3 ms·

What Gödel was talking about is apparent when you look at the style of logical contradiction he is known for. The US Constitution and its Bill of Rights only de

What Gödel was talking about is apparent when you look at the style of logical contradiction he is known for. The US Constitution and its Bill of Rights only define rights in terms of narrowly specific negative prohibitions on what the nominal government can do, rather than positive statements of what the People should be able to do. This leaves the door open for extraconstitutional de facto government to exist along side the nominal government - not explicitly authorized by the Constitution, but also not prohibited or constrained by it. We see the resulting shape basically everywhere today, whereby most of the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights have been effectively neutered whether by the government sidestepping the Constitution's specific proscriptions, corporations exercising coercive power based on market share, or the potent combination of both.

Apocryphon 2y ago
Interesting take. Libertarians, who are usually the ones most preoccupied with finding tyranny in any government action (or any government at all), tend to be big fans of negative rights as opposed to positive rights. But that's probably because they're coming from a different ideological outlook.
- kaba0 2y ago
  Libertarians are not known for their strong logical arguments.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Yes, "it's just another system of control". I used to partial to big-L Libertarianism. I'm not any more, mostly due to this flaw in the framing and the resulting conclusions. It essentially blesses corporations' extraconstitutional governing, by simply defining away the coercion (plus a healthy dose of ignoring that a "corporation" is itself a government creation). Then offers up individualist fundamentalism to cope with its glaring failings. (These days I identify as small-l "libertarian" because I still believe individual freedom is paramount. And it still puts me in the appropriate "other-weird" bucket with most people, rather than their friendly-kool-aid or other-enemy buckets).
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    I think that might fit into left-libertarianism and/or individualist libertarianism, perhaps.
  - lifeisstillgood 2y ago
    Oh! I get it (I think) Corporations can be set up that do most of the governing, and do it the way “they” want. I assume Facebook is the poster boy here, something something Content moderation. I mean yes - kind of. My take is that most corporations are more interested in making a quick buck than in doing any governing (especially the hard stuff). Governing well is really really hard ( which is why it is so rare!). Outsourcing it even to your captured corporations just makes the whole thing harder surely? I am heartened by Zuckerberg standing up in congress and saying “well you tell me what is and is not allowed” Corporations either don’t want to govern (see above) or they already are the government (see Putin’s Russia) so it’s only extra constitutional if you think the constitution is worth more than the ink. I think despite everything we have shared belief that our western constitutions matter - even Zuckerberg
    - mindslight 2y ago
      I avoided concrete examples because they tend to bring people out of the woodwork who see the goals of that specific exercise of power as a good thing, and then argue against the general criticism. I'd say that pigeonholing corporations as only interested in a "quick buck" is a fallacy. You're essentially focusing on one of their imperatives to write off concerns about another. From what I see corporations very much have an imperative to govern - in the small sense of controlling others, beyond what would otherwise be a disinterested smallest transactional scope. To run with your example, Facebook does not merely present a disinterested linear feed of posts, allow for users setting their own prioritization criteria, nor design their systems to be content-oblivious conduits. Rather Facebook inserts itself into users' relationships in ways that "drive engagement", and proactively polices users' content - either preemptively and summarily enforcing what Facebook perceives as the law, and even differing from the law for internal ideological or public relations purposes. That's essentially small scale governance, with the ability to opt out being directly tied to one's dependence on Facebook. If you're just using it to keep in touch with family, you can do that in other ways. If it's a critical part of promoting your local business, running afoul of its regulations is likely more of a critical problem than say failing a health department inspection.
gweinberg 2y ago
That's not true at all. The Constitution only enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and quite clearly states that the government only has those powers. The Constitution has since been "interpreted" to mean that the government can do whatever it wants if it thinks it has a really good reason e.g. "the bill of rights is not a suicide pact", but that's not really a flaw with the text of the Constitution.
- mindslight 2y ago
  This only applies to the part of my argument/example about the nominal government overstepping, while not addressing the larger phenomenon of parallel governance structures being created independently of the nominal government.
  - gweinberg 2y ago
    Ok, but the Constitution doesn't authorize such a parallel government, and it's hard to see what any constitution could do to prevent one. Really, the only way constitutional government can have any chance of working is if a pretty fair percentage of people in power actual care about constitutional government for its own sake. Otherwise they'll just do as seems expedient.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      The Constitution fails to prohibit parallel government. Obviously, doing so could not prevent wholesale replacement of the Constitution and US government, but it would prevent the current situation where we've got parallel extraconstitutional government while the Constitution is still in legal force and supposed to be defining our rights. Parallel governance could be prohibited through a positive definition of rights applying to any actor that might infringe (similar to say, the prohibitions regarding homicide). This would allow for a straightforward balancing of equity between conflicting rights, rather than the current "axiomatic" approach where any given right tends to be found to apply fully or not at all.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
aspenmayer 2y ago
I mentioned FDR due to his being President at the time of Gödel’s interview. Perhaps he was aware of the possibilities of government overreach, Constitution or Amendments be dammed, such as the internment of American citizens and others in camps during World War 2, though they were neither suspected nor guilty of any crime. Many of them weren’t even ethnically or racially Japanese, which is eerily similar to German atrocities committed during the war. Many folks today aren’t aware that actions of the US government in its treatment of migrant workers, Native Americans and others who were US citizens under the Bracero program, including detainment, torture, and even usage of Zyklon B itself were all known to German authorities and intentionally replicated in German treatment of Jews and other groups deemed undesirable during the war. The racism, discrimination, and xenophobia of America was pointed at and acknowledged by Germany, and Germans sought to emulate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Bath_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Bath_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...
- chuckadams 2y ago
  The Nazis modeled their laws on Jim Crow, that’s well-known. What’s this about nerve gas tho?
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    > But I also unexpectedly uncovered other information at the National Archives that took my great-aunt's personal recollections beyond family lore or microhistory. These records point to the connection between the U.S. Customs disinfection facilities in El Paso-Juárez in the 20s and the Desinfektionskammern (disinfection chambers) in Nazi Germany. The documents show that beginning in the 1920s, U.S. officials at the Santa Fe Bridge deloused and sprayed the clothes of Mexicans crossing into the U.S. with Zyklon B. The fumigation was carried out in an area of the building that American officials called, ominously enough, "the gas chambers." I discovered an article written in a German scientific journal written in 1938, which specifically praised the El Paso method of fumigating Mexican immigrants with Zyklon B. At the start of WWII, the Nazis adopted Zyklon B as a fumigation agent at German border crossings and concentration camps. Later, when the Final Solution was put into effect, the Germans found more sinister uses for this extremely lethal pesticide. They used Zyklon B pellets in their own gas chambers not just to kill lice but to exterminate millions of human beings. But that's another story. Excerpts: 'Ringside Seat to a Revolution' From Ringside Seat to a Revolution, An Underground Cultural History of El Paso and Juarez: 1893-1923 by David Dorado Romo. Published 2005 by Cinco Puntos Press. https://www.npr.org/5176017 https://www.npr.org/5176017

