4 ms·

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I can't help but think this is the worst idea ever. You have a highly-strung government, watching everyone for signs of domesti

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I can't help but think this is the worst idea ever. You have a highly-strung government, watching everyone for signs of domestic terrorism, and then protest, which the government has considered an act of aggression since at least the Dubya administration. The only remedy we have in this country is lawsuits. Not class-actions, either; individual lawsuits for $500k each, for egregiously prejudicing your individual rights guaranteed by the constitution. ten thousand or so of those, with the president's name in all caps (head of the Unitary Executive) listed as the defendant. or, you know, you could try to make a well-regulated militia of 3D-printed pea shooters, so you can overthrow the largest and most heavily-armed military in the history of the world. that'll definitely work. Myself, I appreciate the disclosure I'm being given that Scott McNealy was right all those years ago when he said we have zero privacy anyway. The government has the right to do whatever they want with their property. if you use/are their property (isn't that ARPAnet thing US military property?), expect them to enforce their interest in that property. TL;DR for the downvoters (+6 to -2 in less than 20 minutes? hilarious): PROTEST BAD. LAWSUITS GOOD.

LoganCale 13y ago
The right to protest is Constitutionally protected. If the government is violating that right and treating peaceful protests as aggression against them, that's all the more reason to do it, to reassert our right.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  If you're gonna go the crazy route, leading you to dishonor and all that, at least serve the President individual notice of the rights you are reasserting before setting foot in that march, otherwise, you aren't giving him due process, and are actually prejudicing _his_ rights, giving him even more authority to treat you like an enemy. Thanks for the downvotes. perhaps you could combine them with a reply of why I'm wrong in my reasoning?
  - jsmcgd 13y ago
    Sarcasm will get you down voted.
    - aclevernickname 13y ago
      I wasn't concerned about the reasons why I was downvoted; I was concerned that I was downvoted while in no way being told I was incorrect. Reply with where I'm wrong, don't just try to bury a dissenting opinion. HN is better than that.
      - crazygringo 13y ago
        I didn't downvote you, but I'd say you're being downvoted because you say "I'm going to play by the rules of the game, as I'm stuck in the system", and are basically resigning yourself to the status quo. The ethos of Hacker News is all about changing the status quo, and America as a country was about asserting independence and changing the status quo, in the name of certain kinds of rights that wound up embodied in the Constitution. Arguing that protests are useless, that we don't live in a free society, that courage is unnecessary: it's frankly quite sad. People died in previous wars to give us the right to protest, the freedom in our society, and it is necessary that people should continue to fight to keep things that way, with courage. Your reasoning sounds a little paranoid, like the "government has already won" and that there's nothing we can do about it. That's not going to be a popular attitude.
        aclevernickname 13y ago
        upvoted you cos you're awesome. Perhaps you believe you live in a free society, I don't. I understand the ramifications of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how the bill of rights was filtered through the 14th to see what still applied to "subjects of congress" (hint: only the 2nd amendment comes out unscathed due to DC v Heller). I've read (and used) the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act [1], and understand how it allows someone to actually own people (actual slavery). I've filed UCC-1 Liens against people and had sheriffs seize debtor's property or put people in jail for not paying (debt slavery). These are not signs of a free society. these are signs of fascism and tyranny. I hope you'll forgive my worldview for being different than yours, but perhaps we can find some common ground: We both want to live in a free society. We both want a populace to show courage. we think it's quite sad that people died in previous wars to give us the right to protest. We both think the government has already won (the people are the government), and there's nothing we can do about that. We both think is necessary that people should continue to fight to keep things that way, with courage. I bet we agree on many more things, actually. [1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-20/ http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-20/
pvnick 13y ago
>You have a highly-strung government, watching everyone for signs of domestic terrorism, and then protest, which the government has considered an act of aggression since at least the Dubya administration. That's a terrible justification for not protesting. Free societies require courage.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  Not wanting to be in harmony with the 800lb gorilla is a terrible justification for not being in harmony with the 800lb gorilla. As for being courageous in a free society: Let me know when you find one. we can both move there and be courageous together. In the interim, I'm going to play by the rules of the game, as I'm stuck in the system. Perhaps you guys don't understand this: they have _really_ big guns. waaaay bigger than anything we have. and they have the authority to use them when they're threatened by acts of mass protest. the Executive's powers used at Kent State ages ago have only gotten stronger. Don't be like those poor bastards. or the Seattle WTO protesters. or the DNC/RNC protesters. Seriously, they _want_ you to sue them. Just do it.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    I guess we'll give you a call from the protests then. Look for us being mocked on the TV, if we're not intentionally ignored by corporate media.
    - aclevernickname 13y ago
      please do. I'll be home all day on the 4th.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > That's a terrible justification for not protesting. Free societies require courage. +1
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
alan_cx 13y ago
I realize people don't like what you are saying, but, while I think your snarky tone might not be helping you, you do make several worth while points. Demonstrations can and will be used to crack down further. Despite our rights to protest, government will still use them as a way to frighten the non demonstrators. This is what we have seen in the UK. Protesters are re-defined as criminals as and when it suits. Also, I think you probably have a point in suggesting the use of the law. Seems to me as an outsider that a lot of US progression has been via enlightened judges.......eventually. My suggestion would be to raise huge amounts of cash to fight in the courts and lobby hard. I really do hate to say this, because it yet again shows up the political disconnect we all seem to have, but governments simply ignore protest. Well, unless its Middle East style, with huge amounts of violence and political types dragged out and, well, killed. And, that isnt going to happen in the West, right? Look, we in the UK had 1 million people march in London against Gulf War 2. That is like 5 million marching in DC (roughly, if I have my maths right). And guess what.... the UK government ignored them flat. Later, the UK people voted that government back in to power. Total waste of time. When was the last time protest really worked? More over, should it?

