4 ms·

>> I don't like all our laws either (this included) but I accept that as a society we must respect and enforce the laws we democratically choose to enact. No,

>> I don't like all our laws either (this included) but I accept that as a society we must respect and enforce the laws we democratically choose to enact. No, we don't. Who taught you this nonsense? In fact, it is our duty as citizens to fight bad laws, no matter if they were "democratically chosen" or not. In Germany, we don't choose laws democratically, either. We elect representatives who may or may not do a good job at legislation, and it's our duty to scrutinize that. Don't forget that Hitler was elected democratically and pretty much everything that happened from thereon was legal under German law.

germanier 9y ago
> No, we don't. Who taught you this nonsense? Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state. Not every state action is good, some are even objectively bad. Of course working against such is a civic duty. But wanting to enforce a law against corporations that interacts with and clearly influences people here is neither ridiculous, nor arrogant or hubristic. > Don't forget that Hitler was elected democratically and pretty much everything that happened from thereon was legal under German law. Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever. We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such.
- hardwires 9y ago
  >> Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state. What you sounds does not follow from that article - your are mistaking an "ought" for an "is"! If our duty was to do no more than "respect and enforce" laws, how is it that the supreme court declares laws as unconstitutional on a fairly regular basis? An unconstitutional law is best left unenforced and disrespected, is it not? >> Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever. No special pleading allowed! Besides, there are countless less extreme examples of "democratic processes" leading to unfavorable outcomes. It's just not a strong argument for anything. Witch burning was a grassroots democratic movement, if you want to look at it that way! >> We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the previous N laws to "ensure that something like that never happens again" don't, in fact, ensure that "something like that never happens again", then why would the N+1th law make any difference? The same process that created this law can be used to repeal it. Its very existence gives strength to the far right.
dang 9y ago
> Who taught you this nonsense? Please don't cross into name-calling and personal attack when posting to HN. This is in the site guidelines. So is the following: Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
anigbrowl 9y ago
It's because of Hitler that Germany has laws against hate speech and proscribes displays of Nazi insignia, is it not?

germanier 9y ago

> No, we don't. Who taught you this nonsense? Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state. Not every state action is good, some are even objectively bad. Of course working against such is a civic duty. But wanting to enforce a law against corporations that interacts with and clearly influences people here is neither ridiculous, nor arrogant or hubristic. > Don't forget that Hitler was elected democratically and pretty much everything that happened from thereon was legal under German law. Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever. We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such.

hardwires 9y ago
>> Art. 20 II of our constitution. That's the philosophical foundation of how our state works. Every state action is derived from that principle. That's of course no nonsense but thankfully absolutely unchallenged by everybody who teaches you about our state. What you sounds does not follow from that article - your are mistaking an "ought" for an "is"! If our duty was to do no more than "respect and enforce" laws, how is it that the supreme court declares laws as unconstitutional on a fairly regular basis? An unconstitutional law is best left unenforced and disrespected, is it not? >> Well, apart from basically all the things that granted that period a special place in every history book hopefully forever. No special pleading allowed! Besides, there are countless less extreme examples of "democratic processes" leading to unfavorable outcomes. It's just not a strong argument for anything. Witch burning was a grassroots democratic movement, if you want to look at it that way! >> We integrated various safeguards into our constitution and laws to ensure that something like that never happens again. This law (no matter how bad) is a piece in that puzzle and should be viewed as such. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the previous N laws to "ensure that something like that never happens again" don't, in fact, ensure that "something like that never happens again", then why would the N+1th law make any difference? The same process that created this law can be used to repeal it. Its very existence gives strength to the far right.

dang 9y ago

> Who taught you this nonsense? Please don't cross into name-calling and personal attack when posting to HN. This is in the site guidelines. So is the following: Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

anigbrowl 9y ago

It's because of Hitler that Germany has laws against hate speech and proscribes displays of Nazi insignia, is it not?