The Jews in the Attic Test • Hacker News Board

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#11

Post by benchaney » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:08 AM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #6

> Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it? If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can your "Jews in the attic" receive health care? This is absurd. The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is…

The ability to seek justice isn't a necessity in the same way that medical care is.

> From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a non sequitor.

That is correct, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#12

Post by dblotsky » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

I’m puzzled that this list doesn’t include laws that allow a government to kill and imprison innocent lives in the first place.

If the government has been allowed to discriminate and target a demographic, you’ve already lost.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#13

Post by zamadatix » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:11 AM UTC

The only part I have a strong logical objection to is "Furthermore I told them that if it fails this test no further discussion is really needed, the law must be opposed in the most vigorous manner possible."

Asking a single question is a poor way to get absolute perspective on topics. Especially those as complicated as presented. Instead it leads you to be overly dismissive and combative of alternative viewpoints.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#14

Post by mikeash » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:11 AM UTC

“Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?”

This makes no sense to me. A tyrannical government can change the law. If there’s a law that will make it easier for them to commit atrocities, they can make it happen. Enacting that law now, or refusing to do so, won’t make a bit of difference. Laws should be evaluated on their merits as things stand now, not based on their effects on a hypothetical where current laws don’t even matter.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#15

Post by tacomonstrous » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #9

tantalor wrote: post #6

> Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it? If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can your "Jews in the attic" receive health care? This is absurd. The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is…

> The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? They can't. So by the proposed test, a government monopoly on law enforcement is a bad thing and should be opposed. If you ask "how can it be possible not to have a government monopoly on law enforcement?", note that historically that has been more often the norm than the system we have…

>See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies.

Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book?

>No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law enforcement.

What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#16

Post by dblotsky » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #10

pvg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. What does that tell you? It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly 'test'.

> It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly 'test'. I think you and the other commenter are seriously missing the point.

The ultimate law in this case is discrimination. If it can get away with targeting anyone - an individual or a demographic - for imprisonment or murder, the game is already lost.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#17

Post by ryandamm » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

That's an awfully crude test, that derives its power from its appeal to emotion.

Which is not to say it's prima facie wrong, but to point out that its correctness should be separated from its emotional impact, which is very tough for most humans to do.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#18

Post by pdkl95 » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:14 AM UTC

tantalor wrote: post #6

> Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it? If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can your "Jews in the attic" receive health care? This is absurd. The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is…

Also, has anybody actually proposed making it "illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care"? The government funding some type of minimum health care doesn't mean they are actually providing the health care.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#19

Post by auser24 » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:14 AM UTC

Why was thiw removed? Jews in the attic alright...

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#20

Post by drak0n1c » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 2:15 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #14

“Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?” This makes no sense to me. A tyrannical government can change the law. If there’s a law that will make it easier for them to commit atrocities, they can make it happen. Enacting that law now , or refusing to do so, won’t make a bit of difference. Laws should be evaluated on their merits as…

Those in power often do not reach the critical mass needed to completely change or flout the laws at their whim. But they are able to selectively enforce existing laws or otherwise use them to target people they don't like. This has been the case throughout history, even under monarchies and during the rise of fascism. Existing laws matter.