Apocryphon 2y ago

Interesting take. Libertarians, who are usually the ones most preoccupied with finding tyranny in any government action (or any government at all), tend to be big fans of negative rights as opposed to positive rights. But that's probably because they're coming from a different ideological outlook.

kaba0 2y ago
Libertarians are not known for their strong logical arguments.
mindslight 2y ago
Yes, "it's just another system of control". I used to partial to big-L Libertarianism. I'm not any more, mostly due to this flaw in the framing and the resulting conclusions. It essentially blesses corporations' extraconstitutional governing, by simply defining away the coercion (plus a healthy dose of ignoring that a "corporation" is itself a government creation). Then offers up individualist fundamentalism to cope with its glaring failings. (These days I identify as small-l "libertarian" because I still believe individual freedom is paramount. And it still puts me in the appropriate "other-weird" bucket with most people, rather than their friendly-kool-aid or other-enemy buckets).
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  I think that might fit into left-libertarianism and/or individualist libertarianism, perhaps.
- lifeisstillgood 2y ago
  Oh! I get it (I think) Corporations can be set up that do most of the governing, and do it the way “they” want. I assume Facebook is the poster boy here, something something Content moderation. I mean yes - kind of. My take is that most corporations are more interested in making a quick buck than in doing any governing (especially the hard stuff). Governing well is really really hard ( which is why it is so rare!). Outsourcing it even to your captured corporations just makes the whole thing harder surely? I am heartened by Zuckerberg standing up in congress and saying “well you tell me what is and is not allowed” Corporations either don’t want to govern (see above) or they already are the government (see Putin’s Russia) so it’s only extra constitutional if you think the constitution is worth more than the ink. I think despite everything we have shared belief that our western constitutions matter - even Zuckerberg
  - mindslight 2y ago
    I avoided concrete examples because they tend to bring people out of the woodwork who see the goals of that specific exercise of power as a good thing, and then argue against the general criticism. I'd say that pigeonholing corporations as only interested in a "quick buck" is a fallacy. You're essentially focusing on one of their imperatives to write off concerns about another. From what I see corporations very much have an imperative to govern - in the small sense of controlling others, beyond what would otherwise be a disinterested smallest transactional scope. To run with your example, Facebook does not merely present a disinterested linear feed of posts, allow for users setting their own prioritization criteria, nor design their systems to be content-oblivious conduits. Rather Facebook inserts itself into users' relationships in ways that "drive engagement", and proactively polices users' content - either preemptively and summarily enforcing what Facebook perceives as the law, and even differing from the law for internal ideological or public relations purposes. That's essentially small scale governance, with the ability to opt out being directly tied to one's dependence on Facebook. If you're just using it to keep in touch with family, you can do that in other ways. If it's a critical part of promoting your local business, running afoul of its regulations is likely more of a critical problem than say failing a health department inspection.

