5 ms·

A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority. That's the deal we're taking when we decide

A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority. That's the deal we're taking when we decide to live in a democracy: that we will abide by the law of the majority. This doesn't mean we have to agree: it means we have to convince the majority if we want a change. But a state that can't defend the majority because of an open letter signed by a hundred crypto anarchists seems pretty bad to have indeed!

vasco 5y ago
If you wrote "think of the children" it'd have been less characters.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  I think this reply was meant for another comment?
ttybird2 5y ago
"A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority." Despite that * They often don't do what the majority wants or is best for them. * In most european states the government doesn't actually have >50% of the votes. * There are things that are moral that the majority wants to be illegal (such as homosexual relationships until a few years ago). * The retraction of this requirement actually serves the interests of the majority.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  > They often don't do what the majority wants or is best for them. "The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote. > * In most european states the government doesn't actually have >50% of the votes. Really? How is that? > There are things that are moral that the majority wants to be illegal (such as homosexual relationships until a few years ago). That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children. Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    "The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote." I agree, so I presume that you retract the following?: "A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority." "Really? How is that?" See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by... Often only a relative majority (higher than any other party but can still be <50%) is needed. "That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children." Are you claiming that 100 years ago (and even now in some countries) there wasn't/isn't a majority of people that desires this or other immoral things? "Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)" No worries. I am saying that this law being removed benefits the majority as their communications will be safer.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      I don't think I need to retract it because I don't think it's incompatible. I'm positive people won't vote for a party that makes them illegal unless they have decided to change. Relative majority is still majority, >50% of casted votes gets you elected. 50 years ago, the left was all over the place advocating for pedophilia, and here they are today, advocating for privacy of pedophiles and other criminals because they are scared to compromise their own. My communications will be safer but my streets won't, and I don't only live online.
vorpalhex 5y ago
In many countries, it was illegal to practice homosexuality. It was a crime to cross dress. In some countries it still is. Should we allow the imprisonment of these people merely because the laws say so?
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  Well of course I'm engaged against shit countries like that, so obviously my answer is no: I do not want our companies to comply with them. But I want our companies to comply with us, and make, not only online security, but also outdoors security, a feature.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    You seem to agree there is some moral underpinning of the law - that simply because the law exists does not make the law moral. One of the hot topics currently is Anti-money laundering laws, AML. This is why large transactions are reported to government agencies, why you need proof of identity to do banking, etc. The flip side is that this makes it hard for refugees to get bank accounts. It means large donations to activists are recorded by the government. It means the government knows in great detail how you spend your money and that data is shared widely. Yet money laundering still persists. It is still a major problem. We have paid a great price and the problem is no better for it. Should we continue giving up more? Should we surrender even more to try and stop it? What if money laundering can't be solved? Money laundering has existed from ancient cultures to now. It has never been crushed. Some crimes are intractable - we can reduce but never prevent them. We can't go whole hog on security. Nobody can make you safe. Danger is an innate part of life that can only be partially controlled.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      For me there's a lot of contradiction within your own comment, but don't worry, I'll give you more than merely talk about its own contradictions. > We can't go whole hog on security. Nobody can make you safe. Danger is an innate part of life that can only be partially controlled. We can improve our security, the state has to make us safer, it is possible because danger can be partially controlled, which is exactly what you say. You also that laundering has never been crushed, and can only be reduced. I also agree with that, and because we can reduce it: it is our moral duty to do what we can to reduce it, giving up "because we can't crush it" is not an option for a person of honor. If this was just a quick trick to get me to tell my opinion about refugees in general, let me cut it short: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640944 And let me add to that: we can't keep on taking 400k a year in our little 67m inhabitants country, we already have enough troubble with those we have here (please don't ask me for solid evidence, or if you do, please do so in a dedicated comment) Anyway, very interesting comment indeed, I'll gladly discuss off-topic as I already have: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640299 Of course, I could just burry it by calling it a syllogism, "cheese has holes, holes are air and not cheese, as such, the more cheese you have the less cheese you have", but as you have figured, I'd rather face the game and risk myself than hide, in the worst case I will have learned something which is positive for my own development, more than whatever shame it can bring on me: it's a basic cost/benefit analysis. As a matter of fact, I found your comment so interesting that I've been discussing it with left leaning friends I met back when I was into AML, who are still active in it, the discussion being over I'm back to reply (an hour ago, I'm proof reading myself for once). First things first: AML's impact is transversal, it has a lot more impact than you might think. It's the basic tool we have against corruption. And because it prevents crimes, "I will not take this shady deal because it won't bring me useful money", it's impossible to prove that crimes would have happened without it. While you can still measure it's impact on corruption, you'll say it's very hard to measure corruption, fine, that's true. But it turns out there is actually a lot of documentation about crimes that AML targets, the O'Mecanismo series describes what enormous corruption systems it fights, but you can read about how useful it is against THB (Trafficking in Human Beings) in the OSCE paper https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/8/121125.pdf https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/8/121125.pdf or the Arachnys case study if you're more into videos https://www.arachnys.com/webinar-identifying-human-trafficking-through-aml-and-alternative-data/ https://www.arachnys.com/webinar-identifying-human-trafficki... Mind you, there's more I want to disagree on in your comment. You're saying it "makes it hard for refugees to get bank accounts", I don't see this, at least, not in France which takes 400k so-called "refugees" per year, which is the equivalent of a city like Paris every 5 years, which corresponds to the president mandate. I will just quote the law here: "Every person living in France, without a bank account, has the right to the opening of such an account in the bank of his choice or in our service", this is article L.312-1 of the Monetary and financial code of law. Even they can't, indeed, open a "normal" bank account, because they have burnt their own papers, say, because they are wanted by the police and want to go incognito, they can still open a "Livret A" where the minimal deposit and withdrawal is 1.5€ https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/migrants/demandeurs-d-asile-le-livret-defaut-d-un-compte-bancaire-5156696 https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/migrants/demandeurs-d-asil... Then, the state (we, tax payers) even gives them 426€/month, or, ~850€/month if they are old enough, as stated by left leaning media: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/12/01/est-il-vrai-qu-un-migrant-touche-600-euros-par-mois-et-peut-pretendre-a-875-euros-de-retraite-sans-a_1766600/ https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/12/01/est-il-vrai-q... I'd like to conclude by "sorry", I'm sorry that it's a problem for your friends making "large donations" to be inspected by the state, but that's how it's going to be because we know now for a fact that it does happen that "activists" turn out to actually be human traffickers, a traffik that is worth ~10 billion USD per year, well, not all of them of course, there are also true activists, but these are in bed with the traffickers who tell them exactly when a boat leaves the coast, who knows if they don't get their share ? https://www.cnews.fr/monde/2021-03-15/migrants-un-rapport-pointe-des-complicites-entre-ong-et-passeurs-1058754 https://www.cnews.fr/monde/2021-03-15/migrants-un-rapport-po... And of course ... perdon my french! And thank you for the respectful discussion, always appreciated!
ashtonkem 5y ago
> A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority. This is trivially falsifiable. Weed is still a federal felony, despite 60% support for recreational & medical use, and another 31% support for medical alone[0]. In fact opposition for legalization is now a trivial 8% of the population, which is basically nobody. There isn't even a party with majority support for keeping weed illegal anymore. If democratically elected states were guaranteed to eventually share the same definition as the majority, weed would have been legalized years ago for medical use. And yet, here we are. 0 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-overwhelmingly-say-marijuana-should-be-legal-for-recreational-or-medical-use/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-o...

