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

The Jews in the Attic Test

joehuffman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#21

Post by pvg »

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 point is to attempt to connect all sorts of laws the author doesn't like to Nazism and the holocaust. It's a common 2A-absolutist trope but it's so ahistorical, dumb and offensive nobody else takes it seriously. That's really all there is to it.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#23

Post by jcstryker »

This is a powerful argument for limited government and decentralization, requiring a simple premise that I think most people can agree with: That the protection and concealing of Jews and other groups under Nazi Germany was a just and desirable act.

Especially with the rhetoric today about creeping fascism, we should recognize that all authorities have the potential to become corrupt and oppressive. We should ensure proper checks against that and consider the potential consequences before implementing centralized services. Efficiency and cost effectiveness should not be the only consideration.

For instance, you might think that there are no potential downsides to a centralized welfare system. However what happens if those benefits are provided only to people of specific ideologies or races? What if it becomes contingent on giving up your biometric data or subject to drug testing as we have already seen in many areas of the US? Maybe we should consider the potential consequences of centralizing essential support structures and social safety nets.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#25

Post by mikeash »

drak0n1c wrote: post #20
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.

Ok, but if the government is shipping entire populations to genocide camps, surely we’ve passed the point where they’d be constrained by old laws about IDs.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#26

Post by camgunz »

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.

There are a lot of people who live in places that are essentially lawless, but that experience isn't freedom like extreme libertarians might believe. It's total fear that at any moment 20 people in shitty Jeeps can drive up and threaten to cut off your hands unless you kill your parents and join their gang. This is what we refer to as the state of nature. At some point, people get pretty tired of it, so they form their own gangs to fight back. Time goes on, decisions have to be made about how to run things, you make a couple of rules, and before you know it you've got yourself a government.

But what I find more dangerous is this ersatz common sense tone in the essay. It lends the argument a certain weight, like "boy, balancing of rights sure is tricky. Can we __really__ trust governments? I mean, Nazis." Please no one fall for this. The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization, not a bullet train to totalitarian town.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#27

Post by mikeash »

jcstryker wrote: post #23

This is a powerful argument for limited government and decentralization, requiring a simple premise that I think most people can agree with: That the protection and concealing of Jews and other groups under Nazi Germany was a just and desirable act. Especially with the rhetoric today about creeping fascism, we should recognize that all authorities have the potential to become corrupt and oppressive. We should ensure…

What happens if the Army is told to kill everyone of a particular race?

If maniacs take power, we’re deeply screwed. Our efforts should go toward making sure that doesn’t happen.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#28

Post by genericid »

> Government mandated ID cards and the authority to demand them at any time.

> Searches without probable cause.

> Elimination or severe restriction of anonymous financial transactions.

You know that a jew-hunting government can simply pass these laws? In fact, ID cards were introduced in Germany in 1938.

> If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can your "Jews in the attic" receive health care?

Illegaly.

> The registration information can be used to confiscate the firearms used to protect innocent life -- as it was under the 1938 Weapons Control Act in Nazi Germany.

Not having a registered weapon does not stop a jew-hunting government from searching your house for weapons.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#30

Post by berbec »

I've seen arguments like this before. It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny."

The problem is to maintain the private citizen/armed forces of a cou try balance of power is ludicrous. What exactly do you need to buy to defend yourself against a troop of Navy Seals? OK, training and gear. For a start: Teflon coated bullets, high velocity rounds, grenades, land mines, high explosives.

OK next step. What do you need to defend yourself from an armored tank division?

The 82nd airborne?

A harrier jet?

Sorry, but once the military reached a certain point, it's impossible. And trying makes you sound like a madman.

Post reply on HN