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

Jonathan James

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Jonathan James

#71

Post by jlgreco »

smsm42 wrote: post #66
jlgreco wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy. A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because…

Seriously, people should start voting at 13? So the next president would be Justin Bieber?

Not possible for another 17 years.

I am sure your average 13 year old could tell you that.

Re: Jonathan James

#72

Post by w1ntermute »

smsm42 wrote: post #64
w1ntermute wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a testament to how control of this country has been completely wrested from the hands of the middle class since the 60s and 70s and taken over by megacorporations, the military-industrial complex, and the ultrawealthy. I recently read about this phenomenon in the book Who Stole the American Dream? , by Hedrick Smith[0]. I highly recommend it. The first signs of change appeared in the 2012 election, as the young…

It has nothing to do with fashionable fable about ultraweathy ruining everything. The numbers of ultrawealthy are vanishingly small. They are not those who vote current political class into power and keep them there. They are not those who, knowing about politicians instituting mandatory minimum sentences of tens of years for victimless crimes, did not come to these politicians with tar and feathers but instead gave…

Things are far from being as simple as you make them sound. In a two-party system with extreme gerrymandering and extensive lobbying by the rich, politicians are no longer beholden to the people. People don't blindly support new laws like you say they do. In fact, Congress's approval rating has been in the shitter for a long time. People nowadays vote by figuring out who they dislike the least. But when it comes to referendums, we're seeing real change - marijuana was legalized in 2 states this time around. And you say voters want more people in jail?

The book I mentioned debunks your theory of the ultrawealthy not being responsible for these problems. The statistics are quite clear regarding the increase in lobbying efforts by the wealthy and by large corporations during the 70s.

Re: Jonathan James

#73

Post by philwelch »

jlgreco wrote: post #71
smsm42 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, people should start voting at 13? So the next president would be Justin Bieber?

Not possible for another 17 years. I am sure your average 13 year old could tell you that.

You really think the average 13 year old knows the constitutional age limit to be President?

Re: Jonathan James

#74

Post by _delirium »

smsm42 wrote: post #64
w1ntermute wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a testament to how control of this country has been completely wrested from the hands of the middle class since the 60s and 70s and taken over by megacorporations, the military-industrial complex, and the ultrawealthy. I recently read about this phenomenon in the book Who Stole the American Dream? , by Hedrick Smith[0]. I highly recommend it. The first signs of change appeared in the 2012 election, as the young…

It has nothing to do with fashionable fable about ultraweathy ruining everything. The numbers of ultrawealthy are vanishingly small. They are not those who vote current political class into power and keep them there. They are not those who, knowing about politicians instituting mandatory minimum sentences of tens of years for victimless crimes, did not come to these politicians with tar and feathers but instead gave…

Unfortunately I think this is spot on, and that makes it harder to figure to what to do.

People have probably seen it a dozen times, but a fairly famous Steve Jobs quote:

“When you’re young, you look at television and think, there’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It’s the truth.”

I think that's largely true with the proliferation of felonies also. It's not a handful of elites who want absurdly long sentences for "computer hackers" and shoplifting; a huge proportion of middle-class "regular" people have absurdly retributive views on throwing people in jail for long sentences.

I think there are other things, especially in the economic sphere, where the concentration of wealth is a likely factor explaining our current situation. But when it comes to "tough on crime", that's middle-class suburban America voting its fears.

Re: Jonathan James

#75

Post by nitrogen »

philwelch wrote: post #65
jlgreco wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I think the best way is to exclude people who haven't been inside a school for decades.

Shall we euthanize them and harvest their bodies for food, as well? You're coming across as quite the bigot. I don't know about you, but I learn more every year, so I imagine by the time I'm 75, I'll know at least three times as much as I know now. I'd give my 75 year old self the vote long before I'd give my 13 year old self the vote. Nor do I think being in school adequately prepares or informs anyone to be a citiz…

Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion.

Instead, what would you say about jlgreco's contention that voting power should be given to those who have the greatest stake in the future?

