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

Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#51

Post by maxerickson »

Chris2048 wrote: post #50
maxerickson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that I said in the US, where we have openly racist groups that do not claim to be religious organizations.

They have to use different laws if they want to get protection though, and are liable to "hate" laws that religious organisations be more immune to?

No, not really. Our speech protections are pretty universal.

There are hate crime laws, but they largely are additional charges in cases of violence.

A church probably has an easier time demonstrating that they are a non profit for tax purposes.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#52

Post by igk »

talmand wrote: post #45
igk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a difference in conception...in Europe, the idea of "positive freedom" is more prevalent...we care about being able to actually do things in all cases, even if we are in a bad situation. You have a right to education, health care, political participation etc., and part of that right is to be able to actually do it (i.e., "I could if I chose not to work today, but then I can't eat"). Property is a means to freedo…

>> In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it does, but it does not. >> "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. People like to think this too, but it doesn't wor…

Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#53

Post by talmand »

igk wrote: post #52
talmand wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In the the states, I feel there is still the idea of property as a basis for freedom. This doesn't exist in the US anymore, maybe for a long time. People think it does, but it does not. >> "Negative freedom" - don't force me to do things, don't touch my house, don't touch my money, don't restrict what I could theoretically do if I have the means - is more dominant. People like to think this too, but it doesn't wor…

Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging

It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades.

Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local government can't get tax increases passed, etc.

There's likely more easily found but those are the first few I can think off the top of my head. Note that in some areas of the US this sort of thing happened and there was instant backlash against it in some jurisdictions. But in others the government moved along just nicely thank you very much.

People think of their homes as their "property" and maybe there is some basis in "freedom" in that. But most people don't "own" that property in the first place. Property can mean many different things and many different aspects of property are in a constant state of seizure by government for its own ends.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#54

Post by Top19 »

talmand wrote: post #43
Top19 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to answer OP's original question... Right to Birth Control: we're never going to agree on abortion but can we at least get this? A long time ago women would usually stop getting their periods after 20...because they were constantly pregnant until 50 when menopause started. Having larger amount of children might very well be unsustainable in a world with less jobs and that demands a lifetime of learning (by both s…

Why stop with right to Internet? Why don't we just stop this silly game and declare that everyone has a right to anything that they could possibly want? Someone creates a technology in the future that may help people's lives in some significant, or even small, way? I declare I have a right to it and demand someone else pay for it to provide to me.

Initially, your point was "grinding my gears" lol. My reasoning was "'x is good". You took that (and this next part could be wrong so please accept my apology if it is but I tried to break it down into concrete math terms) and said "no it's not, because '20x' is bad, and if we do 'x' then that means we almost certainly will commit ourselves to '20x'".

But......You do have a point though. When extremist interpretations can be made...haha they almost certainly will (Islam, the Bible, anything related to communism, capitalism, etc).

How do you get around that? No contract is really bulletproof, there is a spirit to every law and document. That spirit I like to think is applied through good systems, common sense, and good leadership.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#55

Post by dTal »

How about:

  A community has the right to transparency in the forces that govern it.
The principle may seem familiar, but it is not currently applied in a broad sense; Facebook's News Feed algorithm, which can swing elections, is secret. So is Hacker News's. Our behaviour is carefully shaped and we are not allowed to know how.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#56

Post by igk »

talmand wrote: post #53
igk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know when and how that changed? I'd like to change my view, but just from the discussions I've had with US citizens and what is see happening in your politics, it seems like it is very much still alive. Sure, Sanders and his crowd think less like this, but he lost to Hillary, and not only because of rigging

It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades. Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local gover…

Ah, I misunderstood you then. I got the impression you mean that the mindset had changed. What you describe seems to indicate that the mindset is still the same, but the reality is changing. And in my opinion, this is exactly due to the mindset. Especially the thing about fees to sidestep the aversion to taxes. The police and eminent domain thing sounds like corruption, and maybe also correlates with your idea of freedom: if freedom is something which is enabled by society and the restrictions and opportunities that come with it, you risk some of your freedom if you act in a corrupt manner. If freedom is something that property gives you, and society is only there to protect your property because warlording is stressful, then trying to get away with small corruption becomes desirable.

Your last sentence confirms me in this. "The government" is made up of people who got into power for idealistic or selfish reasons, yet you refer to it as its own entity and concept. This gels well with the "lay of mine" concept of freedom, less well with the "we as a whole enable us all" flavour.

