5 ms·

It's rare that I get to quote Atlas Shrugged so I'll just leave this below: > There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the po

It's rare that I get to quote Atlas Shrugged so I'll just leave this below: > There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. What's even more worrying in my opinion from the article: - references to Puritanical punishment seemingly framed in a positive light - citing of the linguistic/anthropological context of gossip without much further qualification - the Binaloan authorities' clear lack of understanding of what merits free speech - the mention of this law being beneficial to upcoming political candidates (of whom public discussion should be encouraged)

kadendogthing 8y ago
>It's rare that I get to quote Atlas Shrugged I mean there's not really anything applicable in the book to reality or how people act.
- mistermann 8y ago
  Pointing out the book is a bit cringe-worthy and overly simplistic is one thing, but nothing in the book describes how people act? Have you read the book? Most often online opinions on Rand have been learned by reading second-hand (if that) opinions (also known as: gossip). I recall it had a few things to say about things like big business cozying up to government, government propagandizing the populace, that sort of thing. Shortcomings aside, I think it has a lot of relevance to today's world.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >Have you read the book? Yep. I even have the hard copy. Have had it since I was 15. >but nothing in the book describes how people act? Nothing original. But more often than not it often misapplies grounded social or civil concepts that would otherwise be valid. Which is what's happening right in OP's post. It's civic misinformation.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      In your opinion, do: "there's not really anything applicable in the book to reality or how people act" ...and... "there's not really anything original in the book that is applicable to reality or how people act" ...have equal meanings? One could easily make the latter claim about plenty of books, if you're happy to ignore a different (original) perspective, and if there was no need to substantiate the claim. > But more often than not it often misapplies grounded social or civil concepts that would otherwise be valid. Could you possibly provide a few examples of this? > Which is what's happening right in OP's post. It's civic misinformation. From my perspective, I believe your comment does the same to some degree. To an individual with no background in the matter, they have no way of knowing which of these contrasting and vague/unsubstantiated opinions (aka gossip) is more factual. EDIT: It's a bit depressing how unpopular pointing out objective errors and asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN, especially on particularly relevant original topics such as this. No site is immune I guess.
      - kadendogthing 8y ago
        >asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. If you have something to say, say it. Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas doesn't justify having a baseline conversation on the merits of those ideas. It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. Don't pretend otherwise.
        mistermann 8y ago
        > This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. Is it really though? Are people's opinions not shaped by what they read on forums? Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? I would argue that a recent presidential candidate was successful using largely that type of tactic. > If you have something to say, say it. I am: if some states an opinion as if it is a fact, then please provide some substantiation for the opinion. > Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas Are these ideas "bankrupt"? And, how might I come to learn that we know this is "well-known"? What is an authoritative source to which I can refer? What adjectives might we use to describe that e-debate tactic? Effective is one, but I can think of others. > It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. The "the debate is over" e-debate tactic, also very effective. > Don't pretend otherwise. Am I pretending anything, or making any particularly strong assertion? My intent is asking someone who has made a strong assertion (in this case, a backhand dismissal) to provide some supporting evidence. Am I the one that's out of order? Conversations like this seem to be a good example of the very problem we're experiencing. I believe most disagreements of this nature are fundamentally epistemological in nature, and by that I mean something like: people conceptualize reality based on a loose collection of incomplete, non-integrated, and inconclusive ideas, that they pick up from a wide variety of sources (forums being one of them) and integrate into their ongoing mental model of reality. At times, some of the ideas they pick up may not be entirely accurate, so constantly debating things in a marketplace of ideas seems to me like something that should be encouraged and re-normalized, not forbidden/stigmatized.
  - tcbawo 8y ago
    Ayn Rand's writing is thought-provoking but provides ample opportunity for confirmation bias.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      Now this I can agree with.
hellllllllooo 8y ago
> There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. This starts with a false premise that is so broad its hard to take seriously. Well run government can do a lot for innocent people.
- hoseja 8y ago
  Well of course, it's Rand.
- deogeo 8y ago
  While I'm no fan of Rand, I think 'rule' here is meant as control and coerce, not normal beneficial government stuff. Viewed in that light, the quote makes sense - you can't get someone to inform on their friends by offering a mere tax break. But if you threaten them with jail time for some 'crime', they'll be much more cooperative.
happytoexplain 8y ago
>There's no way to rule innocent men. This is pretty silly.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kadendogthing 8y ago

