Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 268 posts

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#241

Post by gnaritas »

humanrebar wrote: post #78
geon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As George Carlin said; your rights can be taken away whenever convenient. Thus, they are not really rights at all, but temporary privileges. http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

Some rights are inalienable, so they cannot be taken away, just violated. The right to justice is one of those. The right to life. The right to free expression. It's pretty obvious that they exist, otherwise nobody would really care about murder, rape, theft, fraud, lying, etc. So the burden of proof is on those that want to limit or deny inalienable rights. George Carlin is hilarious (at least in general), but ironi…

> Some rights are inalienable, so they cannot be taken away, just violated.

Perhaps meaningful in the abstract, but a meaningless distinction in practice.

> It's pretty obvious that they exist, otherwise nobody would really care about murder, rape, theft, fraud, lying, etc.

That does not follow. There are in fact people who don't care about those things; that some people do does not mean inalienable rights somehow exist as anything more than social norms.

> So the burden of proof is on those that want to limit or deny inalienable rights.

No, the burden of proof of any claim of existence is always on the one claiming something does exist; proving something doesn't exist is not logically possible as there's always somewhere you can't look (the universe is big) and thus an invalid statement not subject to the burden of proof because it's wrong to claim at all.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#242

Post by dragonwriter »

humanrebar wrote: post #238
dragonwriter wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some rights are inalienable, so they cannot be taken away, just violated. The concept of inalienable rights is a moral axiom accepted by some (sort of like the existence of a God with certain preferences, in fact, many conceptions of inalienable rights are specifically beliefs about the existence of a God with specific preferences); its not a material fact or a supportable conclusion. And, of course, people who agr…

> its not a material fact or a supportable conclusion Of course, the same argument apply to the axiom that the rights don't exist. However, there is a lot of weight to the argument that there is a common list of universally reprehensible wrongs (murder, rape, etc.). Inferring rights from those wrongs is reasonable and doesn't require much in way of explaining where they come from. I'm not sure why people are so eager…

> Of course, the same argument apply to the axiom that the rights don't exist

Rights aren't material things, they don't exist in any external sense in any case. A "right" (in the moral, rather than legal, sense), inalienable or otherwise, is a just a statement of someone's moral preference. Clearly, these moral preferences exist in people, and, equally clearly, they differ between people.

> However, there is a lot of weight to the argument that there is a common list of universally reprehensible wrongs (murder, rape, etc.).

No, there's not. Well, I mean, sure, its tautologically true (and unsurprisingly widely accepted) that murder, in the sense of wrongful killing, is wrong.

OTOH, when you try to look for some common universal definition of when killing is wrongful, there's a lot less agreement. (The same is true of the other examples you've named, in the parent on great-grandparent posts.)

So, you've got some vague agreement that there are common names from wrongs, but the actual definitions of the wrongs with those names is different. That doesn't really support all that much of a common idea of wrongs implying a common idea of rights.

> I'm not sure why people are so eager to disprove the existence of rights, to be honest.

I'm not so interested in disproving the existence of rights as in getting people to understand that invoking the idea of "inalienable rights" doesn't really, outside of providing a rhetorical flourish, accomplish anything. Because the existence, and even moreso the definition, of those rights is not universally shared, what the invocation invariably amounts to is a circular argument where the supposedly inalienable right in question is defined in precisely the way needed to support the position the person is arguing for.

Which is perfectly convincing if you already agreed with the conclusion, but entirely unconvincing, if you did not.

"Why should we do (or refrain from doing) X? Because Y is an inalienable right and includes within its scope a mandate to do (or refrain from doing) X." Is just not a meaningful argument.

Unless the discussion is among people who have already agreed to the definition of Y being used.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#243

Post by gnaritas »

humanrebar wrote: post #177
soylentcola wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his intention wasn't so much to say this is a positive thing but rather to cynically (and humorously) point out that "rights" are a human construct and susceptible to all of the associated weaknesses in practice. You can claim a right to something and if you can get enough people to agree with you, you can enforce someone's claim on the right to something. But it's not like there's a natural force that ensure…

> But it's not like there's a natural force that ensures, compels, or mandates these rights. A lot of really well regarded philosophers throughout the ages have disagreed with that. > I guess my point is that taken less cynically, rights... only exist [with] sufficient power If I follow that line of thinking, justice is only an extension of power. I don't think people agree with that. I don't believe you think that.…

> To say there are no absolute rights is to say there are no absolute wrongs

There aren't any absolute rights or wrongs, there aren't any absolute morals at all; right and wrong is always a point of view and no one can lay claim to having the absolute and only correct ones.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#244

Post by gnaritas »

humanrebar wrote: post #240
geon wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't say it was OK for Thomas Jefferson to own slaves (...) We say the slaves had their rights violated You are confusing legality with morality. There isn't necessarily any connection.