LoganCale 13y ago

The right to protest is Constitutionally protected. If the government is violating that right and treating peaceful protests as aggression against them, that's all the more reason to do it, to reassert our right.

aclevernickname 13y ago
If you're gonna go the crazy route, leading you to dishonor and all that, at least serve the President individual notice of the rights you are reasserting before setting foot in that march, otherwise, you aren't giving him due process, and are actually prejudicing _his_ rights, giving him even more authority to treat you like an enemy. Thanks for the downvotes. perhaps you could combine them with a reply of why I'm wrong in my reasoning?
- jsmcgd 13y ago
  Sarcasm will get you down voted.
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    I wasn't concerned about the reasons why I was downvoted; I was concerned that I was downvoted while in no way being told I was incorrect. Reply with where I'm wrong, don't just try to bury a dissenting opinion. HN is better than that.
    - crazygringo 13y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but I'd say you're being downvoted because you say "I'm going to play by the rules of the game, as I'm stuck in the system", and are basically resigning yourself to the status quo. The ethos of Hacker News is all about changing the status quo, and America as a country was about asserting independence and changing the status quo, in the name of certain kinds of rights that wound up embodied in the Constitution. Arguing that protests are useless, that we don't live in a free society, that courage is unnecessary: it's frankly quite sad. People died in previous wars to give us the right to protest, the freedom in our society, and it is necessary that people should continue to fight to keep things that way, with courage. Your reasoning sounds a little paranoid, like the "government has already won" and that there's nothing we can do about it. That's not going to be a popular attitude.
      - aclevernickname 13y ago
        upvoted you cos you're awesome. Perhaps you believe you live in a free society, I don't. I understand the ramifications of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how the bill of rights was filtered through the 14th to see what still applied to "subjects of congress" (hint: only the 2nd amendment comes out unscathed due to DC v Heller). I've read (and used) the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act [1], and understand how it allows someone to actually own people (actual slavery). I've filed UCC-1 Liens against people and had sheriffs seize debtor's property or put people in jail for not paying (debt slavery). These are not signs of a free society. these are signs of fascism and tyranny. I hope you'll forgive my worldview for being different than yours, but perhaps we can find some common ground: We both want to live in a free society. We both want a populace to show courage. we think it's quite sad that people died in previous wars to give us the right to protest. We both think the government has already won (the people are the government), and there's nothing we can do about that. We both think is necessary that people should continue to fight to keep things that way, with courage. I bet we agree on many more things, actually. [1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-20/ http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-20/

pvnick 13y ago

>You have a highly-strung government, watching everyone for signs of domestic terrorism, and then protest, which the government has considered an act of aggression since at least the Dubya administration. That's a terrible justification for not protesting. Free societies require courage.

aclevernickname 13y ago
Not wanting to be in harmony with the 800lb gorilla is a terrible justification for not being in harmony with the 800lb gorilla. As for being courageous in a free society: Let me know when you find one. we can both move there and be courageous together. In the interim, I'm going to play by the rules of the game, as I'm stuck in the system. Perhaps you guys don't understand this: they have _really_ big guns. waaaay bigger than anything we have. and they have the authority to use them when they're threatened by acts of mass protest. the Executive's powers used at Kent State ages ago have only gotten stronger. Don't be like those poor bastards. or the Seattle WTO protesters. or the DNC/RNC protesters. Seriously, they _want_ you to sue them. Just do it.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  I guess we'll give you a call from the protests then. Look for us being mocked on the TV, if we're not intentionally ignored by corporate media.
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    please do. I'll be home all day on the 4th.
mpyne 13y ago
> That's a terrible justification for not protesting. Free societies require courage. +1
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

alan_cx 13y ago

I realize people don't like what you are saying, but, while I think your snarky tone might not be helping you, you do make several worth while points. Demonstrations can and will be used to crack down further. Despite our rights to protest, government will still use them as a way to frighten the non demonstrators. This is what we have seen in the UK. Protesters are re-defined as criminals as and when it suits. Also, I think you probably have a point in suggesting the use of the law. Seems to me as an outsider that a lot of US progression has been via enlightened judges.......eventually. My suggestion would be to raise huge amounts of cash to fight in the courts and lobby hard. I really do hate to say this, because it yet again shows up the political disconnect we all seem to have, but governments simply ignore protest. Well, unless its Middle East style, with huge amounts of violence and political types dragged out and, well, killed. And, that isnt going to happen in the West, right? Look, we in the UK had 1 million people march in London against Gulf War 2. That is like 5 million marching in DC (roughly, if I have my maths right). And guess what.... the UK government ignored them flat. Later, the UK people voted that government back in to power. Total waste of time. When was the last time protest really worked? More over, should it?