16 ms·

No. Government should never get a pass on a prohibition just because it's the government. Au contraire: save for very narrow instances (ex.: nuclear weapons) h

No. Government should never get a pass on a prohibition just because it's the government. Au contraire: save for very narrow instances (ex.: nuclear weapons) handled with intense care and oversight, government agents should be subject to any and all restrictions inflicted upon the populace at large. People have rights and delegate them to government as granted powers, not the other way around.

baddox 14y ago
On the other hand, the only organizations in history to have developed, stockpiled, and used nuclear weapons are governments.
- mikeash 14y ago
  How is that "the other hand", exactly?
  - knowaveragejoe 14y ago
    Er, because in contrast to nuclear weapons anyone can build their own drone?
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Is that due to technical obstacles, or the regulation around nuclear material? Nobody could build a drone either, if the government regulated access to microcontrollers like it regulates nuclear material.
  - baddox 14y ago
    Because ctdonath proposed nuclear weapons as an exception to the rule that governments shouldn't be exempt from laws and regulations.
    - ctdonath 14y ago
      I used it as a catch-all phrase for whatever most people would consider a reasonable exemption from prohibition, and used it to avoid a prolonged derailment of the post's point. Most people would agree that possession of nuclear weapons should be prohibited. Insofar as other sovereign governments do have them and threaten to use them, and insofar as on rare occasion their use may arguably save more lives than non-use, most people would also agree their government may be exempted from an otherwise universal prohibition on possession of nuclear weapons. Hence the purpose of using the subject as a "code phrase" to make a point without getting derailed. Seemed an obvious, simple, and understandable literary tool at the time. Yes, the issue is somewhat moot as, until recently, nuclear weapons were something only governments had the resources to construct, maintain, and deliver. That civilian ownership is night unto impossible should have been obviously irrelevant to the point being made. That private manufacture IS becoming viable for the ultra rich (legal and societal prohibitions aside) makes the "but only governments are capable" point moot in turn. If I presented my personal views on individual civilian possession of nuclear weapons, a flame war would ensue with a great many impassioned respondents failing to hold any interest in understanding my view.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
ihsw 14y ago
You don't seem to realize how the American government works. In all levels, from local to state to federal, their constituency consists exclusively of special interest groups whom represent businesses at large. Consumers are left in the cold with regards to influencing policy since they are disorganized and (more importantly) they lack the political and economic will to exercise control over their government. Consumers rarely (if ever) contribute to campaigns, lobby, or propose legislation themselves. If you do understand it then your proposal is simply a pipe dream since this iron shield is impenetrable to individual citizenry.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  And this is relevant to this thread how? Who is lobbying for universal areal secrecy? BTW: you're confusing "should" with "does". I'm quite aware of how the American government works, and realize it places self-interest above even lobbyists.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  Really. What constitutes the defenders of the second-amendment - I know they are a special interests group but it seems to be a special interest of 80% of the USA
- wwweston 14y ago
  > Consumers are left in the cold with regards to influencing policy since they are disorganized and (more importantly) they lack the political and economic will to exercise control over their government. Possibly because they think of themselves as consumers rather than citizens.
  - oleganza 14y ago
    While thinking of themselves as consumers they do not have in mind using physical force to make producers sell them what they want at a price they like. But if you start thinking about yourself as a proud citizen, a part of a "community", you might feel a napoleonic desire to force others to do something for a "good of everyone". This does not end up well. You may become a president. I'll stick with a peaceful consumer perspective, thank you.
nhaehnle 14y ago
Your general sentiment is laudable, but the example of nuclear weapons is rather odd. The much more obvious example is the use of force, both physical (i.e. physical violence) and economic (i.e. taxation). Without these, government cannot act in the common interest, but there are very good reasons to forbid those for everybody else.
- oleganza 14y ago
  Taxation is not physical violence? Good luck not paying your taxes.
  - nhaehnle 14y ago
    Physical violence is the last resort for enforcement of all laws. That does not mean that it makes sense to equate every government action to physical violence.
    - oleganza 14y ago
      Lets say, I come to you and ask for $1000. If you don't pay me before March 1st, 2013, I'll send you a reminder. If you don't send money within a week, I'll send you another reminder. If you still don't send money, I'll ask a friend of mine to come to your door and politely ask again. If you still reject my "offer", I'll send another friend with a gun who will ask you again. If you don't open the door, he will kick it out and search for money in your house. If you try to stop him, he will kill you. As a last resort, of course. We both know that we know the whole chain of threats. Doesn't my demand for your money equate with physical violence? If not, how short should be the chain of such persuasion until the gunpoint, so it's considered equal to threat of physical violence?
      - ams6110 14y ago
        They are more likely to simply garnish your wages or seize your bank account than they are to break down your door and go searching around in your dresser drawers for money. But they will get their money, one way or another. That point stands.
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
Government evolves. I think some dude nailed it pretty good 2300 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes
walshemj 14y ago
Agreed and local government tiers worldwide should STF and stick to the local issues and not get disillusions of grandeur and get involved with things that are above their pay grade - though Germany is even worse their counties have there own secret police FFS.

