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

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#71

Post by Corazoor »

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 constitutional court in germany already made a ruling that specificially rules out removing the protections of article 79. (Correction: It was not the constitutional court, but it is the current interpretation among lawyers and judges.)

The logic is rather sound: The article already protects the principles of articles 1-20, not the articles themselves. So changing article 79 to remove the protections is already touching on these principles, and is therefore inadmissible.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#72

Post by jonathanstrange »

rtpg wrote: post #58
jonathanstrange wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.

France, for example, has gone through many different constitutions (the current one is from 1958). I don’t think they’re unique in changing up their foundational texts (and don’t forget places like the UK, that have no constitution, and rely on norms) But my point was mainly around popular movements. Not going to comment on international judgement in these circumstances

Well, I'm not going to argue with you, there is no real disagreement here. All I'm saying is that you can be certain the members in various constitutional assemblies have been well aware of your point, and that contradictions in constitutions are not minor issues.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#73

Post by lordgrenville »

littlestymaar wrote: post #70
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…

> 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 r…

> Politics is about power, not laws.

This, exactly. I think constitutional guardrails are an effect, not a cause, of healthy democracies. If there is political will to do something bad the law can always be abrogated, edited, reinterpreted or circumvented. The existence of a loophole isn't surprising. The existence of a law without them would be.

(Same applies, mutatus mutandis, to smart contracts.)

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#74

Post by stared »

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…

I live in Poland, which (among a few other countries, especially Hungary) made a solid turn from liberal democracy to a less liberal one (Hungary proudly says it is "illiberal democracy"). Laws (including constitution and international agreements) are frequently ignored, applied selectively, or amended illegally.

Governments are not magically bound by law. The cost of breaking or ignoring the law depends on the public reaction (i.e. changes in their approval rate, protests on the streets that can be managed with police and military).

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#76

Post by varjag »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #42
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 not how constitutional law works, though. Even if someone seizes power by force, the apparent constitutionality of their reign or lack thereof has many implications in international law and for the recognition of the new government, as well as for retrospective assessments, including the validity of the laws enacted by the regime. Dictators put great efforts in making their reign at least look constitutional.

International law is even more an afterthought for status quo than national constitutions. Noone is really bound by it unless it crosses a handful of powerful national actors with the guns. And countries recognizing governments unrecognized by others is common. Happened multiple times this side of the millennium.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#77

Post by user-the-name »

saberdancer wrote: post #13

This is why there are checks and balances. The laws and constitutions are not rules in a game that can be exploited arbitrarily. There is an intention behind them and law is and should be interpreted in that way. If this loophole exists it probably goes against the intention of the lawmakers and would be struck down by supreme court.

> This is why there are checks and balances.

Should be, yes. But "are"? How sure are you about that, given the last four years?

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#78

Post by user-the-name »

monocasa wrote: post #18
lmm wrote: post #4

The law is not a formal system, it's a tool for humans to decide how to act. If those humans decide they want a tyranny, no amount of words on paper could ever stop them.

It's a bit of both, depending on what those in power need it to be. I think Gödel's concern was for the people who might not agree with it installing a dictator, but go "well, it's legal and it's what the founding fathers wrote" and therefore go along with it.

Dictators, in general, don't come to power unless some fairly large fraction of people actually want them to.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#79

Post by bobthechef »

larrydag wrote: post #66
ccortes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Of course they do. Logic as in reasoning isn't the same as a formal logical system. Law isn't a formal logical system. That's why computation law has been so difficult. Human beings aren't automatons.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#80

Post by bobthechef »

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 does help to serve as an excellent counter-argument to "philosopher kings", though....

What do you mean here? I don't see an opportunity for relevance.

Post reply on HN