Hacker News Reader

The aggrieved parties are welcome to sue. But it won't get on the docket for over a year at least. but will there be any DoJ lawyers around to care then? Or support staff? Will anyone care? It's looking grim.

A well armed or something militia?

That's the constitution.

The declaration of independence[1] was America's founding document, it laid down why the British colonizing the American continent felt they had a right to overthrow their government and secede. It was likely also written to create a mandate[2]/consent for the new ruling government. The document is extremely relevant to Americans right now who have forgotten its contents and what it cost.

It is somewhat of a culmination of the Age of Enlightenment[3], which is period where philosophical thinkers largely tried to make the "golden rule"[4] rigorous. John Locke[5] was a philosopher who wrote about the idea of a "social contract"[6] which is the absolute core of liberalism and "western"[7] ideals. The social contract is a philosophical idea, but the declaration of independence was a real world implementation of it. I think the french have their own.

A well armed militia is somewhat connected to this idea in that the 2nd amendment en-codifies the right to be able to withdrawal consent to be governed[8] when a government stops protecting rights. In many ways it is a canary in the coal mine for despotism. Technology however has advanced to a point where guns don't matter too much because a despotic government can prevent "free association"[9] with the use of a massive surveillance state that can detect "militias" growing before they are able to gather enough power to withdrawal consent.

Conservatism/Liberalism is a little confused in America. Liberals abandoned some of the core tenets of liberty, such as the 2nd amendment, solidarity, and making sure that those who violate the social contract experience consequences -- crime can't go unpunished and unjustices can't be allowed to fester. Liberals don't want to pay the maintenance cost of maintaining rule of law[10] because speaking truth to power[11] or meaningfully challenging those in power is dangerous. "Freedom isn't free" is a liberal idea born out of liberal philosophy despite conservatives saying it. "If none of us will die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny" is something some Americans grew up hearing from their fathers. Conservatives say a lot of liberal things, but don't understand where they come from or why they say them, creating a kind of "cargo cult"[12] Americanism where they perform American rituals without understanding the substance of those rituals. Conservatives largely aim to "conserve" christian culture, but the vast majority of Christians have almost completely abandoned the teachings of Jesus. Most of them will say things that are correct at face value, but they frequently aren't well educated enough to understand what they say, leaving them vulnerable to abuse.

I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.

> I went through and gave Wikipedia links to many of the ideas presented because many of those ideas are much larger than the words themselves can convey.

& You did well. Thank you for comment. Forgetfulness is not a luxury we Americans can afford at this juncture.

That was… a significantly more in-depth response than I had any right to expect with my driveby comment.

> If citizens themselves are the final arbiters of justice, you ironically live in a law based society

No, this is mob rule.

> who will provide consequences when the legal system is a weapon of the powerful, rather than a check on power?

This is a bad case for making this claim. While at record lows, the sympathy gap for Israel over Palestine among American voters remains in the double digits [1].

The argument you’re looking for is the judiciary’s role in protecting minority rights [2]. In overruling popular will.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/american-support-israel-hits-record...

[2] https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Ross/Chapter_Five.pdf

> No, this is mob rule.

I understand why you would say that, but I don't think you've thought it through, understood the point I'm making, and tried to disarm the strongest version of it possible.

Go and read the preamble to the declaration of independence, seriously. America was founded by citizens of Great Britain stating that they are the final arbiters of justice, not British courts. The British courts would have said the founding fathers are violating the law. They would have found them participating in mob rule, and they did try to put down that mob with an army.

You should answer a few questions:

(1) What is a right, and what is the relationship between law and rights. Does law grant rights, or does law protect rights?

(2) How does a government go from absolute monarchy (king is able to make all the laws and enforce them arbitrarily) to a law based society?

(3) How do you bootstrap a law based society? Can you make a law based society without breaking the law?

(4) Was the civil rights movement under MLK a form of mob rule?

You’re going off piste. I’m objecting to the claim that citizens are the final arbiters of the law. That is not a view that was held by the founders because they were studied in the history of direct democracies, the early forms of which didn’t distinguish between the citizens qua legislators and citizens qua courts.

> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That is literally in our founding document and literally citizens being the final arbiters of law.

> That is literally in our founding document and literally citizens being the final arbiters of law

That’s an uncommon reading of that line. Citizens can throw off the government. That doesn’t make them the final arbiters of the law. (Not even legal system. One point of that sentence is you don’t get to choose which parts you throw off.)

This is a whole lot of pedantry to avoid questioning your own beliefs, which isn't surprising, because once you accept the cold hard reality that justice comes from the bottom up, not the top down, it means you have a personal responsibility to do so something if you want justice, and that's a hard reality to accept, so it's easier to live in comfortable denial.

> once you accept the cold hard reality that justice comes from the bottom up, not the top down

Justice, morals and—in my opinion—rights, yes. Even the right of the law to rule, yes. But the arbitration of the law? The particulars of its execution. No.

If the system of law is corrupted, you have to throw out the whole government. That’s why the attacks on our judiciary are so frightening. It’s really difficult to unfuck the rule of law.