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

Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#71

Post by adamnemecek »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #62
adamnemecek wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you aware that rand paul compared public health care to slavery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A ?

I'd still vote for him. The only other option is Sanders and he seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system. When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulat…

I've read your comment. I might have responded if it weren't for the stuff such as "like the USSR did". Sentences like that make it obvious that any discourse would be futile.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#72

Post by sjwright »

jbrown wrote: post #60
sjwright wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there…

How is exclusivity crucial to marriage in the maximal broadness sense? It might be crucial in the current legal landscape, but that's not what we're talking about here. I tend to think that in the broadest possible sense marriage is just a contract and there's nothing preventing it from including more than two parties. Or, even if you do create a compelling argument for it being a contract between only two people, wh…

We are absolutely talking about the current legal landscape. If you want to discuss polygamy in a spherical cow universe, that's fine, and I've already said I have no in-principle objection to formalizing polygamy.

However, a union between three or more people (or multiple concurrent marriages) is in an engineering sense a very different mechanism. It has more moving parts and more complicated parts. Most critically, its interfaces to the outside world are different.

It would require substantial root-and-branch changes to a massive amount of existing legislation in every country and state. Using a different word in law (while accepting colloquial use of the word marriage in everyday parlance) is a practical necessity.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#73

Post by dragonwriter »

sjwright wrote: post #72
jbrown wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is exclusivity crucial to marriage in the maximal broadness sense? It might be crucial in the current legal landscape, but that's not what we're talking about here. I tend to think that in the broadest possible sense marriage is just a contract and there's nothing preventing it from including more than two parties. Or, even if you do create a compelling argument for it being a contract between only two people, wh…

We are absolutely talking about the current legal landscape. If you want to discuss polygamy in a spherical cow universe, that's fine, and I've already said I have no in-principle objection to formalizing polygamy. However, a union between three or more people (or multiple concurrent marriages) is in an engineering sense a very different mechanism. It has more moving parts and more complicated parts. Most critically,…

> However, a union between three or more people (or multiple concurrent marriages) is in an engineering sense a very different mechanism.

Forming, adding to, withdrawing from, dissolving, and otherwise handling unions of three or more people, including in dealing with how the members of the union deal with their rights and powers vis-a-vis the property and prerogatives of the union as such between each other and in interfacing with outside entities has been dealt with fairly extensively over the past several centuries in the evolution of partnership law. And most of it can be viewed as a fairly direct multiparty generalization of the two party way similar things are dealt with in existing marriage.

There's no real reason that a generalization of marriage law to handle multiparty relationships that reduced naturally to the same handling for two-party cases as status quo rules would deserve any different name.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#74

Post by avn2109 »

sjwright wrote: post #58
jbrown wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gay Marriage Advocates tend to be skittish of embracing poly marriage because that would make them look more extreme. If they can show that their position is not the most extreme one out there, then they have a better chance of seeing their agenda actually become reality. The funny thing is that while poly marriage advocates might not like that right now, in the long run it might actually help them because it will pr…

The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there…

I have always wondered why the government is involved with marriage at all. Seems like it would be simpler if we set it up like this:

Everyone pays the same taxes no matter what, and you better write an explicit will and testament to control who gets your stuff when you die/can pull the plug on your vegetative state. Ie. no special benefits/drawbacks for married people.

If you want to get married, great---go find a church or a mosque or a ship's captain; it's none of the state's business. The government doesn't recognize the institution of marriage as anything special. Marriage would be an entirely private association, like joining the Elks lodge or something.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#75

Post by zxcvcxz »

adamnemecek wrote: post #71
zxcvcxz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd still vote for him. The only other option is Sanders and he seems to just want to concentrate all power at a federal level, like the USSR did. The left claims to want a more European style governance model but fail to accept that the EU does not have one healthcare system, does not have one schooling system, and does not have one college system. When you concentrate all power into a small point it makes manipulat…

I've read your comment. I might have responded if it weren't for the stuff such as "like the USSR did". Sentences like that make it obvious that any discourse would be futile.