gweinberg 2y ago

That's not true at all. The Constitution only enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and quite clearly states that the government only has those powers. The Constitution has since been "interpreted" to mean that the government can do whatever it wants if it thinks it has a really good reason e.g. "the bill of rights is not a suicide pact", but that's not really a flaw with the text of the Constitution.

mindslight 2y ago
This only applies to the part of my argument/example about the nominal government overstepping, while not addressing the larger phenomenon of parallel governance structures being created independently of the nominal government.
- gweinberg 2y ago
  Ok, but the Constitution doesn't authorize such a parallel government, and it's hard to see what any constitution could do to prevent one. Really, the only way constitutional government can have any chance of working is if a pretty fair percentage of people in power actual care about constitutional government for its own sake. Otherwise they'll just do as seems expedient.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    The Constitution fails to prohibit parallel government. Obviously, doing so could not prevent wholesale replacement of the Constitution and US government, but it would prevent the current situation where we've got parallel extraconstitutional government while the Constitution is still in legal force and supposed to be defining our rights. Parallel governance could be prohibited through a positive definition of rights applying to any actor that might infringe (similar to say, the prohibitions regarding homicide). This would allow for a straightforward balancing of equity between conflicting rights, rather than the current "axiomatic" approach where any given right tends to be found to apply fully or not at all.
readthenotes1 2y ago

aspenmayer 2y ago

I mentioned FDR due to his being President at the time of Gödel’s interview. Perhaps he was aware of the possibilities of government overreach, Constitution or Amendments be dammed, such as the internment of American citizens and others in camps during World War 2, though they were neither suspected nor guilty of any crime. Many of them weren’t even ethnically or racially Japanese, which is eerily similar to German atrocities committed during the war. Many folks today aren’t aware that actions of the US government in its treatment of migrant workers, Native Americans and others who were US citizens under the Bracero program, including detainment, torture, and even usage of Zyklon B itself were all known to German authorities and intentionally replicated in German treatment of Jews and other groups deemed undesirable during the war. The racism, discrimination, and xenophobia of America was pointed at and acknowledged by Germany, and Germans sought to emulate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Bath_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Bath_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...

chuckadams 2y ago
The Nazis modeled their laws on Jim Crow, that’s well-known. What’s this about nerve gas tho?
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  > But I also unexpectedly uncovered other information at the National Archives that took my great-aunt's personal recollections beyond family lore or microhistory. These records point to the connection between the U.S. Customs disinfection facilities in El Paso-Juárez in the 20s and the Desinfektionskammern (disinfection chambers) in Nazi Germany. The documents show that beginning in the 1920s, U.S. officials at the Santa Fe Bridge deloused and sprayed the clothes of Mexicans crossing into the U.S. with Zyklon B. The fumigation was carried out in an area of the building that American officials called, ominously enough, "the gas chambers." I discovered an article written in a German scientific journal written in 1938, which specifically praised the El Paso method of fumigating Mexican immigrants with Zyklon B. At the start of WWII, the Nazis adopted Zyklon B as a fumigation agent at German border crossings and concentration camps. Later, when the Final Solution was put into effect, the Germans found more sinister uses for this extremely lethal pesticide. They used Zyklon B pellets in their own gas chambers not just to kill lice but to exterminate millions of human beings. But that's another story. Excerpts: 'Ringside Seat to a Revolution' From Ringside Seat to a Revolution, An Underground Cultural History of El Paso and Juarez: 1893-1923 by David Dorado Romo. Published 2005 by Cinco Puntos Press. https://www.npr.org/5176017 https://www.npr.org/5176017