Let's fight back against the NDAA

[MrPopo]

Except you're the one who's going in assuming every single piece of power is going to be abused.

History shows us that this is true. Any power that can be abuse will be abused. So give out the minimum amount of authority, and keep a keen eye on how it is used. What's so hard to understand about that?

What's hard to understand is how you define what is the minimum amount of authority? How do you keep an eye on how it is used, more specifically how do you enforce it? If you could start a country how would your ideal government work? Everything I see from you always seems to lead to some idealized world where the government may as well not exist.

You keep stating that if the government gets any power clearly the reason is to abuse it.

If the government doesn't intend to use legislation in a certain way, it has ways to stop the legislation from being used in that way. For instance, if they don't intend this legislation to apply to political speech, they can prevent it from being used against political speech by creating an exemption in the statute. They didn't do so, so I have to assume they intend this legislation to apply to political speech. Even if they didn't intend for it to be used so, it's only a matter of time until someone tries it anway. So even if their intent is pure, the law is dangerous.

The fact that America can form an army who takes their orders from the president (and not congress) is already dangerous. You're focusing on a tiny extra spec of danger when the entire system is hilariously flawed if someone wanted to fully exploit it. If you're going to get riled up at least set your sights on something worthwhile.

Justice is not about retribution. Justice is about stabilitizing society by providing disincentives for destabilizing behavior. Incentives don't work if they're handed out randomly, so we need evidence to ensure that we're incentivizing people in the right way.

Even in your worst case scenario the incentives aren't being handed out randomly. Let's say that everyone who speaks out against the government gets locked away without trial. That's not random. That is clearly purposeful and can be argued that they are removing destabilizing behavior. Whether or not that behavior is destabilizing is a completely separate argument, but under what you just said this provision is perfectly just.

[Hatta]

What's hard to understand is how you define what is the minimum amount of authority? How do you keep an eye on how it is used, more specifically how do you enforce it? If you could start a country how would your ideal government work? Everything I see from you always seems to lead to some idealized world where the government may as well not exist.

Let's try science. If you need this authority, produce some data showing that it will produce a net benefit. Revisit laws every few years to see if they are actually accomplishing their objectives. Engineers have a lot of good ideas on how to evaluate tradeoffs in their designs and still produce a working product. Let's do that instead of throwing our hands in the air and giving up.

The fact that America can form an army who takes their orders from the president (and not congress) is already dangerous. You're focusing on a tiny extra spec of danger when the entire system is hilariously flawed if someone wanted to fully exploit it. If you're going to get riled up at least set your sights on something worthwhile.

I agree. The founding fathers were opposed to a standing army for good reason. I don't think their arguments would get much traction today, so we have to pick our battles.

Even in your worst case scenario the incentives aren't being handed out randomly. Let's say that everyone who speaks out against the government gets locked away without trial. That's not random. That is clearly purposeful and can be argued that they are removing destabilizing behavior. Whether or not that behavior is destabilizing is a completely separate argument, but under what you just said this provision is perfectly just.

No, it's not a separate argument. Censorship is destabilizing. Censorship allows people to hide their crimes which leads to more destabilizing behavior. Ultimately censorship regimes fall under the weight of their own corruption.

[MrPopo]

What's hard to understand is how you define what is the minimum amount of authority? How do you keep an eye on how it is used, more specifically how do you enforce it? If you could start a country how would your ideal government work? Everything I see from you always seems to lead to some idealized world where the government may as well not exist.

Let's try science. If you need this authority, produce some data showing that it will produce a net benefit. Revisit laws every few years to see if they are actually accomplishing their objectives. Engineers have a lot of good ideas on how to evaluate tradeoffs in their designs and still produce a working product. Let's do that instead of throwing our hands in the air and giving up.

Sounds reasonable to me.

The fact that America can form an army who takes their orders from the president (and not congress) is already dangerous. You're focusing on a tiny extra spec of danger when the entire system is hilariously flawed if someone wanted to fully exploit it. If you're going to get riled up at least set your sights on something worthwhile.

I agree. The founding fathers were opposed to a standing army for good reason. I don't think their arguments would get much traction today, so we have to pick our battles.

