Comment by gnaritas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnaritas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fact. Liberals in particular tend to see the purpose of government as providing options for those who don't have any other options because the market fails many people. As such social programs have existed for decades, it's factually self evident that the purpose of government as decided by the majority of the population, far exceeds protecting rights.

> Are public schools better than private schools?

Yes, they are far better than private school, for those who can't afford private schools.

> Is the US postal system better than FedEx?

Yes, it's far better than FedEx for those who live in place FedEx wouldn't and couldn't operate profitably because the postal system's aim isn't efficiency, it's coverage to "everyone" everywhere, something no market solution will offer because that's not a profitable mission.

So it sounds to me like you don't understand the purpose of government and don't understand why government is necessary in such situations, because you can't think outside of your own self and realize that markets don't serve everyone.

"The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is" - I believe you can see that the logical conclusion of that point of view is not a world you'd want to live in. In the US, at least, we have a Constitution that prevents the worst uses of government (though not as much as it used to).

Wrong, it's exactly the world I want to live in and the Constitution happens to agree, which is why we've amended it many a time, because the governed decided it was outdated. The notion that we should still be living by the dictates of men long dead is simply absurd, every generation has a right to decide for itself how its government works as it should, and as we have done.

So, if the majority votes to take away the rights of, oh I don't know, Japanese citizens -- that's a world you want to live in? You're not thinking clearly about the issue.

This is not uncommon for those like the above poster that think the constitution is a "living document".

That isn't a matter of "thought", it's a matter of fact. The constitution defines itself as a living document through its amendment procedures.

No, you're not thinking clearly; the constitution requires a super majority, and yes, if a super majority of people want to be governed a particular way, then they deserve that right, even if it's stupid; but you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution and would be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Without the notion that the rules can and do change for each generation, we'd still have slaves, thankfully, we don't live under a set of rules that can never be changed.

The will of the majority, and especially the super majority, is far better a thing to live under than the will of a handful of people from 238 years ago and any suggestion to the contrary is the definition of not thinking clearly.

"you'd never get a super majority to agree to such a stupid bigoted rule and it conflicts with other parts of the constitution" - oh really? Please open a US history book.

Please try and think for 2 seconds instead of responding to the first stupid idea that jumps into your brain; obviously I'm referring to passing such a law today, what happened historically isn't relevant. But you've shown your colors, you have no intention of actually hearing anything said to you because you're more interested in arguing utterly stupid diversions of the main topic. You ignored everything said except the one thing you could find to disagree with, you're a child. Goodbye.

It can easily happen again. You're the fool for thinking it can't.

As we've told you many times, you can't comment like this here. And certainly you can't create separate accounts to do it with. I've banned this one.

You're a longstanding user and we've bent over backwards not to ban you, despite serious abuses on your part. The situation isn't going to stay this way.

You're being absurd, all I said was "no you're not thinking clearly" in response to being accused of not thinking clearly. I was perfectly civil, and I created another account because of your unjustified slow ban on me. I've bent over backward conforming to your absolutely inhuman and ridiculous civility rules that expect people to never ever ever have the slightest conflict with one another. I behaved fine, check yourself, I didn't start this conflict, he did.

As you seem to be dying to ban me, then ban me already; I'll just bounce through a proxy and open another account, you know as well as I do there's really nothing you can do to keep me off the site and that your best option is to keep me civil, which I've been doing for quite a while, so drop the empty threats please.

Personal attacks like this (and "you're not thinking clearly", above) are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again. Instead, please (re-)read the HN guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all—regardless of the clarity of someone else's thinking.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

So you'd be perfectly ok with certain people being counted as only 3/5 of a person, and only white, landowning males having the right to vote? What about that whole slavery thing? Cause the Constitution shouldn't be changed and all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com