4 ms·

> cyber-libretarians like Ron Wyden This dude is a certified ghoul. In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made i

> cyber-libretarians like Ron Wyden This dude is a certified ghoul. In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[88] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel.[89] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel

Der_Einzige 2y ago
[flagged]
- bbqfog 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    I'm someone who has read up a lot on fascism and still finds it difficult to define clearly. Can you please explain to me how this kind of bill is "literal fascism".
    - bbqfog 2y ago
      It's removing freedom of speech and freedom to boycott. It's using government force to oppress citizens.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Why is that fascism and not communism? It's just general authoritarianism.
        klabb3 2y ago
        I don’t have an answer to this, I’m just here to say that Italian fascist economic policy was explicitly corporatist, promoting big, sector-wide industry conglomerates, criminalizing strikes etc. It's no coincidence that large business moguls (today in the form of corporations) have strong preference towards fascist leaning politics.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Hang on - corporations and corporatist are opposite. Corporatism was industry groups negotiating en masse with the state that was running things. You're confusing a big-state authoritarian word "corporatist" with the thing that's the opposite of big state - private citizens forming corporations.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Making boycotting a crime seems a lot like proscribing a political view. I doubt the law has been enforced this way - or enforced at all - but if you went to the grocery store, saw a product sold by an Israeli company and decided not to buy it on account of that fact you have now committed a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The reality is that the courts would never uphold the validity of this law, and it's not enforced because the legislators know it's BS.
- Eumenes 2y ago
  I don't know what a cyber-libertarian is but Bernie Sanders is completely irrelevant (literally). The 3 bills he sponsored that became law were renaming highways and post-offices. The guy is a meme at this point. Look how he rolled over for the DNC two cycles in a row. Here are his accomplishments: https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7... If you look at co-sponsored, its more of the same fluff. I'd say he's pretty ineffective.
  - geoka9 2y ago
    FWIW, your post prompted me to take a bit of time to research. I found this interesting: "According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate ... Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others."[146] During his time in the Senate, he had lower legislative effectiveness than the average senator, as measured by the number of sponsored bills that passed and successful amendments made.[147] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
    - Eumenes 2y ago
      Thats the conclusion I came to. It seems like he'd be more effective as a consultant/advisor or non-elected official. Taking up a valuable senate seat to make amendments seems like a waste of influence.
      - geoka9 2y ago
        My take is that he's still a successful lawmaker, it's just that he is more successful implementing his agenda with amendments rather than standalone bills.
        Eumenes 2y ago
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are both cyber libertarians so I don’t see the problem.
- dang 2y ago
  Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style? Your account has been doing it a ton, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I don't want to ban you because you clearly know a lot of things and have posted quite a few good things over the years. But your comments include so much name-calling, swipes, snark, and nastiness that you're not leaving much choice. Here's one of many examples, on an unrelated topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41630774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41630774. That's a great comment, ruined by name-calling and personal attack. On the subject of cartoons of all things! There's no need to treat other people this way, or use the comment section to vent bile like that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 2y ago
      Arguing in a snarky way using denunciatory rhetoric is part of what I mean by the flamewar style and your comments certainly do a lot of that. We can put a different label on it if you don't like "flamewar", but the point is we're trying for something else on this site. I'm certainly not trying to shame you or anybody—I'm trying to persuade you to follow HN's rules! and obviously not succeeding, but the last thing I want is to add shame into it. It's common for people to underestimate the nastiness in their own comments, and overestimate the nastiness in other people's, by 10x or more. Those two factors multiply into quite a perception skew. Your posts to HN seem to me to be so nasty so often that I wonder if this might be a factor here. It's also the case that certain types of veteran internet commenter have sharpened their weapons (snark, derision, etc.) to such a degree that they don't realize their own power. Often this type of commenter is quite smart and a good writer. I wonder if this may be a factor here too. It's in HN's interest to have smart, good writers in the threads, but only if they're willing to leave those weapons at the door. There have been other cases where people have agreed to do this and stuck to their agreement, and I wish you would agree to do that too, because we'd all be better off. I mean it when I say I don't want to ban you. I admire those skills—it's just that HN isn't the place for them. For that sort of combat to work on the internet requires a smaller, more cohesive community. HN can't be that. What ends up happening when people post in that style is that it degrades quality drastically as others (usually less smart and not as good writers) start taking cues from those posts. In the end we'd just have scorched earth, which is not interesting.