To be fair, though, from the standpoint of running a military our current methodology of the professional soldier gets much better military results than the conscription that was common in the era of the founding fathers.

Even in your worst case scenario the incentives aren't being handed out randomly. Let's say that everyone who speaks out against the government gets locked away without trial. That's not random. That is clearly purposeful and can be argued that they are removing destabilizing behavior. Whether or not that behavior is destabilizing is a completely separate argument, but under what you just said this provision is perfectly just.

No, it's not a separate argument. Censorship is destabilizing. Censorship allows people to hide their crimes which leads to more destabilizing behavior. Ultimately censorship regimes fall under the weight of their own corruption.

You know what else allows people to hide their crimes? Privacy. I guess privacy must be destabilizing.

[Hatta]

To be fair, though, from the standpoint of running a military our current methodology of the professional soldier gets much better military results than the conscription that was common in the era of the founding fathers.

Which is a part of the reason why standing armies are a worse idea today than they ever have been. They were concerned about how a militia of the people could withstand a well trained standing military. They had just had a revolution, and wanted to ensure that they would be able to have revolutions in the future. Today, there is no chance in hell of the people standing up against American military might.

I'll also mention that projecting American miltary power across the globe has made us less safe by encouraging terrorists to attack us.

You know what else allows people to hide their crimes? Privacy. I guess privacy must be destabilizing.

If something remains private, it can't possibly have a destabilizing influence, because no one else would know about it. If we find out that something destabilizing has occured (aka, "a crime"), we have legal methods for removing that privacy (warrants). So yes, you're right in this case.

[MrPopo]

To be fair, though, from the standpoint of running a military our current methodology of the professional soldier gets much better military results than the conscription that was common in the era of the founding fathers.

Which is a part of the reason why standing armies are a worse idea today than they ever have been. They were concerned about how a militia of the people could withstand a well trained standing military. They had just had a revolution, and wanted to ensure that they would be able to have revolutions in the future. Today, there is no chance in hell of the people standing up against American military might.

It is a worse idea if you think revolution is the only way to get things changed. If is a good idea if you are concerned about protecting the country from foreign invaders.

[mjmjr25]

Late to the party but...............

@mjmjr25

The concern over NDAA has nothing to do with pedophiles and murderers. The concern is over the federal government detaining peaceful protestors, anti-war and anti-capitalist activists, and others on trumped up "terrorism" charges. I've already been threatened multiple times by authorities for peacefully protesting state and corporate power, the passing of this bill makes me fear for my safety.

I did read the bill, and the read the rebuttal bill proposal of Mrs. Feinstein. I missed the verbage on "trumped up" charges.

The same folks that get paranoid about this stuff are analgous to guys who don't want to work with someone who's gay, because "he's gonna be checking me out."

I can respect dsh's position that he's not worried about getting picked up and held, but he's worried about the precedent and possible erosion of laws that many of us do hold in high regard. I have zero respect for the assertion that any of you truly believe you are going to be picked up and held indefinitely on terrorism charges. Drama much?

[DinnerX]

I have zero respect for the assertion that any of you truly believe you are going to be picked up and held indefinitely on terrorism charges.

I don't think I will. It's the principal of the thing.

[Inazuma]

Yeah guys. Chances are none of us will be personally affected by this new law, so that makes it perfectly acceptable. Who cares if it's legal for the military to indefinitely hold American citizens without a trial? There is no way they could falsely accuse someone of being a terrorist.

Our government has a great track record of doing the right thing to help the people. Calm down, shut up and get back in line with the other sheep.

[mjmjr25]

Yeah guys. Chances are none of us will be personally affected by this new law, so that makes it perfectly acceptable. Who cares if it's legal for the military to indefinitely hold American citizens without a trial? There is no way they could falsely accuse someone of being a terrorist.

Our government has a great track record of doing the right thing to help the people. Calm down, shut up and get back in line with the other sheep.

(peeks at list of "those" the government is secretly targeting, peeks at racketboy.com, peeks back at list)

Inazuma, you should run...fast.

[MrPopo]

Our government has a great track record of doing the right thing to help the people. Calm down, shut up and get back in line with the other sheep.

Yeah, the country is such a massive shithole. Everyone's life sucks. We're like subsaharan Africa.

See, I can use sarcasm too.