Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008) • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#171

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:18 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #166

john_b wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should politicians in a democracy cater to the pet issues of an ideological minority? From a human and Constitutional rights point of view, they have an obligation to respect the views of those ideological minorities when their main agenda is defending their rights (right to privacy, free speech, or whatever it may be). A pure democratic system is little more than a (usually peaceful) mob rule, but in a represe…

> they have an obligation to respect the views of those ideological minorities when their main agenda is defending their rights Ideological minorities don't get to make up "rights" and then demand the government defend them. The government has the obligation to defend free speech rights, even against the wishes of the majority, because there is ancient recognition of that right along with explicit adoption of a broad…

> Ideological minorities don't get to make up "rights" and then demand the government defend them.

Sure they do; their right to make such demands is fairly explicit in the First Amendment (both the right to assemble and the right to petition apply to it.)

Now, the answer to the demand may be "No", but that's a different issue.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#172

Post by aleyan » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:19 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #118

mchusma wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I've always thought Lincoln (and this quote supports the idea) that he was so obsessed with keeping the union together that he was willing to actively go against morality. For example, keepin the union together is of dubious intent by the people of that time. States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. If I join a club I expect I can leave. Ok the other hand, he did thi…

> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like. It's also of severe dubious moral quality when the whole reason you secede is merely because you see a threat to your system of institution…

> There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like.

A member state of the European Union can do that, yet it is still a union. There are quite a few anti-EU parties in Europe, yet none have mustered enough support to leave yet.

At the end of the day each state does a calculus of what the benefits of staying are and what are the maluses of EU laws they don't like. If the cons outweigh the pros, the state should leave; forcing them to stay in a bad marriage is tyrannical.

> You shouldn't get to simply join when the going is good for you, and stab the rest of the nation in the back only when the going is bad. Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#173

Post by popee » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:21 PM UTC

agwa wrote: post #148

bpatrianakos wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke. If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are…

> Those in power want you not to vote No, those in power very much want you to vote. Voting is a great feel-good process that gives the illusion that the people are sovereign when in reality we have practically no power and the government can do whatever the hell it wants as long as both parties agree on it. If this wasn't a democracy it would be quite clear where the power really lies, but since it is a democracy, t…

Yeah, they want people to vote because then they can say: "will of majority". If only 1 person voted, the so called democracy would fail (people would eventually get it), because 1 person is not representing majority and majority is what democracy is all about (with all respect to minorities). They only made semantic switch saying that if you don't vote then you don't care -> not true because what if you are against (for example corrupted?) system and want real change -> should there be an voting choice: "this is not working, change the system"? :-)

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#174

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:22 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #69

leephillips wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few people in the history of people who will look presentable standing next to Lincoln. His combination of moral strength and intellectual fortitude is unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable. I was gullible enough to vote for Obama, who seems to enjoy making a sport out of seeing how many people he can disappoint as deeply as possible.

Interesting. I've always thought Lincoln (and this quote supports the idea) that he was so obsessed with keeping the union together that he was willing to actively go against morality. For example, keepin the union together is of dubious intent by the people of that time. States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. If I join a club I expect I can leave. Ok the other hand, he did thi…

> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out?

Because while there's provisions allowing states to be admitted with the consent of the rest of the States, there's none permitting them to leave on their own once they've joined. That's the deal they signed on for.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#175

Post by tjr » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:25 PM UTC

john_b wrote: post #167

astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

Even if you accept the idea that your vote has some tiny marginal effect on the outcome (which, in the electoral college, is usually not the case), you still have to weigh the opportunity cost of voting (and of the time spent deciding who to vote for) against what you would have been able to do with that time had you not bothered. You could spend more time with your family, with friends, learn a new skill, enjoy a mo…

Local elections are a more worthwhile, due to the increased influence of even a single voice and the fact that they are usually decided by popular vote.

And this might really be the place to put most of your political thought and effort. Getting good people into local offices can be a first step to getting those same good people into regional, state, national offices. If we want until the presidential election to care, it's likely too late.

