Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#41

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 4:35 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #39

tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree strongly with the first half of your comment, but the second half, from consecutive sentencing on, is simply incorrect. Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges. The prosecutors threatened Swartz not with 35 year…

> Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines work that way, but the federal sentencing guidelines are not mandatory (due to U.S. v. Booker ) and sentences which exceed what the guidelines…

Let me dig around for the last time this got litigated on HN and spare us another one. IIRC, you're more right about this than I am. I'm not sure how practical the discussion is, though: again, DOJ threatened 7 years, not 35, and the 1-2 year estimate is based on the facts of the case and the sentencing guidelines, while the 7 year thing is based on fantastic assumptions.

Edit: here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7999002 --- 'pdabbadabba is a lawyer, I think. The author of that Popehat post is, FWIW to other readers, a former prosecutor.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#42

Post by sarciszewski » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 4:38 PM UTC

joslin01 wrote: post #40

jeremysmyth wrote: post #12

Two things. Firstly, please spell his name correctly. It's Aaron Swartz. That respects him and makes sure that your audience isn't distracted by that tiny detail and can focus on your message. Secondly, the petition was too narrow and targeted the individual prosecutor for that case. Even if she was removed, it wouldn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again. The larger issue (and one closer to the point) is…

Right, Swartz. Moving onto more important matters.. I don't agree with your general overtone. Is it fair that they can make an example out of us, but we can't make an example out of them? Should my ire really be with the law (a tool) or the person executing the law (using her tool) to aggressively vilify an innocent, bright kid? We're humans living amongst humans; let's not forget that. Your assertion that "the large…

Do you prefer torches or pitchforks?

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#43

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 4:43 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #41

dragonwriter wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines work that way, but the federal sentencing guidelines are not mandatory (due to U.S. v. Booker ) and sentences which exceed what the guidelines…

Let me dig around for the last time this got litigated on HN and spare us another one. IIRC, you're more right about this than I am. I'm not sure how practical the discussion is, though: again, DOJ threatened 7 years, not 35, and the 1-2 year estimate is based on the facts of the case and the sentencing guidelines, while the 7 year thing is based on fantastic assumptions. Edit: here's one: https://news.ycombinator.co…

Oh, I agree that even the 7 year sentence was unlikely to have been imposed by a court given the facts (the prosecutor could seek it, of course), the guidelines, and the degree to which courts tend to adhere to the guidelines -- I was just addressing the idea that the sentence that you'd get from adding up the maximum sentences cannot be awarded, and that what the guidelines allow is the real maximum.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#44

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #26

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That or in the face of majoritarianism, gerrymandering and electoral colleges - you realize that the odds are stacked against you, and simply choose "not to play".

The fact that your vote may have less impact than you might wish doesn't mean that it has literally zero value.

If your vote has less value to you than the time it takes to cast the ballot, it has zero economic value, and will therefore not happen, regardless of its nonzero absolute value.

A cynical potential voter may recognize that the net effect of laws and rules set up around the voting system is to alienate his or her opinion from the results of elections. In that case, declining to vote is a rational and reasonable decision. Most people judge the value of their votes by the perceived impact that their votes have on the results of the election. If you cannot detect a change in public policy as a result of your votes, your vote does literally have zero value.

In that case, you should be doing something else to effect a change in your own situation. I suspect that for most people, working during the time you would ordinarily spend voting then spending the profits on a lobbyist to directly influence an already-elected policy-maker for a specific issue that interests you would be more effective than casting a free ballot.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#45

Post by tim_hutton » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

sarciszewski wrote: post #23

What is the exact problem you want to solve? What are some of the causes of the problem? What are some of the effects of the problem? If the problem disappeared today, what side-effects would it have on the rest of the world? What, given all of the answers to these questions, would be a solution that solves the commonly agreed upon problem (usually by solving the causes for said problem rather than the problem itself…

The root cause of this is the influence of money on our politicians.

Symptoms include laws written for the rich and the corporations rather than for the people, causing the continued growth of inequality and a drag on the economy.

Support Lawrence Lessig in his efforts to solve this root problem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

He departs on the second of his New Hampshire Rebellion walks on Sunday.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#46

Post by innguest » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:03 PM UTC

fmdud wrote: post #9

skidoo wrote: post #3

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way around, then there is no reason to recognize its supposed authority. Live a moral and ethical life, but live as though the government does not exist. It will never willingly relinquish its power. You cannot change the system from the inside out. Every politician i…

>Stop voting. Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this: “If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in thei…

You are totally deluded if you think that way. I used to refute this sort of sophism when I was 12.

