headed that way. Authoritarianism is not being able to criticize the government. Authoritarianism is the inability to change the government. Authoritarianism is a very loaded word, and your misuse of it only clouds the real problems the US government has, of which there are undeniably many.

People like you who go chicken-little constantly by bandying about words like "authoritarianism" create huge political blockage, which causes government standstills like what we're seeing in congress today. Lawmakers are afraid to do anything, because every time they try, it ends with some lawmaker or another being portrayed as eating children under a bridge somewhere, and his/her constituents buy it enough to oust him/her, despite just trying to make this country a better place.

Well, just because I can say what I want today, doesn't mean the same will be true tomorrow. We're already past the point that people are beginning to self-censor out of fear of the surveillance state. We already have indefinite detentions, torture, secret laws with secret interpretations, and state-sanctioned kidnappings.

Looking across the pond at England, they went from filtering the internet to block child porn, to filtering the internet to block extremists in less than one year. You have UK law enforcement harassing and intimidating legitimate journalism about the out of control surveillance state.

Maybe none of that is alarming to you, and maybe you don't think any of those things are along the road that leads to an authoritarian state, but I and many others feel differently. Either way, just because my perception of events is different that yours doesn't make my perception a lie.

> We already have indefinite detentions, torture, secret laws with secret interpretations, and state-sanctioned kidnappings.

And have had them for many many years. Nothing new. We committed a genocide against a people in the 1900s, and enslaved another people in the 1800s, both of which I think are much worse things to do to people than where we are now. If you chart the kinds of freedoms people living in the US have throughout the US's existence, would you really try to say the average person is less free today? Obviously we're not done working on being better at that, and absolutely we slip, but I'm so sick and tired of this attitude that we're moving into a totalitarian state, when we only in the last 100ish years LEFT what amounted to one.

And a small point of order but obviously no, my perception isn't any more valid than yours, but there is an objective perception, and if your perception is not aligned with that objective flagpost, then yes, your perception is a lie.

If you know anything about neurology or psychology, you'll know that there is no "objective perception". There is science, but that's about repeatability, and the complexity of geopolitics makes situations difficult to reproduce in exactitude. We make assessment based on different sets of experiences and knowledge, and our perception is influenced by our past and present.

No two people have the same life experience.

The very rawest form of perceptual subjectivity can be demonstrated by the interference of vision and sound caused by the McGurk effect. Search youtube for an example.

Your argument is invalid. That there are features of "authoritarianism" currently missing doesn't in any way show that we're not "swinging towards authoritarianism", any more than not seeing redwoods outside your car windows means you're not driving towards California.

Being in a place where "authoritarianism" is one bad actor away is not a good place to be. If you feel that we 1) are not in that such a place, and 2) are not likely to be any time soon, then feel free to make that case.

Which bad actor would it take to put us into an authoritarian state? The president? No, congress would impeach him. Congressional leaders? No, the supreme court would overrule them. The chief justice? No, congress would constitutionalize a law if it's important enough. Checks and balances still exist.

I don't see any position of power that could act in such a way so as to gain unilateral control of the US government.

I'm not confident that we are in such a position, but I think we're closer than I am comfortable with. Imagine J. Edgar Hoover heading the NSA, "under" a weak president.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/17/turnkey_totalitarianism

I don't think the NSA is an inherently powerful organization.

If they actually were doing all the awful things people keep saying they could do, e.g. congressional blackmail, the person doing those things would be shut down in a heartbeat. Do you honestly think the head of ANY government organization couldn't be dealt with if they went legitimately rogue?

I think it's more plausible than you suggest.

Maybe, but I see no evidence to think that.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that, in the sense of things we would be more likely to see if it were the case than if it weren't. Many things from the Snowden docs; parallel construction; statements of congresspeople and courts that they were unaware or misinformed; Clapper flat out lying to Congress and not facing any charges... Nevertheless, I actually don't think it is the case that we are currently in that position; I am just nowhere near as confident of that as I would prefer to be.

None of what you just said suggests that we're one step away from authoritarianism.

Who said "one step"?

And yes, it more or less does suggest it. It is very far from conclusive or I would be a lot more worried.

