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

Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

scmp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 348 posts

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#321

Post by Kalium »

yellowapple wrote: post #319
Kalium wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perhaps nothing but my own opinion, but what you're describing sounds a great deal like removing a higher polity while preserving most of the political structures. I understand that some opinions may reasonably differ on the subject.

Just because the political structures are similar doesn't mean their composition is similar, which is more what I'm getting at. Definitely fair to draw comparisons, though; you're right that there are structural similarities on a state and federal level to the old colonial and imperial governments (respectively). My argument is that how the legislators and executives of those governments are appointed (i.e. democrati…

> Just because the political structures are similar doesn't mean their composition is similar, which is more what I'm getting at.

You're absolutely correct!

In case I was unclear eariler, I was strictly addressing questions of structure. Please accept my sincere apologies for my failure to make my self clear.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#322

Post by camgunz »

leftyted wrote: post #259
camgunz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was never (and still isn't) meant to ensure the right of people to violently resist or overthrow the government. The way to influence the US government is to become involved in the process, not (threaten to) shoot people. If that's ever not the case, you don't have a country, you have a failed state.

It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check. It's a persistent myth that this is not the case. The US was born in revolution and the founders were very concerned about the possibility of a tyrannical government…

> It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government).

Nah, this is totally wrong. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over state militias to suppress insurrections:

"The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1]

Further, the Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to take control of State militias, and this was famously used by George Washington himself to quell the Whiskey Rebellion.

> Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check.

He did, yes, but he was talking about States vs. the Federal government. He also later saw how bad militias were at being an army (a point Washington argued over and over again) in the War of 1812 and changed his position in favor of a strong, standing, Federal army. And FWIW, we put the question of States keeping the Federal government in check to bed in the Civil War.

[1]: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#323

Post by tlynchpin »

autarch wrote: post #119
justaguyhere wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

each time, HK will lose a few more rights they used to have. Very likely. Sucks for HK people though :( Same story everywhere - nothing much changed after the Arab spring protests, for example. As impressive as they are, how long can Hong Kong people keep up this level of protests? Beijing can keep the pressure forever and play the long game

> Same story everywhere - nothing much changed after the Arab spring protests, for example. Except in Tunisia, which is the one success story from that time period. It's now a functioning democracy. Of course the real test is how it does over the long term, but at least so far it's an example of real change in the region.

There was a street seller who was so distressed by the economic conditions and especially the petty corruption that he publicly set himself on fire.

Almost a decade later, possibly the cops on the beat shakedown situation has improved but general man on the street economic conditions are not improved in Tunisia. It is not apparently (yet) a success story.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#324

Post by camgunz »

pteredactyl wrote: post #289
camgunz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was never (and still isn't) meant to ensure the right of people to violently resist or overthrow the government. The way to influence the US government is to become involved in the process, not (threaten to) shoot people. If that's ever not the case, you don't have a country, you have a failed state.

In a failed state scenario, as you mentioned, what's the recourse of the people?

Well, sadly, it's of course violence. The basic contract of government is you give up some liberty for safety (Hobbes), i.e. you don't go around robbing people, and the government will see that no one else goes around robbing you. But this sort of first form of government was inflexible, and if you wanted to change it you basically had to kill the people in charge. The chief innovation of liberal government was "self governance", and the trade there was "OK, we'll listen to you, you don't have to murder us to effect change". Practically everyone does this via some form of voting.

But as soon as that contract breaks down, i.e. the government stops listening to you, then that contract is breached and generally trouble starts. It gets (arguably) even worse if the government falls entirely, because then you get the kind of lawless marauding you had before any government.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#325

Post by SllX »

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #303
SllX wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s been an effective method of sanctioning individuals and organizations so far. WeChat and Alipay isn’t worth a damn outside of PRC, and sanctioning a handful of pro-Beijing individuals isn’t likely to change that. Truth is, the United States still dominates the global financial infrastructure and being cut off from that is a difficult pill for most to swallow.

I guess. But what would the average citizen use? Cash? Seems likely that somebody would step in to be the de facto online transaction provider. And the government probably would want some way to financially tie HK to the mainland.