It wouldn't be fair to compare the US to socialized countries like individual European nations because most European nations aren't world powers policing the globe and have much more economic and political stability. Most socialized European nations aren't experiencing social unrest or widespread disagreement about social policies.

The US on the other hand has much more disagreement. The USSR consisted of many countries dominated by the Soviets who didn't agree with many policies of the government. While the US isn't taking over other countries and making more US states, the states are already similar to small countries.

As we concentrate power more and more at a federal level we take away sovereignty from the individual states. This, in my opinion is very similar to what lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They spread themselves thin and forced everyone to assimilate under one political ideology. This only works when a large portion of the country agrees with said policies.

While the US will probably never suffer the same fate as the USSR, I could easily see us spreading our selves to thin across the globe, mismanaging money, and pissing everyone off, thus leading to economic decline and loss of faith in the political system as a whole (this is already happening).

America won't be able to handle socialism. We want too many things.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#76

Post by zxcvcxz »

hackuser wrote: post #66
hackinthebochs wrote: post #18

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of…

> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives, very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years (depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party rule. Many, many other things would happen that you probably wo…

It seems the choice is between an Authoritarian left or a small-government right.

I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#77

Post by adamnemecek »

zxcvcxz wrote: post #75
adamnemecek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read your comment. I might have responded if it weren't for the stuff such as "like the USSR did". Sentences like that make it obvious that any discourse would be futile.

It wouldn't be fair to compare the US to socialized countries like individual European nations because most European nations aren't world powers policing the globe and have much more economic and political stability. Most socialized European nations aren't experiencing social unrest or widespread disagreement about social policies. The US on the other hand has much more disagreement. The USSR consisted of many countr…

K.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#78

Post by dragonwriter »

avn2109 wrote: post #74
sjwright wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there…

I have always wondered why the government is involved with marriage at all. Seems like it would be simpler if we set it up like this: Everyone pays the same taxes no matter what, and you better write an explicit will and testament to control who gets your stuff when you die/can pull the plug on your vegetative state. Ie. no special benefits/drawbacks for married people. If you want to get married, great---go find a c…

That's "simpler" in the "fewest number of base rules" sense, and more complex in the UX sense.

Given the frequency of the desire to enter into a partnership with something like the kind of mutual exchange of commitments and agency relationships packaged in civil marriage, it makes sense as a UX optimization for government in terms of providing sensible defaults for common needs (with the ability for users interested in different configurations to reconfigure the defaults to a certain degree.)

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#79

Post by hackinthebochs »

adamnemecek wrote: post #53
hackinthebochs wrote: post #18

I'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of…

are you aware that rand paul compared public health care to slavery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXwDMqjC-A ?

Yeah I've seen that before, and it's obviously false and slightly nutty (as long as there are people voluntarily willing to provide care--and there will be--there is no force involved). But going up against the entrenched interests to reign in defense and spying is going to take someone slightly nutty. So at least on this particular issue its a virtue.

I'm aware that his politics comes with some, possibly many unsavory views, but I fully believe unchecked surveillance presents an existential crisis to America as we know it. Backsliding on marriage or abortion can be corrected in the future. There comes a point where there's no turning back the clock on ubiquitous surveillance.

Re: Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act

#80

Post by zxcvcxz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #70
hackinthebochs wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. That is, he supports a weak federal government and the right of states to make these decisions. But either way, the issue of unconstitutional surveillance, and the entrenched interests in favor of it, is by far the single most important issue facing this country. I will be casting my vote with this fact in mind. It is absurd to judge…

> As far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. Presumably, this refers to a different Senator Rand Paul than the one that sponsored the Life at Conception Act with the explicitly stated motivation to ban abortion federally. [0] [0] http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fet...

Personally if I had to choose between banning abortions or a government that completely ignores the 4th amendment I'd have to choose to ban abortions.

Luckily this is just a distraction issue and even if Paul did manage to get his legislation passed it would never stick. I know the leftists would really like everyone to think that he'll appoint supreme court justices that are literally immortal, but those guys die all the time.

Post reply on HN