It doesn't, but you did:

> Being in a place where "authoritarianism" is one bad actor away is not a good place to be.

If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean?

I wouldn't have considered many actions over the course of years by a well positioned bad actor "one step", but if you would then I grant you that wording - I may have been thinking you meant smaller "steps" than you did. I would be tremendously surprised if we were a single action away (though "single precipitating action", less surprised).

I really don't see how you can assert that the things I listed aren't more likely in an environment where those holding power in secret are extending and exercising that power, than in an environment where they are not, which is what it means to be evidence.

The view presented before the last line is counterproductive on so many levels. There's a nice name for it: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defeatism Acceptance of defeat without struggle.

The problem with the writing style where only the last line brings the change in mood is that a lot of people don't read everything.

The direct call to action is always a better approach.

Don't make the text full with wrong arguments and end it with "but." Just write the good arguments.

That's a bit like complaining that a joke isn't funny because you didn't bother to read/listen all the way to the punchline.

Yes, which means the joke isn't funny.

A better approach for what? Against defeat you mean? I only wanted to share some thoughts, I am not a leader of a social movement or anything.

If you stand to your "But I care. And I hope you start caring too" then writing the big wall of defeat acceptances ending with "but I care" will bring the opposite result to the one for which you claim that "you care." If you claim that you can't do anything you're certainly wrong. Your actions influence others too, otherwise your post wouldn't be on the top here.

Point taken, @Ihmar also suggested some first steps (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6854593).

Actually, you can do something. You can run a tor node (from your home mostly for free). You can also set up a bridge in 10 minutes via https://cloud.torproject.org/ for just $3 per month.

You might not directly see the good that you do, but you would be doing a significant amount of good! That tor node will push a lot of freedom bytes, and that bridge will help circumvent Iranian, Syrian and Chinese censorship.

"Because the truth is, I can’t do anything."

I think this is a lie (but I share your feelings). All the oppression is driven by the greed. Me myself and I is the norm. Not only in politics but a lot of people are turning to the believe that the world is all about self.

The selfish world doesn't care about others. But I can tell you from my own experience that if you care about others (everyone included without exception) people will change little by little.

Some things I have to remind myself all the time to achieve this:

  * Separate what people do from who they are
  * First blame yourself then others
  * Don't put yourself above others

People at the top are standing on the foundation of people at the bottom. I think both the people at the top and the bottom don't realize this all the time. This means that the top position is as strong as its foundation. And that the foundation can change what's happening at the top.

A small spark can cause an explosion.

But people at the top can act selfishly while people at the bottom need to establish a culture of also caring about each other. So at one side you have individuals with a lot of resources that don't need that much of help from others and at the other side you have individuals with no resources that also need to rely on others. Makes the game quite hard to win right from its beginning, no?

There's a term for the idea that Damon hit upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

...and the euphamism "Boiling Frogs."

The idea being that if you place frogs in a pool of water and raise the water temperature ever so slowly, the frogs will never notice that they are eventually being boiled alive, so they'll relax in the boiling water with complacency, as they are slowly cooked to death.

Not a good comparison. http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

It's a common idiom with an established meaning. The behaviour of actual frogs is immaterial.

It's wrong: frogs don't do what was described.

Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand when they sense danger.

*euphemism

Duly noted!

I wouldn't put too much thought into this. It's disinformation by the way. Psych-War.

>Because you don’t realise how much the barrier has moved. We didn’t care when we had to pay unreasonable taxes last year. We don’t care when politicians lie to us in front of our sad faces, time after time, election after election. We don’t care about other any other person’s rights. We don’t care about unfairness all over around us. We don’t care about any kind of oppression, anywhere in the world.

Hey, you arrogant ass. You're speaking for yourself. You may not care about them, but some of us do. Some of us are very angry at all the things you listed, and some of us try to do things about it. So while you're complacent, and you're okay with politicians lying to your sad little face, I strongly resent you projecting that same complacency onto me.

He is -very- clearly using the word "we" to describe "the masses", not HN readers.

No, I was referring to benihana and solely on him/her. Pfff...