Live data from Hacker News

The Jews in the Attic Test

joehuffman.org

61–63 of 63 posts

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#61
post #33
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people who live in places that are essentially lawless, but that experience isn't freedom like extreme libertarians might believe. It's total fear that at any moment 20 people in shitty Jeeps can drive up and threaten to cut off your hands unless you kill your parents and join their gang. This is what we refer to as the state of nature. At some point, people get pretty tired of it, so they form the…

> The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization The article is not advocating abandoning the rule of law. It is advocating judging laws based on a particular criterion. The fact that many existing laws do not meet that criterion does not mean no laws do, nor does it mean the only alternative is to abandon laws altogether. For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of cour…

The essay is full of slippery slopes. It advocates against "government monopoly of medical care", arguing that if the government knows everyone who's getting care it can discover you. This applies to essentially every government service: social security, taxation, driver's licenses, regulations on utilities, etc. etc. etc. It's not a dissimilar stretch to say that because murder investigations have led police to develop sophisticated forensics departments that the author would be against murder laws as well. After all, if the government can discover you were at a crime scene, couldn't it also know who was in your attic?

It's just a blatantly terrible test, wrapped up in faux wisdom and scare tactics. Balancing of rights is far more complicated than this and deserves better treatment. In fact, _most_ issues are complicated and don't readily yield to this kind of simple test. Frustrating though it is, it's a reality we have to deal with if we want to be at all fair and truly address complex issues.

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#62
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc. That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools, churches, and theaters. You're leaving out some key factors. First, firearm violence in the US (like violence in ge…

You don't even attempt to cite any stats that would show that non-urban America is as safe as Europe. And it's a stretch to believe because Europe doesn't have semi-regular gun massacres, which aren't actually happening in inner cities. Guns are widely available in high crime areas because it's trivial to travel to a jurisdiction where buying them is legal. We also have very little liability for what happens with a g…

> You don't even attempt to cite any stats

Neither did the post I responded to.

See here for some stats on US gun violence in 2018 (the site also has data for past years):

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps

Re: The Jews in the Attic Test

#63
post #38
post #30

I've seen arguments like this before. It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny." The problem is to maintain the private citizen/armed forces of a cou try balance of power is ludicrous. What exactly do you need to buy to defend yourself against a troop of Navy Seals? OK, training and gear. For a start: Teflon coated bullets, hig…

There are 300M guns in the USA spread across 3.8M m^2. 1M soldiers (O(current armed forces)), armed with all the equipment they have (unless they decide to nuke the whole country) could not take down a rebel force spread across most of the US (concentrated away from the coasts, of course ;-). It's not just theoretical.

By “could not take down” do you mean “could not occupy the space of”, or “could not overcome in a battle”?

If occupation, there’s more to it than guns.

If battle: the military has tanks, which are highly resistant to small arms.

Post reply on HN