4 ms·

As a huge democrat (lower case d) I totally agree. Locking down the Capitol is antithetical to the notion of open democracy. Lawmakers and the law making pro

As a huge democrat (lower case d) I totally agree. Locking down the Capitol is antithetical to the notion of open democracy. Lawmakers and the law making process needs to be physically accessible by the People. This was what the Founders intended. Of course there is some risk here and Jefferson himself noted this. That’s the price we pay for living in an open and transparent society. While I don’t condone or support what happened this week, the building belongs to the People and not the government and the People have every right to enter the building and demand accountability. The way the US Capitol is right now feels very police-state to me compared to how it used to be. I have memories of running around the Capitol building with my Cub Scout pack including ending up in private areas. There were no assault weapons and we weren’t met with police. We were politely shooed away. Today you cannot walk up the steps of the Capitol building. It’s fenced off and manned by armed guard. Last time I was there I stepped aside to let some people pass in a crowded area and crossed some arbitrary unmarked do not cross line but about 12 inches. I was physically grabbed by Police. To quote Donald Rumsfeld “freedom is untidy.”

spoonjim 6y ago
> the People have every right to enter the building and demand accountability. the "People" can't just do whatever they want just because they feel like it. Can they go and bang hammers on nuclear warheads because the warheads "belong to the People"? Storm the doors of JPL and play horsey on the Mars Rovers? When some subset of the "People" attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the other 99% of the People, they are traitors, and should be erased from society.
IkmoIkmo 6y ago
I think that's nonsense. Access to a lawmaker or representative in a village may work like that. When you represent a state of 20 million, access means making an appointment and going through security clearance. There is a voting mechanism, a free press and various other mechanisms to back me up if I am consistently deterred from speaking to my public representative. But I'm in no way expecting to just walk in there, unannounced, without security clearance, at any time of the day, to demand attention. Might as well argue that you should be able to just walk into the white house and speak to the top public representative.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I also walked into my congressperson’s office when I was on a field trip as kid. The security was similar to going to the airport. > Might as well argue that you should be able to just walk into the white house and speak to the top public representative. Entirely different situation. The reason that people need to talk with the legislature is because those are the people’s representatives.
  - IkmoIkmo 6y ago
    > Entirely different situation. The reason that people need to talk with the legislature is because those are the people’s representatives. Totally different, were it not for the fact the president is also the Chief of State: The chief public representative of a country. Besides, even if this wasn't the case, humor me and suppose it was (which it actually is), would you then conclude that the president should simply be accessible at will by 300 million Americans? It makes absolutely no sense. Just because something is publicly accessible doesn't mean you throw all reason out the window. Plenty of national parks are simultaneously open to everyone, as well as require registration and some basic ground rules to entrance. Similarly, it's entirely uncontroversial to argue that accessing the capitol is freely available to all, but there will be some minimum security checks, and some areas (e.g. private offices or places holding confidential data) are off-limits. Virtually all democracies have no problem separating visitor's areas from private working offices, and implementing appropriate controls in both. The notion that the speaker of the house's laptop could be casually stolen by people without heavy equipment walking in is a joke, pure and simple. Claiming it has something to do with the fact she's a representative thereby implying her laptop should just be freely accessible instead of secured by some basic measures, as some (not you) have done in this thread, makes no sense if you ask me.
    - mmmBacon 6y ago
      I think you’ve mischaracterized the discussion. Where did anyone say any of the things you are claiming? The statement was simply that the People have a right to entry into the building and physical access to lawmakers and the law making process. Further, the statement is that access is a foundational principle to the US implementation of liberal democracy since our Nation’s founding. It’s so foundational that it’s also quite literally built into the building as there are galleries for public viewing of Senate and House proceedings. It is also an ideal that we strive for like equality and justice. We recognize our union as imperfect yet these ideals are what drive us as a Nation. Your comment I feel confuses implementation with the discussion of ideals. The implementation should follow the ideals as guiding principles with access being the default. Lastly, historically the building and lawmakers were much more accessible. This was during my lifetime. We had lots of people then too.
mbg721 6y ago
Compare a similar issue with schools; in the 80s, teenagers left their guns in their cars while they went to class. Now, schools are basically a rights-free zone.
dukeofdoom 6y ago
Totally agree, great point! The fear mongering is only useful for states to impose more draconian rules. Its likely if there are further lockdowns, and more livelihoods are destroyed during the Biden admin, more people will be revolting. We don't want to give them the moral authority to Tiananmen square unarmed protesters, just because they fear their own people
vharuck 6y ago
The security risk is also less of a problem in a mostly rational society, which is what we have had for a long time. You'll get lone wolves, but finding a group of people so angry with a politician they're willing to conspire to kill them? Very, very rare. Violence is a last resort for people who feel totally powerless. So, in a dark way, easy access keeps politicians from pissing off their constituents too much. Which is why the stream of "fraudulent election" lies is so dangerous. A person in a position that confers trust is telling people the government is openly defying them. For people who believe that, violence is the only logical way to affect politics.
yrimaxi 6y ago
Edit: whooshed by his royal cleverness.
- mmmBacon 6y ago
  I direct you to the definition of tongue in cheek: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tongue-in-cheek https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tongu...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

