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

Gödel's Loophole

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 134 posts

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#61

Post by SiempreViernes »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #47
msravi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

That's a corner case, though. Anything is possible if you can get enough people to simultaneously adopt a new intersubjective[0] belief. In reality, changes in laws happen when a small group supports them and, small opposition notwithstanding, vast majority of people do not care . One of the easiest ways to make the majority care - and oppose you - is to push your changes in a way that violates existing legal framewo…

I think this is overlooking the larger issue: in these scenarios there are powerful groups that plan to turn the country into a dictatorship, and that's really the bit to worry about.

You cannot simply write down a law prohibiting becoming a dictatorship and then sit back thinking all will be fine, because then these groups will simply grow their power until they can ignore the bits of the law they don't like. And they don't need to change the law to gain power, they merely need acceptance of their telling of events.

On the other hand, without extensive support you cannot create a dictatorship because that word implies such extensive societal control that there simply must be extensive power behind it for it to function at all.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#62

Post by SiempreViernes »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #49
eurasiantiger wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s baffling that some people believe banning something by law prevents it from happening.

It mostly does, though. That's the magic of intersubjective beliefs. Laws may be words on paper, but as long as everyone expects that everyone else expects everyone to follow them, they're mostly followed. Same with money - it's just pieces of paper and numbers in some computers, but by virtue of shared belief, it has real power. To the extent making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, there are enfo…

Not on its own, but by the work of very many societal systems, and on balance it is really these systems that are responsible for the societal effects, the laws merely being the guidelines.

So banning something by law does have an effect, but in the discussion of the dissolution of law it's clearly the courts, the bureaucracy, and the media that carry all the important functions of defence against subversion.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#63

Post by anoncake »

jojobas wrote: post #52
jonathanstrange wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

1. Alter articles 4 and 79 (this one contains the eternity clause) so that that they don't protect articles 1 and 20 . 2. Alter articles 1 and 20 3. ??? 4. 4th Reich

The eternity clause implicitly protects itself because anything else would be absurd and judges aren't computers.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#64

Post by TeMPOraL »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #62
TeMPOraL wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It mostly does, though. That's the magic of intersubjective beliefs. Laws may be words on paper, but as long as everyone expects that everyone else expects everyone to follow them, they're mostly followed. Same with money - it's just pieces of paper and numbers in some computers, but by virtue of shared belief, it has real power. To the extent making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, there are enfo…

Not on its own, but by the work of very many societal systems, and on balance it is really these systems that are responsible for the societal effects, the laws merely being the guidelines. So banning something by law does have an effect, but in the discussion of the dissolution of law it's clearly the courts, the bureaucracy, and the media that carry all the important functions of defence against subversion.

I believe the way to think about this is leverage. Courts, media, law enforcement, bureaucracy are all strictly necessary for the shared belief in law to hold, but it's the shared belief that does the lion's share of the work of keeping society coordinated. Taken together, the institutions achieve orders of magnitude greater effect than it would seem from the work they put into it. They do that by creating conditions in which a much more potent phenomenon can arise and sustain itself - that of the intersubjective belief in law.

(Which is why I consider attacks at public trust as existential threats to society - why I consider many white-collar crimes to be on par with murder, why I think current ad-funded journalism is a huge net social negative, and why I think many of hot SV startups need to be disbanded. They're all trying to erode the conditions that allow the "shared delusion" of civilization to function.)

Or, excuse the bad analogy, think of it as shield generators in Star Trek and other sci-fi. A starship will have this critical bit of technobabble that you could break with a wrench, but when activated, it directs energy into a field that can laugh off megaton explosions. It's the field that does the work, the generator only keeps it up.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#65

Post by jojobas »

anoncake wrote: post #63
jojobas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Alter articles 4 and 79 (this one contains the eternity clause) so that that they don't protect articles 1 and 20 . 2. Alter articles 1 and 20 3. ??? 4. 4th Reich

The eternity clause implicitly protects itself because anything else would be absurd and judges aren't computers.

(Un)like computers, judges sometimes die and guess who nominates replacement judges.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#66

Post by larrydag »

ccortes wrote: post #30
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

> It's embarassing that this anecdote is given almost any weight. It's absolutely the most navel-gazing useless analysis. It does help to serve as an excellent counter-argument to "philosopher kings", though.... Damn dude, it's just a funny anecdote, no one is claiming it's a national security threat or anything like that. There was no analysis involved, Gödel found it while studying for something else. It's a super…

Agreed. I also find it amusing that there were two other brilliant minds who heard the explanation and thought nothing of it. No one seems to mention that very much. Perhaps politics and logic don't really go hand in hand.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#67

Post by cecja »

bluGill wrote: post #44
msravi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

Doesn't even need a majority, just enough powerful people. If our generals decide to take over what stops them? Recent history around the world has a number or such cases.

You fucking americans and your but it's not against the law attitude it's just suffocating reading comments like this all the time everywhere. bUt If It'S nOt IlLeGaL. Holy shit you are all cunts.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#68

Post by DebtDeflation »

foobar02 wrote: post #22

It's without a doubt amending Article V with Article V; I don't really understand why it's thought of as some mysterious loophole lost to time. Not everything a smart man figures out has to be particularly complex.

It almost certainly involves Article V, but likely not in the trivial "amend Article V to change the 2/3 supermajority to propose an amendment to a simple majority and eliminate the requirement for 3/4 of states to ratify" sense. That would never actually be ratified as states would be loathe to give up their power.

My guess is it would first involve the creation of a considerable number of new states under Article IV and then proceed to amend Article V as above by enlisting the newly created states. The part I can't quite explain is how those states get created without dividing an existing state which requires the consent of that state's legislature.

Edit: Really, the more that I think about it, the ability of Congress to create new states by simple legislative action (so long as the territory does not come from existing states) IS almost certainly the loophole. Every new state, no matter how small, gets 1 Congressman and 2 Senators. Create enough, and you control both houses of Congress. Since the EC vote is determined by number of Congressmen + the number of Senators by state, you'd also control the Presidency. Since the number of SCOTUS justices can be changed by simple legislation, you'd now control all 3 branches of government. At that point, using Article V to amend Article V just becomes the final icing on the cake.

Edit 2: DC is not a state, and so would not be subject to Article IV constraints on making new states from existing ones. Article I Section 8 gives Congress complete jurisdiction over DC. Reserve a portion of DC as the US Capital, divide the remainder into 150 new states. I think I just found Gödel's Loophole. Or maybe I'm just "a nerd trying to solve law" as someone else posted, that's entirely possible.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#69

Post by lultimouomo »

ccortes wrote: post #30
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

> It's embarassing that this anecdote is given almost any weight. It's absolutely the most navel-gazing useless analysis. It does help to serve as an excellent counter-argument to "philosopher kings", though.... Damn dude, it's just a funny anecdote, no one is claiming it's a national security threat or anything like that. There was no analysis involved, Gödel found it while studying for something else. It's a super…

Parent comment:

> Damn dude, it's just a funny anecdote, no one is claiming it's a national security threat or anything like that.

Sibling to parent comment:

> Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. [followed by long analysis on how other constitutions feel they need to solve this very serious issue]

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#70

Post by littlestymaar »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #33
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

> For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20.

It is unconstitutional, by the old constitution standards', but the new regime can just ignore it and call it a day (we're talking about a fascist takeover here).

> paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available."

that's cute, but do you think it would change anything if Myanmar's constitution had included such clause? Do you think it would stop the military from shooting protestors?

Laws, and constitutions, are useful, but in the end: politics is about power, not laws.

Post reply on HN