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

The General Crisis of the 17th Century

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#71

Post by thisrod »

amyjess wrote: post #60
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…

> arguably, this is an area where the analogy breaks down, as nothing of the last 50 years seems to match the importance of Newton or Boyle I'd argue that the ongoing computer revolution matches that. While, true, our knowledge of proper science hasn't advanced compared to what Newton, Boyle, et al. have done, our advances in engineering have more than made up for it. Personal computers, the Internet, and smartphones…

> our advances in engineering

Think about where that word comes from.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#72

Post by afarrell »

pdonis wrote: post #70
amyjess wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US was fundamentally no better, and in practice worse despite the Bill of Rights You also have to remember that until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, the Bill of Rights only applied to acts of Congress ("Congress shall make no law...") and not to state legislatures.

> the Bill of Rights only applied to acts of Congress ("Congress shall make no law...") That specific language only appears in the First Amendment. Other amendments were taken to apply to the states well before the Fourteenth; for example, there is case law from state courts from the first half of the 19th century dealing with how states interpret the Second Amendment, which would be meaningless if that Amendment wer…

I would be very interested in reading that case law if you can dig it up for us.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#73

Post by anigbrowl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #69
anigbrowl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too would like it taught in schools, but I also think its important to have reliable sources for the bare facts. It depresses me when I go to the history section in a bookstore and see how much of it is given over to conflicting viewpoints of the same events, so there's (almost) different versions of history available depending on what you already like to believe - conservative history over here, liberal history ov…

> I too would like it taught in schools, but I also think its important to have reliable sources for the bare facts. No such thing is possible. Facts are inferred unreliably from physical evidence and (at best) primary sources which are written by people who (claim to have) direct experience, but who also write with agendas. > It depresses me when I go to the history section in a bookstore and see how much of it is g…

I think you're exaggerating the difficulty. We have more than sufficient documentation of many facts to make definitive statements about them, and where we are not sure abou ttheir provenance we can qualify our statements as being limited to a sinlge source or being controversial. We could, for example, dispute the historical causes of the Battle of Waterloo all day, but there's widespread agreement that it took place 200 years ago next Thursday, who the principles were, how it proceeded, and what the outcome was. Of course there are numerous details about the event that event that remain the subject of historical inquiry; did Wellington meet Blucher at 9pm or 10pm, and where on the battlefield did this meeting take place?

It's certainly true that any historical incident comes with a mass of unanswered questions, sometimes of great import - witness the ongoing controversies over the assassination of Kennedy or the authorship of the September 11 2001 attacks in modern times. But there is little dispute that that assassination and those attacks took place on those dates, what the basic nature of those events were and what major changes ensued in the aftermath. Although we face significant epistemological limitations in studying history, you seem to be arguing an almost solipsistic position, as if the impossibility of knowing everything invalidated the notion of knowing anything.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#74

Post by afarrell »

anigbrowl wrote: post #59
btilly wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Eh...things would have been very different if the US had to remain inside roughly the same boundaries it had at the time of its founding, rather than having an entire continent to expand into. France has been through multiple Republics but hasn't really had a huge civil war since the French revolution, and I don't think you can blame France for all the instability brought about by external aggression (Franco-Prussian…

nitpick: the Canadians actually beat us in the war of 1812. Twice if you count the failure of Benedict Arnold's campaign. The real reason for the peace along our northern border was Britain's post-Munroe policy of trying to cultivate an alliance with us as a means first of securing free access to Latin American ports and later of having us to aid it in its traditional role of balancing against the prospect of a hegemony on the European mainland.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#75

Post by afarrell »

tomjen3 wrote: post #42
ddlatham wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To my knowledge, states did not hold plebicites. However, their legislatures did vote on the issue. You can read the ordinances of secession passed by the legislatures here: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

Note that what is shown are excerpts. click the links to view the full measures passed. Note the ones that include the defense of the institution of slavery as their primary motivation.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#76

Post by btilly »

afarrell wrote: post #72
pdonis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Bill of Rights only applied to acts of Congress ("Congress shall make no law...") That specific language only appears in the First Amendment. Other amendments were taken to apply to the states well before the Fourteenth; for example, there is case law from state courts from the first half of the 19th century dealing with how states interpret the Second Amendment, which would be meaningless if that Amendment wer…

I would be very interested in reading that case law if you can dig it up for us.

Most of the cases that are usually cited were, upon close reading, decided based on clauses in various state constitutions. The one exception that I am aware of is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia where the decision was made in a state court and hence was only binding for that state.

By contrast in the early years after the 14th was passed, the Supreme Court stated in both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois that the 2nd amendment was only a restriction on what the federal government could do. State and local regulation was unaffected.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#77

Post by tomrod »

thisrod wrote: post #71
amyjess wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> arguably, this is an area where the analogy breaks down, as nothing of the last 50 years seems to match the importance of Newton or Boyle I'd argue that the ongoing computer revolution matches that. While, true, our knowledge of proper science hasn't advanced compared to what Newton, Boyle, et al. have done, our advances in engineering have more than made up for it. Personal computers, the Internet, and smartphones…

> our advances in engine ering Think about where that word comes from.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=engineer

Mid-14th century, constructor of military war engines (e.g. trebuchet).

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#79

Post by anigbrowl »

afarrell wrote: post #74
anigbrowl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh...things would have been very different if the US had to remain inside roughly the same boundaries it had at the time of its founding, rather than having an entire continent to expand into. France has been through multiple Republics but hasn't really had a huge civil war since the French revolution, and I don't think you can blame France for all the instability brought about by external aggression (Franco-Prussian…

nitpick: the Canadians actually beat us in the war of 1812. Twice if you count the failure of Benedict Arnold's campaign. The real reason for the peace along our northern border was Britain's post-Munroe policy of trying to cultivate an alliance with us as a means first of securing free access to Latin American ports and later of having us to aid it in its traditional role of balancing against the prospect of a hegem…

D'oh! You're right of course, I apologize for such a lazy mistake.

Re: The General Crisis of the 17th Century

#80

Post by tsotha »

grkvlt wrote: post #54
JonnieCache wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been recently changed. Catholics are now allowed, and men no longer take precedence over women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Agreement The whole thing is still, to quote Doug Stanhope, "some dungeons and dragons bullshit", but at least its not immutable even today.

Nope, those Married to Catholics are now allowed, but Catholics themselves? Definitely not. And Jews? Muslims? Forget it! "the requirement for the sovereign to be in communion with the Church of England remained"

Well, it's kind of problematic if the head of a church doesn't actually belong to it.
Post reply on HN