spoonjim 6y ago

> the People have every right to enter the building and demand accountability. the "People" can't just do whatever they want just because they feel like it. Can they go and bang hammers on nuclear warheads because the warheads "belong to the People"? Storm the doors of JPL and play horsey on the Mars Rovers? When some subset of the "People" attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the other 99% of the People, they are traitors, and should be erased from society.

IkmoIkmo 6y ago

I think that's nonsense. Access to a lawmaker or representative in a village may work like that. When you represent a state of 20 million, access means making an appointment and going through security clearance. There is a voting mechanism, a free press and various other mechanisms to back me up if I am consistently deterred from speaking to my public representative. But I'm in no way expecting to just walk in there, unannounced, without security clearance, at any time of the day, to demand attention. Might as well argue that you should be able to just walk into the white house and speak to the top public representative.

kube-system 6y ago
I also walked into my congressperson’s office when I was on a field trip as kid. The security was similar to going to the airport. > Might as well argue that you should be able to just walk into the white house and speak to the top public representative. Entirely different situation. The reason that people need to talk with the legislature is because those are the people’s representatives.
- IkmoIkmo 6y ago
  > Entirely different situation. The reason that people need to talk with the legislature is because those are the people’s representatives. Totally different, were it not for the fact the president is also the Chief of State: The chief public representative of a country. Besides, even if this wasn't the case, humor me and suppose it was (which it actually is), would you then conclude that the president should simply be accessible at will by 300 million Americans? It makes absolutely no sense. Just because something is publicly accessible doesn't mean you throw all reason out the window. Plenty of national parks are simultaneously open to everyone, as well as require registration and some basic ground rules to entrance. Similarly, it's entirely uncontroversial to argue that accessing the capitol is freely available to all, but there will be some minimum security checks, and some areas (e.g. private offices or places holding confidential data) are off-limits. Virtually all democracies have no problem separating visitor's areas from private working offices, and implementing appropriate controls in both. The notion that the speaker of the house's laptop could be casually stolen by people without heavy equipment walking in is a joke, pure and simple. Claiming it has something to do with the fact she's a representative thereby implying her laptop should just be freely accessible instead of secured by some basic measures, as some (not you) have done in this thread, makes no sense if you ask me.
  - mmmBacon 6y ago
    I think you’ve mischaracterized the discussion. Where did anyone say any of the things you are claiming? The statement was simply that the People have a right to entry into the building and physical access to lawmakers and the law making process. Further, the statement is that access is a foundational principle to the US implementation of liberal democracy since our Nation’s founding. It’s so foundational that it’s also quite literally built into the building as there are galleries for public viewing of Senate and House proceedings. It is also an ideal that we strive for like equality and justice. We recognize our union as imperfect yet these ideals are what drive us as a Nation. Your comment I feel confuses implementation with the discussion of ideals. The implementation should follow the ideals as guiding principles with access being the default. Lastly, historically the building and lawmakers were much more accessible. This was during my lifetime. We had lots of people then too.

mbg721 6y ago

Compare a similar issue with schools; in the 80s, teenagers left their guns in their cars while they went to class. Now, schools are basically a rights-free zone.

dukeofdoom 6y ago

Totally agree, great point! The fear mongering is only useful for states to impose more draconian rules. Its likely if there are further lockdowns, and more livelihoods are destroyed during the Biden admin, more people will be revolting. We don't want to give them the moral authority to Tiananmen square unarmed protesters, just because they fear their own people

vharuck 6y ago

The security risk is also less of a problem in a mostly rational society, which is what we have had for a long time. You'll get lone wolves, but finding a group of people so angry with a politician they're willing to conspire to kill them? Very, very rare. Violence is a last resort for people who feel totally powerless. So, in a dark way, easy access keeps politicians from pissing off their constituents too much. Which is why the stream of "fraudulent election" lies is so dangerous. A person in a position that confers trust is telling people the government is openly defying them. For people who believe that, violence is the only logical way to affect politics.

yrimaxi 6y ago

Edit: whooshed by his royal cleverness.

mmmBacon 6y ago
I direct you to the definition of tongue in cheek: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tongue-in-cheek https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tongu...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]