The General Crisis of the 17th Century • Hacker News Board

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#41

Post by michaelvkpdx » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 8:45 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #12

There are some interesting comparisons between (what the economist Tyler Cowen refers to as) The Great Stagnation Of 1973-now, and The Really Great Stagnation of 1650-1740. Restraining the comparison to the English speaking nations, we can say: 1.) Both episodes begin with a cultural revolution that has no precedent (the arrival of militant Protestantism versus the arrival of the counter-culture of the 1960s) 2.) Bot…

Replacing staring at screens with experiencing life.

Teaching our youth how to learn for themselves from experience, rather than Wikipedia and Facebook and social media du jour.

Talking to people in person rather than through screens and wires.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#42

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 8:53 PM UTC

ddlatham wrote: post #28

jotm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be independent, hence they are, they're their own nation. Forbidding that is a violation of their basic freedoms. Now, I do think that Russia influenced the Crimean vote and plunged Ukraine into chaos, but if it was an honest, impartial vote, they should be allowed to s…

If the Confederate States of America held a public vote to secede - do you think it would have passed? If it passed, do you think the United States should have let them secede?

Did the states vote on the issue? Either way I cannot reconcile saying no to them not being allowed to secede with Wilsons 14 points (and, on a personal point, I very much enjoyed my childhood in Southern Jutland, which was one of the areas that voted to join another country after WWI) or even the American revolution. I also can't argue against going to war with them to end slavery but that shouldn't necessarily mean that they should be forced to join the union afterwards.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#43

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 8:54 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #20

pluma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually exactly how I've recently heard the Peace of Westphalia[0] described (which ended the Thirty Years War in Germany): it established the idea that nations are independent "wholes" with their own laws, religion and politics, and that that's okay. The ideas encoded in the agreement are basically the reason we think of events like the Crimean secession[1] as an unconstitutional Russian annexation regardle…

> even if there was a referendum and even if that referendum was formally valid and the outcome was in favour of the secession, the constitution of the Ukraine forbids the secession and therefore renders the referendum invalid by definition. That's kind of weird. What does it take to peacefully annihilate/void a constitution, then? I would assume that if every citizen revokes their citizenship to the original country…

Most constitutions can be amended, but unless there are people with guns ready to back them up they are, to quote George Bush, "just a piece of paper".

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#44

Post by btilly » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:00 PM UTC

jotm wrote: post #25

pluma wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually exactly how I've recently heard the Peace of Westphalia[0] described (which ended the Thirty Years War in Germany): it established the idea that nations are independent "wholes" with their own laws, religion and politics, and that that's okay. The ideas encoded in the agreement are basically the reason we think of events like the Crimean secession[1] as an unconstitutional Russian annexation regardle…

Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be independent, hence they are, they're their own nation. Forbidding that is a violation of their basic freedoms. Now, I do think that Russia influenced the Crimean vote and plunged Ukraine into chaos, but if it was an honest, impartial vote, they should be allowed to s…

At what point do you think that a majority vote should overrule the Constitution? And what are the consequences if it happens?

It is worth comparing the US and French revolution. Both happened in the late 1700s. The US wound up with the attitude that the Constitution was sacrosanct and the current democratic will of the people is secondary. France wound up with the belief that what the majority wants should happen.

Since then the US has had one nasty civil war, but is still on its first republic.

France by contrast has been an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, an empire, and a republic. Each several times. (I think they were also briefly communist.) They are now a republic for the 5th time.

There is something to be said for a rule of law that can supersede the democratic whims of the moment.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#45

Post by btilly » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:04 PM UTC

jkot wrote: post #33

btilly wrote: post #2

Regardless of what you think about whether these crises were connected, they did give rise to a rather important idea. At its heart, the idea is that, "I won't kill you for your beliefs if you aren't going to kill me for mine." This may seem like common sense today, but historically we only arrived at it after having plenty of opportunity to deal with the aftermath of people being willing to kill each other for havin…

Roman Empire had pretty tolerant culture as well...

The Roman Empire was traditionally willing to tolerate you if you were willing to worship the Emperor as a god.

This version of tolerance famously didn't work out very well for Jews and Christians. Particularly since they were OK with private human sacrifice and public executions for entertainment.

We owe a lot to the Roman Empire. But I wouldn't romanticize it too much.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#46

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #44

jotm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be independent, hence they are, they're their own nation. Forbidding that is a violation of their basic freedoms. Now, I do think that Russia influenced the Crimean vote and plunged Ukraine into chaos, but if it was an honest, impartial vote, they should be allowed to s…

At what point do you think that a majority vote should overrule the Constitution? And what are the consequences if it happens? It is worth comparing the US and French revolution. Both happened in the late 1700s. The US wound up with the attitude that the Constitution was sacrosanct and the current democratic will of the people is secondary. France wound up with the belief that what the majority wants should happen. S…

Since the revolution, France has been an Empire twice, a monarchy other than an Empire once, plus the five republics; it has not been each form several times. And the changes to non-republic forms were not through democratic wind of the moment overturning the rule of law.

Also, the US had been through at least one change since the revolution parallel to the change between the fourth and fifth republic in France, that between the US under the Articles of Confederation and the US under the Constitution.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#47

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #31

walterbell wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least its not immutable even today We've since moved to immutable trade agreements.

And here I was thinking immutable == good. I guess functional programming doesn't work well with nation states.

Laws actually resemble immutable data structures pretty strongly! When a law is repealed, it's not simply erased, but rather a new law is passed that says "this law repeals that old law." When a law is changed, it's not rewritten, but a new law is passed that says "Section X of law Y is changed to read, 'blah blah blah.'" The full law in effect at any given time is just the sum of all those changes.

End digression!

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#48

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:13 PM UTC

Is there a crises timeline ? of some kind of transition map ? for periodicity ...

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#49

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #45

jkot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman Empire had pretty tolerant culture as well...

The Roman Empire was traditionally willing to tolerate you if you were willing to worship the Emperor as a god. This version of tolerance famously didn't work out very well for Jews and Christians. Particularly since they were OK with private human sacrifice and public executions for entertainment. We owe a lot to the Roman Empire. But I wouldn't romanticize it too much.

Owe? A thousand years of stagnation? A repressive regime that enslaved half the world for the benefit of a handful of their own rich?

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#50

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

ddlatham wrote: post #28

jotm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, I think if people seceded by a real public vote, they should be allowed to, regardless of what the constitution says. People in a region voted to be independent, hence they are, they're their own nation. Forbidding that is a violation of their basic freedoms. Now, I do think that Russia influenced the Crimean vote and plunged Ukraine into chaos, but if it was an honest, impartial vote, they should be allowed to s…

If the Confederate States of America held a public vote to secede - do you think it would have passed? If it passed, do you think the United States should have let them secede?

I think it all hinges on what "a public vote" is.

The problem most people have with Crimea, as far as I've seen, is not that there was a vote to secede. It's that the vote was heavily rigged and in no way reflects the popular sentiment of the people living there.

Similarly with the Confederates, I'm sure a public vote on secession would have passed, if you had limited it to people who were already eligible voters. But what if you had extended it to all the poor people and slaves? I'm going to hazard a guess that allowing the ~40% of the population that was enslaved to vote on the issue would have tipped the balance against secession.