Obviously, I am biased, and I might be interpreting things. If so, please corrent my misunderstandings if you have the time.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#57

Post by talmand »

igk wrote: post #56
talmand wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be difficult to nail down, simply because it's not a across the board change that happened overnight. There have been various encroachments on our liberty and property rights over decades. Simple examples: police confiscating money and small items during routine traffic stops with little or no recourse, overzealous use of eminent domain for questionable reasons, creation of various "fees" because local gover…

Ah, I misunderstood you then. I got the impression you mean that the mindset had changed. What you describe seems to indicate that the mindset is still the same, but the reality is changing. And in my opinion, this is exactly due to the mindset. Especially the thing about fees to sidestep the aversion to taxes. The police and eminent domain thing sounds like corruption, and maybe also correlates with your idea of fre…

I don't fully agree with everything you say, but it's close enough along the lines of what I'm saying that I can't disagree with it either. It's a complicated thing with a huge gray area surrounding it, there's room for multiple trains of thought that can be reasonably correct. I think that's a fact many people tend to forget when discussing such matters.

But I would say that the mindset hasn't changed per se, but I think it's starting to get there.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#58

Post by talmand »

Top19 wrote: post #54
talmand wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop with right to Internet? Why don't we just stop this silly game and declare that everyone has a right to anything that they could possibly want? Someone creates a technology in the future that may help people's lives in some significant, or even small, way? I declare I have a right to it and demand someone else pay for it to provide to me.

Initially, your point was "grinding my gears" lol. My reasoning was "'x is good". You took that (and this next part could be wrong so please accept my apology if it is but I tried to break it down into concrete math terms) and said "no it's not, because '20x' is bad, and if we do 'x' then that means we almost certainly will commit ourselves to '20x'". But......You do have a point though. When extremist interpretation…

Yes, it's a tough one. I consider many different ways of possibly dealing with it. I start with the notion that no matter how well a system is designed, it will eventually fall apart and requires a reboot. Sometimes actions prolong the system, sometimes they hasten its demise. These days I'm wondering if an automatic and irreversible sunset clause on every rule in the system might help. To force the people to rethink things from time-to-time. That way the rules don't slowly degrade over time as people "tweak" them for their own benefit. New people have an opportunity to contribute to the rules as opposed to being dictated by rules created by people long dead.

It would have to have term limits on the people involved in making the rules for the system as well.

Everything would have to be staggered though, can't have everything up for renewal at the same time. Too easy to cause chaos of which some people will take advantage.

But, most likely, it won't matter in the long run because my thoughts are around the idea of trying to prevent the always inevitable violent upheaval of the status quo to "make things better". Which only means get rid of all the crappy rules we've forced on ourselves to return to a time the rules were fair and made sense. Which, of course, eventually goes downhill again.

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#59

Post by NicenJehr »

afarrell wrote: post #15
NicenJehr wrote: post #9

Freedom of Information: Its rediculous that one can be jailed, thieved or killed for: possessing someone else's number, telling someone a secret number, or refusing to share the correct number with someone. These problems only exist because society believes in, and enforces, ownership of ideas

So, given that a jpg is just a very large number, I infer from your framing thst you are in favor of legalizing: - leaking someone's private medical records - sending weapons designs to a foreign power - selling photos of child abuse Correct?

Basically yes, I am proposing that sharing of bits be a universal right. There are other approaches you can take to solve the problems you mentioned.

case 1 and 2 can be mitigated by only granting data access to those who sign a contract to keep the secret, under appropriate penalties

case 3, the horseman! it's easy argue this one from emotion. some thoughts anyway: - i'm all for punishing actual child abusers - look at how many 17 year olds get criminal records or jail for sexting, which the law defines as "child porn" - "legal" and "allowed" have distinct definitions. society can affect behavior without the behavior being "illegal". try being gay in a religious fundamentalist community - my ultimate solution would be, educate every child and adult in the world, to the point where every child feels comfortable telling any stranger "Help, my guardian took pictures of me naked", have a justice system that determines the truth, and inform the community of the outcome so they can shun the evildoer

Re: Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

#60

Post by zachrose »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #24
zebrafish wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The wording of the 2nd amendment doesn't lend itself to encryption though which could be an issue.

I hadn't ever really thought of this, but cryptography has sometimes been considered a "military munition" for purposes of restricting export: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... Is there any existing jurisprudence defending citizen access to cryptography on 2nd Amendment grounds?

There's this one xkcd: https://xkcd.com/504/

But no, to my knowledge this legal argument has not been made in court. (Here's a Motherboard article about the possibility: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-second-amendm...)

So far I think it's more interesting to consider as a political argument than a legal one: conservatives who like guns should (IMHO) have every reason to oppose state-weakened cryptography, as much as that might fracture the law-and-order conservatism from libertarian conservatism. (Also, there is no universe where a militia with automatic weapons and tapped email is really going anywhere.)

Post reply on HN