Der_Einzige 2y ago

[flagged]

bbqfog 2y ago
[flagged]
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  I'm someone who has read up a lot on fascism and still finds it difficult to define clearly. Can you please explain to me how this kind of bill is "literal fascism".
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    It's removing freedom of speech and freedom to boycott. It's using government force to oppress citizens.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      Why is that fascism and not communism? It's just general authoritarianism.
      - klabb3 2y ago
        I don’t have an answer to this, I’m just here to say that Italian fascist economic policy was explicitly corporatist, promoting big, sector-wide industry conglomerates, criminalizing strikes etc. It's no coincidence that large business moguls (today in the form of corporations) have strong preference towards fascist leaning politics.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Hang on - corporations and corporatist are opposite. Corporatism was industry groups negotiating en masse with the state that was running things. You're confusing a big-state authoritarian word "corporatist" with the thing that's the opposite of big state - private citizens forming corporations.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    Making boycotting a crime seems a lot like proscribing a political view. I doubt the law has been enforced this way - or enforced at all - but if you went to the grocery store, saw a product sold by an Israeli company and decided not to buy it on account of that fact you have now committed a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The reality is that the courts would never uphold the validity of this law, and it's not enforced because the legislators know it's BS.
Eumenes 2y ago
I don't know what a cyber-libertarian is but Bernie Sanders is completely irrelevant (literally). The 3 bills he sponsored that became law were renaming highways and post-offices. The guy is a meme at this point. Look how he rolled over for the DNC two cycles in a row. Here are his accomplishments: https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033?q=%7... If you look at co-sponsored, its more of the same fluff. I'd say he's pretty ineffective.
- geoka9 2y ago
  FWIW, your post prompted me to take a bit of time to research. I found this interesting: "According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate ... Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others."[146] During his time in the Senate, he had lower legislative effectiveness than the average senator, as measured by the number of sponsored bills that passed and successful amendments made.[147] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
  - Eumenes 2y ago
    Thats the conclusion I came to. It seems like he'd be more effective as a consultant/advisor or non-elected official. Taking up a valuable senate seat to make amendments seems like a waste of influence.
    - geoka9 2y ago
      My take is that he's still a successful lawmaker, it's just that he is more successful implementing his agenda with amendments rather than standalone bills.
      - Eumenes 2y ago
renewiltord 2y ago
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are both cyber libertarians so I don’t see the problem.
dang 2y ago
Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style? Your account has been doing it a ton, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I don't want to ban you because you clearly know a lot of things and have posted quite a few good things over the years. But your comments include so much name-calling, swipes, snark, and nastiness that you're not leaving much choice. Here's one of many examples, on an unrelated topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41630774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41630774. That's a great comment, ruined by name-calling and personal attack. On the subject of cartoons of all things! There's no need to treat other people this way, or use the comment section to vent bile like that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    Arguing in a snarky way using denunciatory rhetoric is part of what I mean by the flamewar style and your comments certainly do a lot of that. We can put a different label on it if you don't like "flamewar", but the point is we're trying for something else on this site. I'm certainly not trying to shame you or anybody—I'm trying to persuade you to follow HN's rules! and obviously not succeeding, but the last thing I want is to add shame into it. It's common for people to underestimate the nastiness in their own comments, and overestimate the nastiness in other people's, by 10x or more. Those two factors multiply into quite a perception skew. Your posts to HN seem to me to be so nasty so often that I wonder if this might be a factor here. It's also the case that certain types of veteran internet commenter have sharpened their weapons (snark, derision, etc.) to such a degree that they don't realize their own power. Often this type of commenter is quite smart and a good writer. I wonder if this may be a factor here too. It's in HN's interest to have smart, good writers in the threads, but only if they're willing to leave those weapons at the door. There have been other cases where people have agreed to do this and stuck to their agreement, and I wish you would agree to do that too, because we'd all be better off. I mean it when I say I don't want to ban you. I admire those skills—it's just that HN isn't the place for them. For that sort of combat to work on the internet requires a smaller, more cohesive community. HN can't be that. What ends up happening when people post in that style is that it degrades quality drastically as others (usually less smart and not as good writers) start taking cues from those posts. In the end we'd just have scorched earth, which is not interesting.