Let me paint you a picture. Imagine all there is is the town you live in with your local community. All of a sudden a gang comes in and demands protection money from everyone once a year, or they will cage non-payers. This gang then champions an idea called "democracy" whereby the oppressed sometimes have a cathartic moment where they think they are telling the gang their opinions and making choices on how the gang will run their criminal deeds. Of course, the gang does all in its power, with a lot of rhetoric, to convince the oppressed that only through this "voting" thing that this gang made up, can you really change things in your town. The gang gets every townsfolk to believe it is their duty to participate in this ritual. More importantly, through this propaganda, the gang is able to inculcate in the oppressed that they must shun and mock those that see through the whole charade and refuse to be enablers in this act of submission to the wills of the gang.

You and DFW are both brain-dead.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#47

Post by jbeckham » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

biggot_man wrote: post #37

jbeckham wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have a democracy in the United States. We have a representative republic. There is a big difference. Not being involved in the political process just completely removes any influence you have on the process and the outcomes. However, if your belief is that not voting is the right thing to do, then by all means, please abstain from voting. I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway. EDIT/Clarification: W…

What you have, in particular, is a "I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway"-cracy Not very democratic eitherway.

Unfortunately, we don't have a "I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway"-cracy because the get out the vote crowd will bus in people with the bribe of a free lunch.

I never claimed I wanted a pure democracy...

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#48

Post by eli » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #44

eli wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that your vote may have less impact than you might wish doesn't mean that it has literally zero value.

If your vote has less value to you than the time it takes to cast the ballot, it has zero economic value, and will therefore not happen, regardless of its nonzero absolute value. A cynical potential voter may recognize that the net effect of laws and rules set up around the voting system is to alienate his or her opinion from the results of elections. In that case, declining to vote is a rational and reasonable decis…

> If you cannot detect a change in public policy as a result of your votes, your vote does literally have zero value.

So the person who casts the deciding vote in a race decides 100% of the election and everyone else 0%? That doesn't sound right...

I'm all for making it easier to vote, though.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#49

Post by innguest » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

jbeckham wrote: post #22

skidoo wrote: post #3

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way around, then there is no reason to recognize its supposed authority. Live a moral and ethical life, but live as though the government does not exist. It will never willingly relinquish its power. You cannot change the system from the inside out. Every politician i…

If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem. Almost all of the state and federal politicians have started at local levels, especially the congressmen. The issue is that it is easier to say they are all corrupt t…

So if a family is kidnapped and the kidnappers establish a system where the family members can leave one by one if they can win at the challenges the kidnappers come up with, and one of the family members has a few ideas of how to break free of this oppression, but none of those ideas are within the "system" put forward by the kidnappers, then you'd tell that family that instead of daydreaming about these other possible solutions, that they should just accept the oppression and only work within the framework of this oppressive environment and its system which was architected by the oppressor?

Because the way you put it makes it seem like you are blind to some of the most basic government propaganda. Of course oppressor gangs will want you to believe you can only change the way you're oppressed through their approved means. That's part of being an oppressor, lying to your victims to keep them from revolting, convincing them the only way to change is through these meticulous set of steps, that they have to talk to so and so, establish this and that, fill this form out, sign here, fingerprint this, get in line, come back tomorrow, we'll let you know when we've made a decision on your case, to finally tell you nothing will be done regarding your concern.

Wake up.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#50

Post by innguest » Thu, Jan 08, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

e40 wrote: post #10

skidoo wrote: post #3

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way around, then there is no reason to recognize its supposed authority. Live a moral and ethical life, but live as though the government does not exist. It will never willingly relinquish its power. You cannot change the system from the inside out. Every politician i…

This amounts to abandoning the system to those that are messing it up, and will only result in things getting worse and worse until revolution is the only possible fix. I can't believe that's the only fix. I think your attitude is what's causing the problem. Many politicians realized, decades ago, that fear and social issues could be used to redirect people's attention (abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, threat of…

Look at the system this gang you call "government" has created.

They tell you you rule the country, but you have to tell them what you want, through these voting things.

Then they ignore those voting things and just do as they please.

Then the fools that believed they could change their oppressor's mind with voting things, get upset that the voting things didn't work.

The gang assures you that voting things work.

So you're left to believe that the reason the system doesn't work is because not enough people are using the voting things.

Yeah! They're the problem! Oh no, look away! - the gang threatening to throw you in a cage for not paying protection money isn't the problem, because you see, they are you since they have assured you that you are in control, through these voting things.

That's the circular reasoning they use to take down your thinking skills. I'm impressed it only took this much to fool you, as this is really basic rhetoric that most children can see through.

Yes, let's change our oppressor ways through oppressor-approved means, because there's no oppressor, as our oppressor keeps telling us. Genius.