vasco 5y ago

If you wrote "think of the children" it'd have been less characters.

1337shadow 5y ago
I think this reply was meant for another comment?

ttybird2 5y ago

"A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority." Despite that * They often don't do what the majority wants or is best for them. * In most european states the government doesn't actually have >50% of the votes. * There are things that are moral that the majority wants to be illegal (such as homosexual relationships until a few years ago). * The retraction of this requirement actually serves the interests of the majority.

1337shadow 5y ago
> They often don't do what the majority wants or is best for them. "The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote. > * In most european states the government doesn't actually have >50% of the votes. Really? How is that? > There are things that are moral that the majority wants to be illegal (such as homosexual relationships until a few years ago). That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children. Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "The majority" doesn't want exactly the same things, they agreed on some thing or two that was prioritary and deserved the vote." I agree, so I presume that you retract the following?: "A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority." "Really? How is that?" See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by... Often only a relative majority (higher than any other party but can still be <50%) is needed. "That is simply not true, the majority just wants that puberty blockers don't be provided to children." Are you claiming that 100 years ago (and even now in some countries) there wasn't/isn't a majority of people that desires this or other immoral things? "Didn't understand your last point sorry (non native)" No worries. I am saying that this law being removed benefits the majority as their communications will be safer.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    I don't think I need to retract it because I don't think it's incompatible. I'm positive people won't vote for a party that makes them illegal unless they have decided to change. Relative majority is still majority, >50% of casted votes gets you elected. 50 years ago, the left was all over the place advocating for pedophilia, and here they are today, advocating for privacy of pedophiles and other criminals because they are scared to compromise their own. My communications will be safer but my streets won't, and I don't only live online.

vorpalhex 5y ago

In many countries, it was illegal to practice homosexuality. It was a crime to cross dress. In some countries it still is. Should we allow the imprisonment of these people merely because the laws say so?