I think you are misunderstanding. These sorts of sanctions are highly targeted at specific individuals and organizations, not the entire HK citizenry.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#326

Post by leftyted »

camgunz wrote: post #322
leftyted wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check. It's a persistent myth that this is not the case. The US was born in revolution and the founders were very concerned about the possibility of a tyrannical government…

> It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Nah, this is totally wrong. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over state militias to suppress insurrections: "The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress…

The right to bear arms arrived to the United States via English common law. It existed in English common law for the purpose of self-defense, resistance against oppression, and to assist the defense of the realm.

Whether or not Madison (or Washington or whoever) changed his mind at some point does not change the fact that this is the purpose of the Second Amendment. No other laws (like the ones you cited) change this fact, nor does the Civil War.

You can argue that this interpretation is obsolete, but it's the interpretation that was predominant when the Constitution was ratified. Denying that is ahistorical.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#327

Post by yellowapple »

Kalium wrote: post #321
yellowapple wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the political structures are similar doesn't mean their composition is similar, which is more what I'm getting at. Definitely fair to draw comparisons, though; you're right that there are structural similarities on a state and federal level to the old colonial and imperial governments (respectively). My argument is that how the legislators and executives of those governments are appointed (i.e. democrati…

> Just because the political structures are similar doesn't mean their composition is similar, which is more what I'm getting at. You're absolutely correct! In case I was unclear eariler, I was strictly addressing questions of structure. Please accept my sincere apologies for my failure to make my self clear.

It's all good! It's definitely a useful comparison to draw, since it's a critical piece of the puzzle on how "Western" government has evolved over the centuries in that gradual migration from absolute monarchies to democracies. It's always interesting to identify and examine those vestiges of governments old in their modern descendants, in the same way that wings, flippers, and arms can be so similar in structure yet so different in application :)

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#328

Post by camgunz »

leftyted wrote: post #326
camgunz wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Nah, this is totally wrong. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over state militias to suppress insurrections: "The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress…

The right to bear arms arrived to the United States via English common law. It existed in English common law for the purpose of self-defense, resistance against oppression, and to assist the defense of the realm. Whether or not Madison (or Washington or whoever) changed his mind at some point does not change the fact that this is the purpose of the Second Amendment. No other laws (like the ones you cited) change this…

I'm sure many people interpreted it that way, but they're also wrong, and they evidently didn't write either the Constitution or the Militia Act, or 2A. And I guess when I refer to intent, I mean those authors.

Militias were explicitly under the control of both Congress and the president, by law and the Constitution. And militias were used to quell rebellion, not to serve it. These are facts. I understand they're counter to your and others' interpretations, but that doesn't make them any less factual.

And when you consider:

- 2A only applied to militias

- Any "security from tyranny" was States being free from Federal tyranny

- the Civil War erased any doubt about the States rebelling against the Federal government

- The last Militia Act in 1909 made militias into the _National_ Guard

then you have to concede 2A is just a relic from a time when the US had neither the resources nor the political will to create and maintain a standing army.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#329

Post by stjohnswarts »

dirtyid wrote: post #2

I don't think Beijing anticipated or endorsed this. In context of Lams leaked resignation remarks yesterday, it looks like Lam is going rogue. She's setting herself up to be replaced via disobedience, because all signs pointed to Emergency Regulations Ordinance being invoked if protest continues. Her legacy is already ruined, but I think she doesn't have the stomach to double down that far. Beijing specifically instr…

I think that is their only way to save face is for her to give up. That way they can have someone to blame it on. She's not so stupid as to give in without China's acquiescence. She knows that it means getting disappeared or at best life in prison if she doesn't do what they OK.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#330

Post by _hardwaregeek »

SllX wrote: post #325
_hardwaregeek wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess. But what would the average citizen use? Cash? Seems likely that somebody would step in to be the de facto online transaction provider. And the government probably would want some way to financially tie HK to the mainland.

I think you are misunderstanding. These sorts of sanctions are highly targeted at specific individuals and organizations, not the entire HK citizenry.

Ah okay, yeah. I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying!
Post reply on HN