As far as spending time on the major elections... I don't watch the news 24/7. I spend maybe ten hours during "election season" watching debates and reading articles, and a lot of that is done socially with friends and family. I enjoy it, and do not consider it time wasted. My polling place is about two blocks from my home. It takes me ten minutes to go vote. I do not see elections as a worthless drain on my time, even if my one vote, by itself, doesn't matter.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#176

Post by saraid216 » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:25 PM UTC

john_b wrote: post #167

astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

Even if you accept the idea that your vote has some tiny marginal effect on the outcome (which, in the electoral college, is usually not the case), you still have to weigh the opportunity cost of voting (and of the time spent deciding who to vote for) against what you would have been able to do with that time had you not bothered. You could spend more time with your family, with friends, learn a new skill, enjoy a mo…

The entire point of voting is about not being as relentlessly self-absorbed as you've described here.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#177

Post by mpyne » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:29 PM UTC

aleyan wrote: post #172

mpyne wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like. It's also of severe dubious moral quality when the whole reason you secede is merely because you see a threat to your system of institution…

> There's no such thing as a "Union" at all if each state could simply walk out when the Federal government passed a law the state didn't like, or the country elected a President the state didn't like. A member state of the European Union can do that, yet it is still a union. There are quite a few anti-EU parties in Europe, yet none have mustered enough support to leave yet. At the end of the day each state does a ca…

> Relationships should be maintained while they are mutually beneficial, if the benefits are once sided, there is no reason to keep it.

What if the relationship has always been one-sided, but was entered into in the expectation of future mutual benefit?

There is certainly something to be said for two sides agreeing that there is no longer a mutual benefit for each other and choosing to go separate ways. But not for one side to unilaterally decide that they have extracted all they can from a relationship and unilaterally decide to therefore end it.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#178

Post by john_b » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:29 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #166

john_b wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should politicians in a democracy cater to the pet issues of an ideological minority? From a human and Constitutional rights point of view, they have an obligation to respect the views of those ideological minorities when their main agenda is defending their rights (right to privacy, free speech, or whatever it may be). A pure democratic system is little more than a (usually peaceful) mob rule, but in a represe…

> they have an obligation to respect the views of those ideological minorities when their main agenda is defending their rights Ideological minorities don't get to make up "rights" and then demand the government defend them. The government has the obligation to defend free speech rights, even against the wishes of the majority, because there is ancient recognition of that right along with explicit adoption of a broad…

The right to privacy falls under the "human rights" part of my comment. You are free to disagree that privacy in some meaningful sense is not a human right, but the very fact that so many other rights (both legal and human) are easily compromised when it is not present is a strong hurdle to overcome, should you wish to make that argument.

As an example, you have the right to criticize your employer (freedom of speech). For obvious reasons, this right is best exercised in private, where the employer cannot overhear the conversation. If the employer operated a massive surveilance network that recorded your supposedly private conversations, you could then suffer punitive consequences and be denied career opportunities merely for voicing an opinion.

You have a legal right to an attorney, but that right is only useful because your discussions with your attorney are confidential. Without that privacy, the whole value of the right simply evaporates.

My view is that the right to privacy is such an obvious prerequisite for most, if not all, of our legal rights to have any value that it shouldn't need to be explicitly detailed in the Constitution or in any specific law. Furthermore, the world the Founders lived in was a world in which privacy was easy to safeguard, and the few obvious ways to violate it (e.g. unreasonable searches and seizures) were addressed by the Bill of Rights.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#179

Post by lr » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:30 PM UTC

The Office of the President of the United States is controlled my the machinery of government. At this point, the person you put in there does one thing that we need to pay attention to: appoint judges. Everything else is just nuance of a system so entrenched, even the staunchest Green Party candidate would have problems doing anything he/she claimed as a candidate. Once the person is elected, "realism" kicks in, and the person is merely a guide on an already sailing ship.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#180

Post by VikingCoder » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 4:30 PM UTC

thesis wrote: post #165

VikingCoder wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just love watching people complain about government surveillance while accessing Comcast Internet with Google Chrome on Microsoft Windows on an HP computer that was shipped by FedEx after being purchased from Amazon over a Motorola phone on a Verizon 4G network with a VISA debit card from FDIC-backed Wells Fargo that was issued after a credit check from Equifax, Experian or TransUnion, using currency controlled by…

What? Because we rely on a massive infrastructure we aren't allowed to complain about government surveillance? Also not sure how prices for hard drives got brought up. What relevance does cheap disk space have on this?

My point was, "If you don't want the government to look over a company's shoulder at data they've collected, maybe we should make it illegal for companies to collect that information in the first place."

And, before the age of massive hard drives it was easy to imagine that we were anonymous - that it would be impossible for any government or corporation to keep many records on us. I was highlighting that information is so shockingly cheap to store now, that even your local burger joint could trivially afford to own a database storing a huge amount of information on every single person in this country.