3 ms·

> Guillotines were made for this purpose. So were voting booths. Calls to violence are unacceptable.

by mulmen 1y ago

dseGH3FETWJJy 1y ago
No, they are sometimes necessary.
pixxel 1y ago
[dead]
hagbard_c 1y ago
Or, in box terms four boxes to be used in the defence of liberty in the given order, these being the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and finally the ammunition box.
tremon 1y ago
Please don't shoot the canary in the coalmine. Quoth JFK, in 1962: > Those who make peaceful transition impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
AnonymousPlanet 1y ago
Karl Popper made the point of democracy being the only form of government that provides getting rid of those in power without bloodshed and violence. If voting will not remove them, what will?
- mulmen 1y ago
  Voting will remove them, that’s the point.
  - keanb 1y ago
    If voting could remove them it wouldn't be allowed.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      This is a pithy description of a post-democratic political system. Its pithiness does not make it an accurate description of any given political system.
immibis 1y ago
Violence is a law of nature and a law of human history. Voting was created as an alternative to violence - I think most of us have forgotten that. Voting allows us to achieve similar results as the former solution (killing powerful people who abuse their power), but without anyone actually having to die. It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. And if that happens, whoever starts first has the advantage of surprise. Game theory is the most powerful force on the planet, and it sucks. According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.
- mulmen 1y ago
  > It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. “If” is doing a lot of work in this unsubstantiated comment.
  - immibis 1y ago
    I've been informed that positive statements about politics aren't really allowed on HN - they're "too ideological" - and my account has been restricted for making too many of them. As I understand, it's allowed to say things like "in situation X it wouldn't be surprising that Y" but not to say "because X, Y"
- schrodinger 1y ago
  > According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it. Ironically, this is the only line that I see that goes against the forum's expectations for decorum. What do you think you would otherwise be punished for saying? (And to be honest, I don't think the last line adds _anything_ to the discussion.)
  - immibis 1y ago
    The forum doesn't just have civility standards; it also has standards for the content of what you say. Apparently it's not allowed to make claims about politics. You have to say "I think" in front of everything.
jiggawatts 1y ago
When voting is made ineffective by design, such as via gerrymandering, what other recourse do you propose remains for citizens? Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians? Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals? What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?
- mulmen 1y ago
  What a sad and hopeless take. Gerrymandering is as fixable as any other problem. What makes you believe violent revolution will create a better outcome than what the last violent revolution created? > What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts? Vote for someone better. Get involved in the political process. Stop acting defeated.
  - jiggawatts 1y ago
    > Gerrymandering is as fixable as any other problem. Can you link some historical examples of gerrymandering being fixed, where there wasn’t a violent revolution or something similar “wiping the slate clean”?
    - mulmen 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States#Remedies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_S... is a good start. I'm sure you can find specific examples if you go looking. All of these remedies were put in place through peaceful democratic processes as were solutions to countless other problems.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  >When voting is made ineffective by design, such as via gerrymandering, what other recourse do you propose remains for citizens? Gerrymandering is awful but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that only Republicans do it. Both parties do it. At least the Republicans aren't trying to import the entire third world to pad numbers and get a loyal multitude of welfare cases behind them. >Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians? You have the right to protest in the US, not impede and intimidate law enforcement and traffic, nor to loot and destroy buildings in the vicinity of your "protest." >Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals? How about the countless people censored on Twitter and YouTube, and the obvious political prosecutions of an ex president based on bullshit? I don't agree with censorship or two wrongs make a right, but these people are getting the abuse that they provoked. >What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts? In the US, voting works. But there are evidently unelected officials in the US and around the world who control a surprising amount of policy. They work against the will of their constituents on many issues. Things are not so bad yet but I'm not sure they will never get so bad that violence would not be justified. The only reason we can vote at all is because a group of independent thinkers told a monarch to go to hell, and come get some if you don't like it. Words on paper don't guarantee your rights.
wakawaka28 1y ago
The only reason you have voting booths is because someone in the past threatened someone else and made them agree to a democratic process. These threats to privacy are a threat to free speech and therefore a credible threat to democracy and personal liberty. By implementing these policies, politicians are guaranteeing violence. By all means try to change things peacefully, but in my opinion the current crop of politicians (especially outside the US) don't care so much what you think about their awful policies.
lucasRW 1y ago
People, at least in France, but another country if as well iirc, rejected the EU constitution in 2005. It is in place, though.

