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

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Jonathan James

#91

Post by qxcv »

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…

> You're coming across as quite the bigot.

Why is it that preventing the old from voting is "bigotry", whilst preventing the young from voting is merely an act prudence? You must remember that democracy is governance "by the people, for the people", not governance by some arbitrarily selected subset of the people. There is an age below which the majority of people are unable to make informed decisions about political representation (either due to lack of understanding or pressure from third parties like family), but I'm not convinced that 18 is that age.

Mind you, age cutoffs aren't the only way of tackling this problem.

> 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.

Unlikely. Net knowledge growth rate usually decreases significantly with age. You'll likely accumulate more knowledge between now and when you're 75, but certainly not three times more[0]. Ask a 75 year-old ;-)

> Nor do I think being in school adequately prepares or informs anyone to be a citizen.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, that was the point of my proposal. I don't think that today's youth take an active enough interest in politics, and I believe that allowing them to participate in the democratic system could increase their motivation to become more informed citizens.

[0]: At least, not by any measurable metric. "Common sense" is completely different.

Re: Jonathan James

#92

Post by nitrogen »

philwelch wrote: post #79
nitrogen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 potentia…

Because those children and grandchildren have their own votes.

Regardless of whether you want to take away anyone's right to vote (and I don't), I take jlgreco's suggestion as a starting point for a discussion of the fact that, through politics, much older people have an undue influence on the present and future lives of the young.

Re: Jonathan James

#93

Post by jwdunne »

linuxhansl wrote: post #40
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…

Punishment is unfortunately needed for deterrence. But 20 years? Does anybody here have any grasp about how long 20 years are in prison? Where I'm from the maximum sentence is 15 years in prison.

Yes, that stood out to me too. There are people in the UKwjo have been released or sentenced much shorter terms for FAR more heinous crimes. We're talking juveniles who have tortured and killed infants, people who have beaten children to death, people who raped multiple women and much more.

I know he stole a lot of money but this is compared to people who have destroyed lives, many of whom enjoyed doing so.

Re: Jonathan James

#94

Post by philwelch »

qxcv wrote: post #91
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…

> You're coming across as quite the bigot. Why is it that preventing the old from voting is "bigotry", whilst preventing the young from voting is merely an act prudence? You must remember that democracy is governance "by the people, for the people", not governance by some arbitrarily selected subset of the people. There is an age below which the majority of people are unable to make informed decisions about political…

> Why is it that preventing the old from voting is "bigotry", whilst preventing the young from voting is merely an act prudence?

There are lots of laws that restrict certain rights and privileges to adults only, and for fairly sensible reasons. No one wants to be governed by children. Maybe you want to lower the age of adulthood, and maybe that's possible, but it's something we'd need to do across the board.

There's also the troubling idea that you'd be taking the franchise away from people who already have it, rather than simply not extending it to people who do have it.

Finally, why would allowing people to participate in the democratic system at age 13 make them take an active interest in politics when allowing people to participate in the democratic system at age 18 does not? The root problem is that young people don't really have vested interests yet. They don't have jobs, or property, or children they're sending to school. When the 26th Amendment was passed, they did have the vested interest of not being drafted, I'll give you that, but that went away. Extending the vote to people who have even fewer vested interests won't have the desired effect.

I actually think that lowering the age of majority across the board to around 16 would be a good idea. You'd have to do it sensibly, though. So at age 16, compulsory education is over and you begin two years of national service, but you also immediately get voting and other rights. I can see something like that working.

> Net knowledge growth rate usually decreases significantly with age. You'll likely accumulate more knowledge between now and when you're 75, but certainly not three times more[0].

I was taking that into account, though. I'll probably know two and a half times more by the time I'm 50 ;)

Re: Jonathan James

#95

Post by philwelch »

nitrogen wrote: post #92
philwelch wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 potentia…

Because those children and grandchildren have their own votes. Regardless of whether you want to take away anyone's right to vote (and I don't), I take jlgreco's suggestion as a starting point for a discussion of the fact that, through politics, much older people have an undue influence on the present and future lives of the young.

You're missing the point. The point is that you can use plausible sounding justifications to disenfranchise anybody, and once you start that game it'll never be played in good faith. Universal suffrage just works.

I also wanted to pry a little into the assumption that people only care about their own well-being and not about anything after their own lifetimes. Actually, people are concerned about the well-being of the children and grandchildren that will survive them. I suspect if you measured it, you'd find that young, childless people are the worst at long-term orientation, partially because they have less reason to be, partially because they haven't had the personal experience of short-term thinking turning around to bite them, and partially because they have less conception of the fullness of time in the first place.

But who knows, right? Either one of us might be wrong, but either one of us can make a pretty convincing-sounding argument to disenfranchise arbitrary groups of people, which in effect means that either one of us will end up trying to disenfranchise whatever demographics vote against us. People used to think there were convincing-sounding reasons to disenfranchise women and blacks, or even people who didn't own land. I'd like to think we've moved past that kind of thing.

Re: Jonathan James

#96

Post by jacquesm »

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?

Let's hope they know that he's Canadian.

Re: Jonathan James

#98

Post by nitrogen »

philwelch wrote: post #95
nitrogen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those children and grandchildren have their own votes. Regardless of whether you want to take away anyone's right to vote (and I don't), I take jlgreco's suggestion as a starting point for a discussion of the fact that, through politics, much older people have an undue influence on the present and future lives of the young.

You're missing the point. The point is that you can use plausible sounding justifications to disenfranchise anybody , and once you start that game it'll never be played in good faith. Universal suffrage just works. I also wanted to pry a little into the assumption that people only care about their own well-being and not about anything after their own lifetimes. Actually, people are concerned about the well-being of t…

Elections are won by convincing the "right" people to get out and vote and the "wrong" people to stay home. Disenfranchisement is already happening.

I would also argue that concern for one's offspring is not sufficient to know what's best for them, let alone the offspring of others.

Re: Jonathan James

#100

Post by madaxe »

doktrin wrote: post #13
jeremymims wrote: post #4

Looks like Steve Heymann has a history of this: "The case was picked up by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann in Boston, the cybercrime prosecutor who won a record 20-year prison stretch for TJX hacker Albert Gonzalez. Heymann indicted Aaron on 13 counts of wire fraud, computer intrusion and reckless damage. The case has been wending through pre-trial motions for 18 months, and was set for jury trial on April 1."…

> "who won a record 20-year sentence" I know this is common verbiage, but it's frankly sickening. Do they view their targets as people, or are they merely a collection of scalps?

Yes. I know a few dozen criminal barristers in the UK.

They measure their success purely in terms of won cases, unsurprisingly - if you go to certain bars around the temples in London, you will overhear conversations along the lines of "got this guy sent down for 20 years today, don't know if he did it, but who gives a shit, and I'll be a QC in 5 years! Crack open the champagne!". They're not even in it for the money, as the CPS pays abysmally. They'd rather defend, as that pays - and again, on that side of the table, they have absolutely no interest in the innocence or guilt of their client, just in avoiding a conviction.

It's purely mercenary, and their stance is that it's just business as usual and impartiality - but it's a business that can cost innocent people their lives, and let the guilty walk free.

I believe your prosecutors in the US are rather better paid, which sets the incentives for conviction roughly on a par with acquittal.

Post reply on HN