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

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#81

Post by bobthechef »

smitty1e wrote: post #60
andrepd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's overly agressive. If you read the article, the story goes that upon asking him what government his native Austria had, Gödel commented "It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship." The judge commented that this could not happen in the U.S., and Gödel responded "Oh, yes, I can prove it". I don't see how you jump from this, to saying that Gödel, who was…

The point is that there is a system, with feedback loops. The point is NOT that the system is somehow immaculate and incapable of drifting into instability. Indeed, the concentration of power in the hands of the few we see about us is, arguably, the rejection of representative systems developed in the last several centuries in favor of historical authoritarian approaches. Sweet, sweet panem et circenses => https://en…

> in favor of historical authoritarian approaches.

I don't think history is a linear progression from authoritarianism to representative government.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#82

Post by tom_mellior »

k_sze wrote: post #53

What if Gödel never actually found a loophole but simply intentionally left behind a cryptic puzzle, with the influence of his celebrity friends, so that future generations will keep scrutinizing the constitution, watching it for dangerous changes?

Even simpler: What if Gödel never actually found a loophole? The only source we have is Morgenstern recounting an anecdote more than twenty years later. He may well have misremembered/misunderstood/taken out of context/embellished some remark that Gödel made. It makes for a good anecdote, but that doesn't make it true.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#83

Post by motohagiography »

Law isn't code, and nor is a constitution, but it appears the point of the second amendment was to be a backstop against most of the things that could go wrong in such pernicious applications of the law, where if the people can revolt within the confines of the rules, you don't have to throw out the constitution and everything it built. If he found a rule that could be used to overwrite every other rule, there is the option to use popular revolt against the party who was abusing it. As they say, it's a republic, if you can keep it.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#84

Post by panax »

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.

A despot may also pack the Supreme Court to change the rules, although the existing Supreme Court may prevent the court from being packed. I am curious what would happen if all the members of the existing Supreme Court were to suffer an unfortunate accident in this situation. edit: Of course you still need Congress to approve the nominees.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#85

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

bobthechef wrote: post #81
smitty1e wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that there is a system, with feedback loops. The point is NOT that the system is somehow immaculate and incapable of drifting into instability. Indeed, the concentration of power in the hands of the few we see about us is, arguably, the rejection of representative systems developed in the last several centuries in favor of historical authoritarian approaches. Sweet, sweet panem et circenses => https://en…

> in favor of historical authoritarian approaches. I don't think history is a linear progression from authoritarianism to representative government.

It's more often a progression from authoritarianism to representative government and back to authoritarianism.

"Law is what should happen. Politics is what does happen."

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#86

Post by lnl »

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.

If that was how it was meant to be understood, it could have easily been written explicitly by making it a recursive clause. E.g. in the case of my country, article 4 of the constitution says that the first 3 articles cannot be changed; it could have said first 4 articles cannot be changed, thereby making it a legal impasse.

More likely, the authors of entrenched clauses understood that, if it came to that, making that change illegal wouldn't prevent a slip to dictatorship. That impasse would only hinder the honest actors, if in the future there came a time when those entrenched clauses really legitimately need to be changed; and hence that door was deliberately left open.

Sure, if it came to that, judges may still rule your way to slow down the slide the dictatorship, but then the next constitutional amendment would be "all judges are retired, here's how new judges are selected". Or some other legal maneuver. Even the strongest clauses could be circumvented if they have enough support or power, let alone feeble interpretations of implicit clauses.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#87

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

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…

Power is a continuum, not a binary. A foundational element in politics is the use of narratives to influence behaviour.

You can't stop a bullet with a piece of paper. But what's written on the paper can persuade a would-be shooter that the cost of their actions is likely to outweigh the benefits - because it legitimises and encourages counter-actions and severe penalties.

The efficient way to maintain power is by controlling what people believe. It's a lot less effort and mess than trying to torture and murder everyone who opposes you.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#88

Post by posterboy »

lultimouomo wrote: post #69
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…

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]

Compromise: Funny annecdotes are serious business, the sardonic top comments lack good humor.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#89

Post by lupire »

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…

Sure, but mostly it works the other way, where the law is the result of the beliefs, not cause.

There are huge areas where the law is routinely broken (by civilians, law enforcement) and there is no consequences. (Petty theft, violence against poor people, tax evasion.)

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#90

Post by lupire »

bobthechef wrote: post #80
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.

Ivory tower theorists misunderstand how abstract mathematical theory relates to the real social world.
Post reply on HN