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

The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

daviddfriedman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#91

Post by Geisterde »

arzig wrote: post #80
jostmey wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like and appreciate your viewpoint. I push back on your stance on gun ownership. How does your view change when governments control weapons as powerful as nuclear weapons? How does this tilt the balance of power when ordinary citizens only have guns? Does this require a rethink?

I consider “but ordinance” a red herring. One need only observe the recent history of US military adventurism to show that a sufficiently determined insurgency with light arms and minimal training can take literally decades to surpress even with probably numerical superiority. The US government is unlikely to carpet bomb its own territory even after hypothetically sliding into tyranny because it would presumably want…

"The cost is a deterrent", well put.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#93

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Geisterde wrote: post #56
coldtea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of power" between the people and their government in the US? How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as…

Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea. And I never said it was fair, I said it was a balance; the balance is very clearly biased towards the govern…

> perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea.

False dichotomy. There are plenty of nations that have strict gun control laws and plenty of liberty.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#94

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Geisterde wrote: post #56
coldtea wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of power" between the people and their government in the US? How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as…

Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea. And I never said it was fair, I said it was a balance; the balance is very clearly biased towards the govern…

> perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea.

False dichotomy. There are many nations that have strict gun control laws and plenty of liberty.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#96

Post by mrangle »

sandworm101 wrote: post #77
mrangle wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Obama's father was Kenyan, his mother from Hawaii, his maternal grandfather a US army Sergeant. That's about as far away from American political power as one can get and still be qualified to run for office. It's proof that any plebian from the peripheries of America can rise to be president. Conversely, Trump stands for the fact that anyone with the right combination of anger and money can usurp and then bend the po…

So Obama is "proof of democracy" (and I assume "not angry") and Trump wasn't elected but "usurped" power (from the every-man Neocons who haven't since stopped causing chaos and trying to jail him?) because he was "rich and angry". Tell me if I missed anything in this anti-democratic storybook narrative.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#97

Post by analog31 »

mrangle wrote: post #74
analog31 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, what is the game theory when an armed faction of the people gain the ability to overthrow a democracy and install a king, or at least, can credibly threaten to do so?

Or how about overthrow a King and install a democracy? The game theory is that it is likely that most of the time successful Revolutions are backed by powerful opposing States or quasi-States. Any others get squashed, but likely most often don't get off of the ground to begin with.

Perhaps a more interesting study is just to look at things more incrementally. For instance is a slightly more heavily armed population likely to enjoy slightly more rights, or fewer? Should I be optimistic about my rights if I move to a more heavily armed state or region?

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#98

Post by TeMPOraL »

Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

> Dare I say, people should engage that part of their brain with everything (...) What about the monetary system, surely we could all take a step back and anaylze the mechanics of a system that plays a 50% role in all economic transactions

This is a great way for one to learn about Moloch - the by far greatest threat humanity is facing. Moloch is the personified generalization of all multiplayer games, where the payoff matrix looks like this:

  | v Reward / Choice >    | X        | Y         |
  |------------------------+----------+-----------|
  | For myself, short-term | good     | bad       |
  | For all, longer-term   | very bad | very good |
Problems for which, invariably, approximately everyone chooses X, often knowing that they too will suffer the very bad consequences with everyone else.

Moloch is the common core of all the big problems humanity is facing, problems we seem unable to solve - surveillance economy, inequality, climate change, you name it.

Unfortunately, recognizing the presence of the ancient demon's namesake, and realizing the gravity of the situation, kind of kills the mood - which is why most discourse on those topics is rather unsophisticated and dominated by those who don't, as you put it, "engage this part of their brain", whether because they don't know how to use it, or because it's more fun/profitable to not do it.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#99

Post by mrangle »

analog31 wrote: post #97
mrangle wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about overthrow a King and install a democracy? The game theory is that it is likely that most of the time successful Revolutions are backed by powerful opposing States or quasi-States. Any others get squashed, but likely most often don't get off of the ground to begin with.

Perhaps a more interesting study is just to look at things more incrementally. For instance is a slightly more heavily armed population likely to enjoy slightly more rights, or fewer? Should I be optimistic about my rights if I move to a more heavily armed state or region?

That would be interesting. I think you'd have trouble finding enough incrementalism to provide meaningful data. But a place to start might be in European nations that only allow hunting guns.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#100

Post by mrangle »

graphe wrote: post #41
retrac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is called "double jeopardy". It is explicitly prohibited in most legal systems. Even where it isn't explicitly prohibited, it's generally assumed as a basic principle (like innocent until proven guilty). It's basic: if someone can be retried because of new evidence, the prosecution will introduce a little bit more evidence (probably evidence they intentionally held back!) after each acquittal, and try them again…

Innocent until proven guilty isn't generally assumed. Look at India.

Or even at France, if memory serves.
Post reply on HN