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

Gödel's Loophole

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#31

Post by andrepd »

rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Wow, that's overly agressive. If you read the article, the story goes that upon asking him what government his native Austria had, Gödel commented "It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship." The judge commented that this could not happen in the U.S., and Gödel responded "Oh, yes, I can prove it".

I don't see how you jump from this, to saying that Gödel, who was a very smart person, childishly believed that words on paper were universally enforceable to their logical consequences. I'm sure he was aware of the existence of courts...

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#32

Post by btilly »

rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

This anecdote should also be understood in the context of the fact that Gödel struggled with paranoia after his mentor was assassinated in 1936. Eventually dying many years later from starvation after refusing to eat because he thought he was being poisoned.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#33

Post by jonathanstrange »

rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available."

If constitutional assemblies worry about things like that, it's not as silly as you put it for Gödel to have wondered about not having such features in the US constitution at a time just after WW2.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause

Edit: Not a minor nitpick. Article 1 AND 20. Fixed!

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#34

Post by drawkbox »

The Constitution and Amendments though typically only work when they expand rights/freedoms rather than contract rights/freedoms. A good example is the 18th Amendment [1] which was drug prohibition of alcohol in 1920 which was reversed with the 21st Amendment [2] in 1933. The addition took away rights/freedoms and it led to a bad phase in America as well as created mafias and underground black markets that sapped money from the regular markets. Interestingly, the country went through the Great Depression towards the end of that timeline.

James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, most of the Federalist Papers AND the Bill of Rights, wrote the Bill of Rights specifically for individual freedoms so that the states would not want to rewrite the Constitution in another convention. Any addition to the Constitution that doesn't add more freedoms, rights or expand the power of the people and their pursuit of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as stated in the Declaration of Independence, will be misguided and discarded. Using amendments to strip away the main body of the Constitution, unless for more rights/freedoms, would be an incorrect use of the design goals.

Almost immediately after beginning to meet in 1789, the first Congress, led by James Madison, began to consider amendments to the Constitution proposed by the state ratifying conventions. George Washington and Madison had personally pledged to consider amendments because they realized that some amendments would be necessary to reduce pressure for a second constitutional convention that might drastically alter and weaken the new federal government. Fastening on Anti-Federalist criticisms that the Constitution lacked a clear articulation of guaranteed rights, Madison proposed amendments that emphasized the rights of individuals rather than the rights of states, an ingenious move that led to cries that these amendments—now known as the "Bill of Rights"—were a mere diversion.

"I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights..."

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787 [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_...

[3] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/dema...

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#35

Post by warpspin »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #33
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

Just a minor nitpick. It is article 1 AND 20, not articles 1 to 20.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#36

Post by jonathanstrange »

IsopropylMalbec wrote: post #15
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #2

There is no need for a loop hole. A president can do plenty of illegal things without consequences already. Incrementally do it while the public becomes numb to it, or worse, while vocal supporters becomes more nad more entitles, and you get to a dictatorship.

The Wikipedia article about it mentions using Article V against itself, slowly erroding it and the Constitution. That doesn't seem like the loophole Godel might be concerned about. if he did find something more concerning then given his skills this looks like nearly perfect security by obscurity.

I agree with that. If a logician like Gödel talked about an "inner contradiction", then I'm inclined to believe he really thought he had spotted a contradiction, not just some way of slowly eroding an article.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#37

Post by aaron695 »

jimmyed wrote: post #14
tempaccount99 wrote: post #8

I suspect such loopholes exist in other constitutions, constitutions like source codes have influenced other constitutions. Most recent small example in this area : Government of India used article 370 to ammend article 367 which again affected article 370 to change status of Jammu and Kashmir.

No tempaccount99, that would be a regular amendment. Not a fascist dictatorship-ish "loophole"

No it's not a regular amendment, as tempaccount99 explained.

More here -

https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/kas...

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#38

Post by raverbashing »

eurasiantiger wrote: post #21
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

It’s baffling that some people believe banning something by law prevents it from happening.

Well it doesn't, but there are other people "supposed" to prevent it.

But yes, law people sometimes forget that it's all words on paper.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#39

Post by msravi »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #33
rtpg wrote: post #7

This is the prototypical "wow the nerd tried to solve law and lawyering". Yes, the constitution can be ammended to be less democratic. It can also be entirely ignored by everyone, and things can also happen in ways that go against its text, with judges looking the other way! People are not magically bound by words on a piece of paper, so if you end up being able to go through the (extremely arduous! Moreso than many…

Wow, you're seriously underestimating this issue. For instance, the German constitution ("Grundgesetz") has an eternity clause in it that makes it unconstitutional to remove the basic principles in Articles 1 and 20. Many other modern constitutions have such clauses.[1] By the way, Article 4, paragraph 4 in the German constitution states: " All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this…

OP's point is that you can write anything in the constitution - that it can never be changed, or whatever - but that's of no value whatsoever, if a large majority of people agree and decide that it's an invalid document.

Re: Gödel's Loophole

#40

Post by Cthulhu_ »

raverbashing wrote: post #38
eurasiantiger wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s baffling that some people believe banning something by law prevents it from happening.

Well it doesn't, but there are other people "supposed" to prevent it. But yes, law people sometimes forget that it's all words on paper.

Supposed indeed. But in the US, the top tier of said people is also heavily political and partisan.

Anyway, the rule of law quickly becomes irrelevant when something takes over by force. Currently Myanmar is controlled by a military coup, for example, and there was an attempted coup by civilians in the US not too long ago (while the legal and military branches of it stood by and did nothing)

Post reply on HN