I am speaking strictly morally (or ethically if you prefer). Jefferson obviously had the legal right to own slaves. The fact that the laws themselves were unjust is my point.

They are unjust by modern morality, morality changes over time, it is not absolute.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#245

Post by dang »

commentzorro wrote: post #213
bionsuba wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the nation moves farther and farther to the right What country do you live in? Surely it can't be the US, who has been enacting very leftist policies for a while now, who has had a leftist president for almost eight years now, whose youth is advocating for a self-identified "democratic socialist" for president, and the country where the most popular republican candidate by far is a centrist RINO.

Another Example of ObamaCare Nazis wiping their butts with our Constitution and taking away our guns so they can force us into gay marriages while Jesus weeps.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#246

Post by gnaritas »

bionsuba wrote: post #226
commentzorro wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another Example of ObamaCare Nazis wiping their butts with our Constitution and taking away our guns so they can force us into gay marriages while Jesus weeps.

Nice straw-man, but I'm an anarchist and an atheist. If you believe it's heading right, I would love to see your arguments, or you can choose to stay at the kids table and continue calling people names.

The term leftist is derogatory slang used by conservatives, who's calling who names? The word you're looking for is liberal. However, you're correct, the country is swinging left, not right as a population, but the right has seized power at the state level with gerrymandering so the states are swinging right even as the populace swings more left.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#247

Post by gnaritas »

commentzorro wrote: post #24

This is the Republican Dream. Shifting taxes to states then to localities and finally to each group within the locality. As the nation moves farther and farther to the right expect the to happen in every state and local agency out there.

> As the nation moves farther and farther to the right

But it isn't, the right is dying, it's a party largely made up of old white people and rich people. They've gained power by gerrymandering to hide the fact that the population is growing ever more liberal every year.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#248

Post by dragonwriter »

logfromblammo wrote: post #239
Pxtl wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.... it would seem to be a fairly extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment to support the creation of uncontrolled, unsafe, unlicensed, untracked firearms. The 2nd amendment just says you have to be able to own and carry weapons, with a rough implication that they should be fit for military purpose. The idea that registration or quality or safety requirements are somehow unconstitutional is and has always been abs…

They become less absurd in light of other abuses against civil rights. ~The 14th Amendment just says that blacks have equal rights to vote as whites. The idea that poll taxes or literacy tests or official intimidation while in transit to the polling places are somehow unconstitutional is and always has been... absolutely correct.~ In some counties, bearing a concealed firearm requires a permit issued by the sheriff.…

> The 14th Amendment just says that blacks have equal rights to vote as whites.

No, it doesn't say that at all. You are probably thinking of the 15th Amendment, section 1 of which is "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

> The idea that poll taxes or literacy tests or official intimidation while in transit to the polling places are somehow unconstitutional is and always has been... absolutely correct

Except, not; hence the prohibition of poll taxes by the 24th Amendment, and the prohibition of literacy tests for voting in some districts by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, later amended to apply to the whole country in 1970.

(Those things have, no doubt, always been wrong; they were not, however, unconstitutional, or even prohibited federally in any form, until much later than the 15th Amendment.)

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#249

Post by jessaustin »

bionsuba wrote: post #226
commentzorro wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another Example of ObamaCare Nazis wiping their butts with our Constitution and taking away our guns so they can force us into gay marriages while Jesus weeps.

Nice straw-man, but I'm an anarchist and an atheist. If you believe it's heading right, I would love to see your arguments, or you can choose to stay at the kids table and continue calling people names.

It seems unlikely that an anarchist would use the term "RINO" except as a joke. Anarchists reject the entire ridiculous Coke-vs-Pepsi circus. One who can actually see daylight between Democrats and Republicans is too in love with the status quo to reject its arbitrary authority.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#250

Post by machinesofn »

bionsuba wrote: post #129
commentzorro wrote: post #24

This is the Republican Dream. Shifting taxes to states then to localities and finally to each group within the locality. As the nation moves farther and farther to the right expect the to happen in every state and local agency out there.

> As the nation moves farther and farther to the right What country do you live in? Surely it can't be the US, who has been enacting very leftist policies for a while now, who has had a leftist president for almost eight years now, whose youth is advocating for a self-identified "democratic socialist" for president, and the country where the most popular republican candidate by far is a centrist RINO.

Who are you referring to? Trump and Carson are both pretty far right of center (both are pursuing massively reduced taxes, and Trump takes an extreme (even by GOP standards) view on preventing illegal immigration.
Post reply on HN