1337shadow 5y ago
Well of course I'm engaged against shit countries like that, so obviously my answer is no: I do not want our companies to comply with them. But I want our companies to comply with us, and make, not only online security, but also outdoors security, a feature.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  You seem to agree there is some moral underpinning of the law - that simply because the law exists does not make the law moral. One of the hot topics currently is Anti-money laundering laws, AML. This is why large transactions are reported to government agencies, why you need proof of identity to do banking, etc. The flip side is that this makes it hard for refugees to get bank accounts. It means large donations to activists are recorded by the government. It means the government knows in great detail how you spend your money and that data is shared widely. Yet money laundering still persists. It is still a major problem. We have paid a great price and the problem is no better for it. Should we continue giving up more? Should we surrender even more to try and stop it? What if money laundering can't be solved? Money laundering has existed from ancient cultures to now. It has never been crushed. Some crimes are intractable - we can reduce but never prevent them. We can't go whole hog on security. Nobody can make you safe. Danger is an innate part of life that can only be partially controlled.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    For me there's a lot of contradiction within your own comment, but don't worry, I'll give you more than merely talk about its own contradictions. > We can't go whole hog on security. Nobody can make you safe. Danger is an innate part of life that can only be partially controlled. We can improve our security, the state has to make us safer, it is possible because danger can be partially controlled, which is exactly what you say. You also that laundering has never been crushed, and can only be reduced. I also agree with that, and because we can reduce it: it is our moral duty to do what we can to reduce it, giving up "because we can't crush it" is not an option for a person of honor. If this was just a quick trick to get me to tell my opinion about refugees in general, let me cut it short: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640944 And let me add to that: we can't keep on taking 400k a year in our little 67m inhabitants country, we already have enough troubble with those we have here (please don't ask me for solid evidence, or if you do, please do so in a dedicated comment) Anyway, very interesting comment indeed, I'll gladly discuss off-topic as I already have: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29640299 Of course, I could just burry it by calling it a syllogism, "cheese has holes, holes are air and not cheese, as such, the more cheese you have the less cheese you have", but as you have figured, I'd rather face the game and risk myself than hide, in the worst case I will have learned something which is positive for my own development, more than whatever shame it can bring on me: it's a basic cost/benefit analysis. As a matter of fact, I found your comment so interesting that I've been discussing it with left leaning friends I met back when I was into AML, who are still active in it, the discussion being over I'm back to reply (an hour ago, I'm proof reading myself for once). First things first: AML's impact is transversal, it has a lot more impact than you might think. It's the basic tool we have against corruption. And because it prevents crimes, "I will not take this shady deal because it won't bring me useful money", it's impossible to prove that crimes would have happened without it. While you can still measure it's impact on corruption, you'll say it's very hard to measure corruption, fine, that's true. But it turns out there is actually a lot of documentation about crimes that AML targets, the O'Mecanismo series describes what enormous corruption systems it fights, but you can read about how useful it is against THB (Trafficking in Human Beings) in the OSCE paper https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/8/121125.pdf https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/8/121125.pdf or the Arachnys case study if you're more into videos https://www.arachnys.com/webinar-identifying-human-trafficking-through-aml-and-alternative-data/ https://www.arachnys.com/webinar-identifying-human-trafficki... Mind you, there's more I want to disagree on in your comment. You're saying it "makes it hard for refugees to get bank accounts", I don't see this, at least, not in France which takes 400k so-called "refugees" per year, which is the equivalent of a city like Paris every 5 years, which corresponds to the president mandate. I will just quote the law here: "Every person living in France, without a bank account, has the right to the opening of such an account in the bank of his choice or in our service", this is article L.312-1 of the Monetary and financial code of law. Even they can't, indeed, open a "normal" bank account, because they have burnt their own papers, say, because they are wanted by the police and want to go incognito, they can still open a "Livret A" where the minimal deposit and withdrawal is 1.5€ https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/migrants/demandeurs-d-asile-le-livret-defaut-d-un-compte-bancaire-5156696 https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/migrants/demandeurs-d-asil... Then, the state (we, tax payers) even gives them 426€/month, or, ~850€/month if they are old enough, as stated by left leaning media: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/12/01/est-il-vrai-qu-un-migrant-touche-600-euros-par-mois-et-peut-pretendre-a-875-euros-de-retraite-sans-a_1766600/ https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/12/01/est-il-vrai-q... I'd like to conclude by "sorry", I'm sorry that it's a problem for your friends making "large donations" to be inspected by the state, but that's how it's going to be because we know now for a fact that it does happen that "activists" turn out to actually be human traffickers, a traffik that is worth ~10 billion USD per year, well, not all of them of course, there are also true activists, but these are in bed with the traffickers who tell them exactly when a boat leaves the coast, who knows if they don't get their share ? https://www.cnews.fr/monde/2021-03-15/migrants-un-rapport-pointe-des-complicites-entre-ong-et-passeurs-1058754 https://www.cnews.fr/monde/2021-03-15/migrants-un-rapport-po... And of course ... perdon my french! And thank you for the respectful discussion, always appreciated!

ashtonkem 5y ago

> A democratic state is elected by the majority, as such, the state should share the same definition as the majority. This is trivially falsifiable. Weed is still a federal felony, despite 60% support for recreational & medical use, and another 31% support for medical alone[0]. In fact opposition for legalization is now a trivial 8% of the population, which is basically nobody. There isn't even a party with majority support for keeping weed illegal anymore. If democratically elected states were guaranteed to eventually share the same definition as the majority, weed would have been legalized years ago for medical use. And yet, here we are. 0 - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-overwhelmingly-say-marijuana-should-be-legal-for-recreational-or-medical-use/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/16/americans-o...