> Guillotines were made for this purpose. So were voting booths. Calls to violence are unacceptable.

by mulmen 1y ago

> Guillotines were made for this purpose. So were voting booths. Calls to violence are unacceptable.

dseGH3FETWJJy 1y ago

No, they are sometimes necessary.

pixxel 1y ago

[dead]

hagbard_c 1y ago

Or, in box terms four boxes to be used in the defence of liberty in the given order, these being the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box and finally the ammunition box.

tremon 1y ago

Please don't shoot the canary in the coalmine. Quoth JFK, in 1962: > Those who make peaceful transition impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.

AnonymousPlanet 1y ago

Karl Popper made the point of democracy being the only form of government that provides getting rid of those in power without bloodshed and violence. If voting will not remove them, what will?

mulmen 1y ago
Voting will remove them, that’s the point.
- keanb 1y ago
  If voting could remove them it wouldn't be allowed.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    This is a pithy description of a post-democratic political system. Its pithiness does not make it an accurate description of any given political system.

immibis 1y ago

Violence is a law of nature and a law of human history. Voting was created as an alternative to violence - I think most of us have forgotten that. Voting allows us to achieve similar results as the former solution (killing powerful people who abuse their power), but without anyone actually having to die. It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. And if that happens, whoever starts first has the advantage of surprise. Game theory is the most powerful force on the planet, and it sucks. According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.

mulmen 1y ago
> It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. “If” is doing a lot of work in this unsubstantiated comment.
- immibis 1y ago
  I've been informed that positive statements about politics aren't really allowed on HN - they're "too ideological" - and my account has been restricted for making too many of them. As I understand, it's allowed to say things like "in situation X it wouldn't be surprising that Y" but not to say "because X, Y"
schrodinger 1y ago
> According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it. Ironically, this is the only line that I see that goes against the forum's expectations for decorum. What do you think you would otherwise be punished for saying? (And to be honest, I don't think the last line adds _anything_ to the discussion.)
- immibis 1y ago
  The forum doesn't just have civility standards; it also has standards for the content of what you say. Apparently it's not allowed to make claims about politics. You have to say "I think" in front of everything.

jiggawatts 1y ago

When voting is made ineffective by design, such as via gerrymandering, what other recourse do you propose remains for citizens? Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians? Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals? What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts?

mulmen 1y ago
What a sad and hopeless take. Gerrymandering is as fixable as any other problem. What makes you believe violent revolution will create a better outcome than what the last violent revolution created? > What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts? Vote for someone better. Get involved in the political process. Stop acting defeated.
- jiggawatts 1y ago
  > Gerrymandering is as fixable as any other problem. Can you link some historical examples of gerrymandering being fixed, where there wasn’t a violent revolution or something similar “wiping the slate clean”?
  - mulmen 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States#Remedies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_S... is a good start. I'm sure you can find specific examples if you go looking. All of these remedies were put in place through peaceful democratic processes as were solutions to countless other problems.
wakawaka28 1y ago
>When voting is made ineffective by design, such as via gerrymandering, what other recourse do you propose remains for citizens? Gerrymandering is awful but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that only Republicans do it. Both parties do it. At least the Republicans aren't trying to import the entire third world to pad numbers and get a loyal multitude of welfare cases behind them. >Official authorised protests in designated zones away from areas that would inconvenient for politicians? You have the right to protest in the US, not impede and intimidate law enforcement and traffic, nor to loot and destroy buildings in the vicinity of your "protest." >Making jokes about the people in charge in public forums such as late night TV shows and then hoping the regulator doesn’t threaten to require the termination of your job as a precondition for government approvals? How about the countless people censored on Twitter and YouTube, and the obvious political prosecutions of an ex president based on bullshit? I don't agree with censorship or two wrongs make a right, but these people are getting the abuse that they provoked. >What exactly can ordinary people do that is effective at reigning in autocracts? In the US, voting works. But there are evidently unelected officials in the US and around the world who control a surprising amount of policy. They work against the will of their constituents on many issues. Things are not so bad yet but I'm not sure they will never get so bad that violence would not be justified. The only reason we can vote at all is because a group of independent thinkers told a monarch to go to hell, and come get some if you don't like it. Words on paper don't guarantee your rights.

wakawaka28 1y ago

The only reason you have voting booths is because someone in the past threatened someone else and made them agree to a democratic process. These threats to privacy are a threat to free speech and therefore a credible threat to democracy and personal liberty. By implementing these policies, politicians are guaranteeing violence. By all means try to change things peacefully, but in my opinion the current crop of politicians (especially outside the US) don't care so much what you think about their awful policies.

lucasRW 1y ago

People, at least in France, but another country if as well iirc, rejected the EU constitution in 2005. It is in place, though.