baddox 14y ago

On the other hand, the only organizations in history to have developed, stockpiled, and used nuclear weapons are governments.

mikeash 14y ago
How is that "the other hand", exactly?
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago
  Er, because in contrast to nuclear weapons anyone can build their own drone?
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Is that due to technical obstacles, or the regulation around nuclear material? Nobody could build a drone either, if the government regulated access to microcontrollers like it regulates nuclear material.
- baddox 14y ago
  Because ctdonath proposed nuclear weapons as an exception to the rule that governments shouldn't be exempt from laws and regulations.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    I used it as a catch-all phrase for whatever most people would consider a reasonable exemption from prohibition, and used it to avoid a prolonged derailment of the post's point. Most people would agree that possession of nuclear weapons should be prohibited. Insofar as other sovereign governments do have them and threaten to use them, and insofar as on rare occasion their use may arguably save more lives than non-use, most people would also agree their government may be exempted from an otherwise universal prohibition on possession of nuclear weapons. Hence the purpose of using the subject as a "code phrase" to make a point without getting derailed. Seemed an obvious, simple, and understandable literary tool at the time. Yes, the issue is somewhat moot as, until recently, nuclear weapons were something only governments had the resources to construct, maintain, and deliver. That civilian ownership is night unto impossible should have been obviously irrelevant to the point being made. That private manufacture IS becoming viable for the ultra rich (legal and societal prohibitions aside) makes the "but only governments are capable" point moot in turn. If I presented my personal views on individual civilian possession of nuclear weapons, a flame war would ensue with a great many impassioned respondents failing to hold any interest in understanding my view.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

ihsw 14y ago

You don't seem to realize how the American government works. In all levels, from local to state to federal, their constituency consists exclusively of special interest groups whom represent businesses at large. Consumers are left in the cold with regards to influencing policy since they are disorganized and (more importantly) they lack the political and economic will to exercise control over their government. Consumers rarely (if ever) contribute to campaigns, lobby, or propose legislation themselves. If you do understand it then your proposal is simply a pipe dream since this iron shield is impenetrable to individual citizenry.

ctdonath 14y ago
And this is relevant to this thread how? Who is lobbying for universal areal secrecy? BTW: you're confusing "should" with "does". I'm quite aware of how the American government works, and realize it places self-interest above even lobbyists.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
Really. What constitutes the defenders of the second-amendment - I know they are a special interests group but it seems to be a special interest of 80% of the USA
wwweston 14y ago
> Consumers are left in the cold with regards to influencing policy since they are disorganized and (more importantly) they lack the political and economic will to exercise control over their government. Possibly because they think of themselves as consumers rather than citizens.
- oleganza 14y ago
  While thinking of themselves as consumers they do not have in mind using physical force to make producers sell them what they want at a price they like. But if you start thinking about yourself as a proud citizen, a part of a "community", you might feel a napoleonic desire to force others to do something for a "good of everyone". This does not end up well. You may become a president. I'll stick with a peaceful consumer perspective, thank you.

nhaehnle 14y ago

Your general sentiment is laudable, but the example of nuclear weapons is rather odd. The much more obvious example is the use of force, both physical (i.e. physical violence) and economic (i.e. taxation). Without these, government cannot act in the common interest, but there are very good reasons to forbid those for everybody else.

oleganza 14y ago
Taxation is not physical violence? Good luck not paying your taxes.
- nhaehnle 14y ago
  Physical violence is the last resort for enforcement of all laws. That does not mean that it makes sense to equate every government action to physical violence.
  - oleganza 14y ago
    Lets say, I come to you and ask for $1000. If you don't pay me before March 1st, 2013, I'll send you a reminder. If you don't send money within a week, I'll send you another reminder. If you still don't send money, I'll ask a friend of mine to come to your door and politely ask again. If you still reject my "offer", I'll send another friend with a gun who will ask you again. If you don't open the door, he will kick it out and search for money in your house. If you try to stop him, he will kill you. As a last resort, of course. We both know that we know the whole chain of threats. Doesn't my demand for your money equate with physical violence? If not, how short should be the chain of such persuasion until the gunpoint, so it's considered equal to threat of physical violence?
    - ams6110 14y ago
      They are more likely to simply garnish your wages or seize your bank account than they are to break down your door and go searching around in your dresser drawers for money. But they will get their money, one way or another. That point stands.

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

Government evolves. I think some dude nailed it pretty good 2300 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes

walshemj 14y ago

Agreed and local government tiers worldwide should STF and stick to the local issues and not get disillusions of grandeur and get involved with things that are above their pay grade - though Germany is even worse their counties have there own secret police FFS.