>It's rare that I get to quote Atlas Shrugged I mean there's not really anything applicable in the book to reality or how people act.

mistermann 8y ago
Pointing out the book is a bit cringe-worthy and overly simplistic is one thing, but nothing in the book describes how people act? Have you read the book? Most often online opinions on Rand have been learned by reading second-hand (if that) opinions (also known as: gossip). I recall it had a few things to say about things like big business cozying up to government, government propagandizing the populace, that sort of thing. Shortcomings aside, I think it has a lot of relevance to today's world.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >Have you read the book? Yep. I even have the hard copy. Have had it since I was 15. >but nothing in the book describes how people act? Nothing original. But more often than not it often misapplies grounded social or civil concepts that would otherwise be valid. Which is what's happening right in OP's post. It's civic misinformation.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    In your opinion, do: "there's not really anything applicable in the book to reality or how people act" ...and... "there's not really anything original in the book that is applicable to reality or how people act" ...have equal meanings? One could easily make the latter claim about plenty of books, if you're happy to ignore a different (original) perspective, and if there was no need to substantiate the claim. > But more often than not it often misapplies grounded social or civil concepts that would otherwise be valid. Could you possibly provide a few examples of this? > Which is what's happening right in OP's post. It's civic misinformation. From my perspective, I believe your comment does the same to some degree. To an individual with no background in the matter, they have no way of knowing which of these contrasting and vague/unsubstantiated opinions (aka gossip) is more factual. EDIT: It's a bit depressing how unpopular pointing out objective errors and asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN, especially on particularly relevant original topics such as this. No site is immune I guess.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      >asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. If you have something to say, say it. Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas doesn't justify having a baseline conversation on the merits of those ideas. It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. Don't pretend otherwise.
      - mistermann 8y ago
        > This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. Is it really though? Are people's opinions not shaped by what they read on forums? Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? I would argue that a recent presidential candidate was successful using largely that type of tactic. > If you have something to say, say it. I am: if some states an opinion as if it is a fact, then please provide some substantiation for the opinion. > Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas Are these ideas "bankrupt"? And, how might I come to learn that we know this is "well-known"? What is an authoritative source to which I can refer? What adjectives might we use to describe that e-debate tactic? Effective is one, but I can think of others. > It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. The "the debate is over" e-debate tactic, also very effective. > Don't pretend otherwise. Am I pretending anything, or making any particularly strong assertion? My intent is asking someone who has made a strong assertion (in this case, a backhand dismissal) to provide some supporting evidence. Am I the one that's out of order? Conversations like this seem to be a good example of the very problem we're experiencing. I believe most disagreements of this nature are fundamentally epistemological in nature, and by that I mean something like: people conceptualize reality based on a loose collection of incomplete, non-integrated, and inconclusive ideas, that they pick up from a wide variety of sources (forums being one of them) and integrate into their ongoing mental model of reality. At times, some of the ideas they pick up may not be entirely accurate, so constantly debating things in a marketplace of ideas seems to me like something that should be encouraged and re-normalized, not forbidden/stigmatized.
- tcbawo 8y ago
  Ayn Rand's writing is thought-provoking but provides ample opportunity for confirmation bias.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    Now this I can agree with.

hellllllllooo 8y ago

> There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. This starts with a false premise that is so broad its hard to take seriously. Well run government can do a lot for innocent people.

hoseja 8y ago
Well of course, it's Rand.
deogeo 8y ago
While I'm no fan of Rand, I think 'rule' here is meant as control and coerce, not normal beneficial government stuff. Viewed in that light, the quote makes sense - you can't get someone to inform on their friends by offering a mere tax break. But if you threaten them with jail time for some 'crime', they'll be much more cooperative.

happytoexplain 8y ago

>There's no way to rule innocent men. This is pretty silly.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]