4 ms·

We should be able to trust the government to do things like run courts, build roads, and deliver clean water. We should never trust the government when it come

by jstalin 13y ago

We should be able to trust the government to do things like run courts, build roads, and deliver clean water. We should never trust the government when it comes to standing armies, criminal prosecutions, intelligence gathering, and expansion of its own power.

angersock 13y ago
Interesting username to post a sentiment like that--and no idea why you're getting downvoted. :(
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  Probably because of the user name entirely.
perlpimp 13y ago
very true, government suppose to service us just like an excellent butler. when butler starts snoop around and do more harm than good , then it is the time to get rid of said butler and find a new one. for example I would think it would be dispeakable if my security guard and/or butler would be reading emails just to "service" me better. Governments do benefit from some visceral punishments from time to time. But not all societies have the will and strength to stand up to the government and put them in their place.
- milesskorpen 13y ago
  Most assistants actually do this, because it's critical to their job.
mpyne 13y ago
> We should be able to trust the government to do things like run courts > We should never trust the government when it comes to criminal prosecutions And now I'm confused again. Do all cases simply become civil cases? Murder is now OK again?
- jstalin 13y ago
  I said the government shouldn't be trusted. That's the point of the adversarial system.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    The same adversarial system that would be used for Snowden, and was used for Swartz, Ellsberg, Drake, and even DJB? Admittedly that's kind of a strawman as you're not claiming here anything to do with those one way or another. But many who don't trust the government to put people on trial do point to cases exactly like those. On the other hand if you're simply saying that we shouldn't trust government to prosecute cases, operate surveillance without oversight, etc. just because they're the government I would agree with you 100%. But on the other hand by the definition I wouldn't even trust the government to deliver clean water or build roads without oversight. As an example of where even the latter could go wrong I'll point to a book that HN pointed out to me, "Fatal Purity" about the French Revolution... one of the many examples of then-current corruption by the nobles was of road-building. The specific example was of a new provincial road that was argued necessary for the people to build despite there being an existing road... it was built right up to a nobleman's estate and then the rest was canceled, leaving the lord with a gratis road built straight to his property. Or for a modern example, the famed "Bridge to Nowhere". So there is no part of government which is inherently trustworthy and worthy of operating without oversight. But once you've established good oversight (such as you'd definitely want over criminal prosecutors!), that leaves the possibility of other government-provided functions open again. There may certainly still be reasons that government should not perform those functions, but it wouldn't be about the impossibility of providing oversight.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  > Do all cases simply become civil cases? Murder is now OK again? Section 11 of the Canadian Criminal Code says exactly that [1], and I have personally exploited that loophole multiple times. Even more frightening, I have personally seen lawyers (and pro se litigants) in the United States settle criminal cases (including 25 years in the state pen) using a set-off [2]. Vince Neil of Motley Crue avoided a prison sentence for vehicular manslaughter by doing exactly that [3]. TL;DR - In Canada and the United States (if not NZ, AU, UK as well), it is possible to settle murder charges by paying a fine. [1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#docCont http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#doc... [2] http://openjurist.org/636/f2d/714/magno-v-united-states http://openjurist.org/636/f2d/714/magno-v-united-states [3] http://www.opposingviews.com/i/vince-neil-served-20-days-for-killing-man-in-1984-dui-crash http://www.opposingviews.com/i/vince-neil-served-20-days-for...

by jstalin 13y ago

angersock 13y ago

Interesting username to post a sentiment like that--and no idea why you're getting downvoted. :(

harrytuttle 13y ago
Probably because of the user name entirely.

perlpimp 13y ago

very true, government suppose to service us just like an excellent butler. when butler starts snoop around and do more harm than good , then it is the time to get rid of said butler and find a new one. for example I would think it would be dispeakable if my security guard and/or butler would be reading emails just to "service" me better. Governments do benefit from some visceral punishments from time to time. But not all societies have the will and strength to stand up to the government and put them in their place.

milesskorpen 13y ago
Most assistants actually do this, because it's critical to their job.

mpyne 13y ago

> We should be able to trust the government to do things like run courts > We should never trust the government when it comes to criminal prosecutions And now I'm confused again. Do all cases simply become civil cases? Murder is now OK again?

jstalin 13y ago
I said the government shouldn't be trusted. That's the point of the adversarial system.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The same adversarial system that would be used for Snowden, and was used for Swartz, Ellsberg, Drake, and even DJB? Admittedly that's kind of a strawman as you're not claiming here anything to do with those one way or another. But many who don't trust the government to put people on trial do point to cases exactly like those. On the other hand if you're simply saying that we shouldn't trust government to prosecute cases, operate surveillance without oversight, etc. just because they're the government I would agree with you 100%. But on the other hand by the definition I wouldn't even trust the government to deliver clean water or build roads without oversight. As an example of where even the latter could go wrong I'll point to a book that HN pointed out to me, "Fatal Purity" about the French Revolution... one of the many examples of then-current corruption by the nobles was of road-building. The specific example was of a new provincial road that was argued necessary for the people to build despite there being an existing road... it was built right up to a nobleman's estate and then the rest was canceled, leaving the lord with a gratis road built straight to his property. Or for a modern example, the famed "Bridge to Nowhere". So there is no part of government which is inherently trustworthy and worthy of operating without oversight. But once you've established good oversight (such as you'd definitely want over criminal prosecutors!), that leaves the possibility of other government-provided functions open again. There may certainly still be reasons that government should not perform those functions, but it wouldn't be about the impossibility of providing oversight.
aclevernickname 13y ago
> Do all cases simply become civil cases? Murder is now OK again? Section 11 of the Canadian Criminal Code says exactly that [1], and I have personally exploited that loophole multiple times. Even more frightening, I have personally seen lawyers (and pro se litigants) in the United States settle criminal cases (including 25 years in the state pen) using a set-off [2]. Vince Neil of Motley Crue avoided a prison sentence for vehicular manslaughter by doing exactly that [3]. TL;DR - In Canada and the United States (if not NZ, AU, UK as well), it is possible to settle murder charges by paying a fine. [1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#docCont http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-5.html#doc... [2] http://openjurist.org/636/f2d/714/magno-v-united-states http://openjurist.org/636/f2d/714/magno-v-united-states [3] http://www.opposingviews.com/i/vince-neil-served-20-days-for-killing-man-in-1984-dui-crash http://www.opposingviews.com/i/vince-neil-served-20-days-for...