Hacker News Reader

Comment by systemvoltage | Hacker News Reader

Democrats and republicans alike, let's make sure we don't do this in USA. Please donate to EFF, FIRE, ACLU, etc. I feel like both parties are becoming more authoritarian. COVID-19 is here to stay for many years if not decades. We're not going to be able to wipe off the virus from the planet. Governments will continue to use this as an excuse to erode privacy.

This whole clampdown feels completely anti-Australian to me. Australians I've met are all very open minded, free spirited folks and they are always flipping a birdie to the government.

View on HN

Both parties _are_ becoming more authoritarian. The Economist just wrote a great summary of what's going on: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/04/the-threat-from...

ACLU has already been taken by the new American leftist orthodoxy. Turning the tide will require new thinking.

If you're trying to argue that the ACLU is espousing authoritarian causes, I'll have to ask for a citation.

A recent example: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-aclu-prior-to-covid-den...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

> Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.

> "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

The comment I replied to was asking for a citation on ACLU expousing authoritarian causes, which I did.

I fail to see how a US Supreme Court ruling is relevant to this.

I disagree that it's authoritarian and the US Supreme Court does as well.

What is your point?

Here is a good thread about the ACLU losing their way https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920

I shared multiple examples in this comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28451769

You're making the mistake of conflating Australia's COVID-19 restrictions with this legislation, when they're entirely unrelated. These digital powers were something Australia has sought for many years- under the good ol' reasons of terrorism and child safety.

The recent hubbub surrounding Australia's restrictive COVID-19 measures were possibly the best thing that could happen for our government- when our vaccination numbers rise, the public health restrictions will rollback, whilst the digital legislation will continue on unabated.

> You're making the mistake of conflating Australia's COVID-19 restrictions with this legislation, when they're entirely unrelated.

They’re related in that both are examples of a level of authoritarianism that seems extreme by the standards of other Western countries.

One can point to Australia's COVID death rates (~4 per 100,000) in comparison to the United States and the United Kingdom (~200 per 100,000) and make a case for that.

This legislation is far less justifiable, and should have no reason to exist. By associating the two issues, you are weakening the case against it.

There is some justification for nearly all authoritarian laws. One can point to the low crime rate in Singapore relative to the United States, for example.

People who oppose authoritarianism do so because it's not worth the cost, not because terrorism, child abuse, and disease aren't real problems.

Is it good practice compare a very large island that has 2/3rd the population of California, or it’s 1/10th the population density of the whole of the USA?

Seems like a flawed argument for at least a dozen more reasons.

I'm not interested in pursuing this debate, but I will point out that our highly urbanised population means that it's not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

I whole heartedly agree. I made a top-level comment, but I think it bears repeating: this is human nature at play.

Governmental parties are making plays for more power under the guise of working “for the people”, but sadly they are deluded.

Not sure what the answer is here, but just voicing that you’re 100% correct in my estimation. This pandemic and the tragedies yet to come will always be leveraged by those in power to gain more power.

ACLU is fully co-opted by the democrats for many years. Just like the SPLC, ADL etc. Look at where vast majority of their donations come from.

1. ACLU actively gives their data to Facebook:

https://www.axios.com/aclu-data-shares-facebook-4f1d21f4-d43...

https://fortune.com/2021/04/02/aclu-shares-data-facebook-thi...

2. ACLU claims Second Amendment is Racist

> "Racism is foundational to the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights."

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1419294620417155074

Fun fact: Vermont ratified the individual right to gun ownership and the abolishing of slavery in their State Constitution at the same time in 1777. The second amendment actually helped defeat racism and the only thing racist about it is the disproportionate infringement against minorities.

> Vermont’s Declaration of Rights of 1777 set forth the following fundamental rights and abolished slavery: That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore, no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave, or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one years; nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years.

> Vt. Constitution, Art. I, § 1 (1777). See Zilversmit at 116. The Vermont Declaration also provided: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . .” Id., § 15.

3. ACLU used to defend free speech of even neo-nazis but have since then abandoned their principles:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstain...

4. ACLU's most famous lawyer calls JK Rowling and Abigail Shrier "white supremacists" without any proof whatsoever:

https://twitter.com/abigailshrier/status/1358246098364583936...

The same lawyer has also called for banning of Abigail Shrier's book.

5. ACLU now claims ‘Vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties’:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/vaccine-mandates-actually-...

The ACLU, Prior to COVID, Denounced Mandates and Coercive Measures to Fight Pandemics. Now, they have completely reversed its views, arguing vaccine mandates help civil liberties and bodily autonomy "is not absolute."

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-aclu-prior-to-covid-den...

I appreciate all the sources here. Even if I disagreed I would still have to admit this is a high quality post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com