[projectramo]

Wait, when people disagree with you on an issue then they downvote you.

However, when you are talking about the same government, when they agree with you, will upvote you?

This, right here, is a broken system. People should only be able to upvote or downvote another person, but not both, whenever they are talking about the same government!

[pstuart]

> the same government

The same branch of the same country, but with changes in who occupies it they can be vastly different.

I greatly dislike the "both sides are the same" narrative, but there were some strong elements of consistency regardless of occupant.

The current administration is an entirely new beast that reflects the whims of a single individual. We are in uncharted waters now.

[scarface74]

There are no uncharted waters. “The other side” makes equally bad decisions when it comes to tech because they believe that the government is the answer to too many of the worlds problems. Even if their intentions are good, they don’t have enough of a grasp on technology to understand the ramifications. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Some of the more forward looking liberals warned against executive orders when Obama was in the White House. They said that be careful about the precedent it was setting. Now those same people are bemoaning the current administration.

It’s always dangerous to give government more power.

[pstuart]

This is a false equivalency. The overreach of the federal government is a topic worth exploring but this is different: this is a unification and consolidation of power into the hands of one man.

And to avoid getting too political I'll avoid questioning the loyalties and competence of this individual. I don't care if it was Obama or Bernie or Daffy Duck, this is a dangerous situation and it's compounded by the acceptance/acquiescence of a startlingly large portion of the population.

[scarface74]

It’s not the consolidation of power by one man. Congress could pass a law to stop any of his executive orders anytime they wanted to. The court could stop a few of them.

[pstuart]

In order for Congress to pass a law it needs to make it through the Senate. Mitch McConnell owns the Senate right now. Note the behavior of the President's supporters during the impeachment trial, they were all dutifully in line.

Compare that with a previous generation where the GOP leadership went to the President and told him they could not support him because he had gone too far, and Nixon therefore resigned.

Justices Roberts was a figurehead at the trial and his actions were supportive of the outcome.

This is not "normal"; this is not the democracy I learned back in the day.

[homonculus1]

It is the same government. Every power the current administration has at its disposal was granted or expanded at some point in the past into what it is now. The Trump administration is not a paradigm shift toward obscene federal executive power, it has been this way for a long time.

The small-government counterargument has always been "You are not going to like this new power when it's inevitably in the hands of the wrong person". That has always been ignored--the Whig theory of history ruled as enlightened new theories for social management demanded more and more centralized authority for the greater good.

Now that the chickens are home to roost and someone truly offensive to the left has been elected, they are doing the world's biggest surprised Pikachu face. But the capacity for human self-deception is infinite, as for example the very same people panicking about imminent fascist takeover are simultaneously panicking that anyone other than the government has guns. So I don't believe that any event can shock the hubris out of smart people and their tidy moral rubrics.

[scarface74]

While the last thing I want is a “War on Guns” because it will end up just like the “War on Drugs”. It will give another excuse for the government to enforce laws much more harshly on poor and minorities.

But at the same time, it’s just silly to think that a reason to own guns is in case the government wants to impose martial law. We are talking about the government with the largest military in the world - with tanks, jet fighters, bombs etc. The 2nd amendment is not going to protect you from a hypothetical fascist government.

[zepto]

This assumes they throw a ‘martial law’ knife switch and instantly the armed forces turn into fascist enforcers willing to slaughter their own families rather than protect them.

Clearly not realistic.

[scarface74]

why do you take at face value that with enough propaganda that people wouldn’t all of the sudden classify their own neighbors as “them”? Isn’t that just what happened in Rwanda?

Isn’t that the definition of a civil war?

But if you are convinced that the military would turn on its own people, doesn’t that still make the whole “we need guns to protect ourself from a potential fascist government and we are going to run around in the woods and prepare” silly?

I

[zepto]

A civil war seems entirely possible.

The idea that the military would stay unified and be on one ‘side’ of a civil war does not.

In any case it is obvious from the Middle East that people with guns can in fact stand up to the US military quite successfully.

[pstuart]

We are dealing with a cult here. The fact that the statement about shooting someone on 5th Ave and not losing any votes is clearly true shows that this is beyond reason.

I don't take any pleasure in saying any of this; I'm not interested in besmirching the values of others that I do not share. But what is happening is crazy. The President of the United States is advocating that anybody who does not blindly support him is the enemy; and that those enemies need to be "dealt with".

This is way beyond "America, love it or leave it".

[homonculus1]

Why didn't we just bomb Al-Qaeda into oblivion in 2 weeks? Why couldn't we just shoot communism in North Vietnam? Martial law and occupation are ultimately enforced by infantry patrols. Plus, tanks need fuel and governments can't carpet bomb their own cities.

But it's not just about resisting hypothetical martial law in the future. It's about having a free culture now. Just like encryption, it is the difference between power deriving from consent the governed and an open-air prison and also has legitimate use for personal protection. The mere fact they don't want you to have it is reason enough to keep it by tooth and nail.

[pstuart]

You can't bomb your way to democracy. Let's say that a foreign country bombed your farm/business and killed all of your family. Are you going to thank them for it or are you going to swear vengeance?

Are you aware of the reports that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were multi-trillion dollar failures?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

[pstuart]

> the very same people panicking about imminent fascist takeover are simultaneously panicking that anyone other than the government has guns

Well, you've just proven yourself wrong. I am panicking over a fascist takeover and I don't think that only the government should have guns. I also know that I'm not alone in this sentiment.

> So I don't believe that any event can shock the hubris out of smart people and their tidy moral rubrics

Does this include yourself?

[strbean]

I'm surprised this isn't a part of the official HN guidelines, it would be good to adopt it from Reddiquitte:

> (Do not...) Downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it. Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion. If you simply take a moment to stop, think and examine your reasons for downvoting, rather than doing so out of an emotional reaction, you will ensure that your downvotes are given for good reasons.

Downvotes should not be used as an "I disagree" button, that is what the reply button is for.