Re: Jonathan James

#76

Post by InclinedPlane »

thosegivenmuch wrote: post #60
InclinedPlane wrote: post #33

Relevant, journalist David Gregory blatantly violated Washington, DC firearms law, on air. He won't face charges: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_davi... I hate to say it but if these trends continue we'll be well on our way to a new sort of feudalism, where laws are selectively enforced and the little guys who hold political views or who are part of minorities that are despised by the powers…

and I hate to say, especially since I just created a new account to rebut this, but David Gregory's holding a magazine has zero basis for reference in this discussion. None. Its a bit of rightwing talking point at the moment, but it has nothing to do with aarons trial. So, no, not relevant. I don't care how much karma you have, or how long you've been on this site. I've been here for four years, maybe commented a doz…

This has nothing to do with the debate about guns and everything to do with prosecutorial and judicial discretion and the abuse there of.

Does the law matter? Does the law apply equally to everyone?

It certainly doesn't seem so. And if you look at the other examples I gave, this is all of a piece, irrespective of gun regulation. If you are wealthy and connected then many laws don't apply to you, or there is always a way around them. The prosecutors or judges will look the other way or go easy on you when you violate firearms law. Or, as with Rush Limbaugh, when you abuse prescription drugs. It's not a partisan issue, it's about class and status.

In the case of Aaron Swartz we have just such an example of being on the wrong end of prosecutorial discretion. JSTOR didn't go after Aaron, but the government decided to. They treated him like a terrorist.

Re: Jonathan James

#77

Post by 7f0415f3 »

afterburner wrote: post #53
rwmj wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of trouble and distress. He said in chat logs that he aimed to steal $15 million and retire. It's really not that much different from pickpocketing or bank robbery, except on a much larger scale, and I'm quite happy if pickpockets, bank robbers, insurance scammers, and other criminals get serious time. This is quite different from Aaron Swartz who w…

Pickpocketing, really? You want pickpocketing to get the same "serious time" as bank robbery?

Pickpockets should get far more time than bank robbers, per proportional harm to the victim, imo

Re: Jonathan James

#78

Post by nitrogen »

tkahn6 wrote: post #20
w1ntermute wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the Wiki article? He claimed he wasn't responsible for the TJX hack, yet they were going to scapegoat him.

Yes, he claimed that. It doesn't make it true. His own father believed that he was involved.

I can't speak to this specific case, but I'm sure lots of fathers have been completely wrong about their sons.

Re: Jonathan James

#79

Post by philwelch »

nitrogen wrote: post #75
philwelch wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shall we euthanize them and harvest their bodies for food, as well? You're coming across as quite the bigot. I don't know about you, but I learn more every year, so I imagine by the time I'm 75, I'll know at least three times as much as I know now. I'd give my 75 year old self the vote long before I'd give my 13 year old self the vote. Nor do I think being in school adequately prepares or informs anyone to be a citiz…

Diving down a ridiculously slippery slope by jumping from voting to euthanasia is hardly productive to the discussion. Instead, what would you say about jlgreco's contention that voting power should be given to those who have the greatest stake in the future?

I would say, and did say, that it's horrifyingly bigoted.

I would also say "all adult citizens" is probably the most just way to go about it. Inventing rationales to disenfranchise people is a dangerous way to enable bigotry.

On top of that, if you really want to give voting power to those who have the greatest stake in the future, then you should probably disenfranchise people without living descendants, or potentially give people more votes the more descendants they have. If you die without ever having children, you have no interest in what comes after your lifetime, but if you do have children, you want to pass on a better world and a better country to them. This is doubly true if you have grandchildren, since now you're interested in an even longer term, even after your children die. So why not give people one vote for themselves, two votes if they have children, three votes if they have grandchildren, and so forth, with one additional vote for each new generation added to their family line? This is also radically bigoted and unjust, but you could just as plausibly argue that it does give voting power to those who have the greatest stake in the future while having nearly the exact opposite effect.

Re: Jonathan James

#80

Post by w1ntermute »

philwelch wrote: post #73
jlgreco wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not possible for another 17 years. I am sure your average 13 year old could tell you that.

You really think the average 13 year old knows the constitutional age limit to be President?

Yes, it's much more likely that they know the age limit than your average baby boomer. Haven't you watched that show Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Most adults have shockingly poor general knowledge.
Post reply on HN