Comment by blibble
8 hours ago
> This is such a low probability scenario
how is it a low probability scenario?
it's happened before, in living memory (there are still people alive that survived the holocaust)
and you're seeing the early stages of despotic rule literally today in Minnesota
There weren't ex post facto laws being passed during the holocaust.
>the early stages of despotic rule literally today in Minnesota
This type of thinking is what is leading to the destruction of order there.
> This type of thinking is what is leading to the destruction of order there.
Yes, we are seeing a destruction of order in MN. US citizens being terrorized by ICE and CBP agents with 47 days of training, no understanding of the legal limits of their authority, and no consequences when they go beyond those limits.
But that's not being caused by people pushing back against the beginnings of autocracy. That's being caused by the people who want to become autocrats.
ICE is bringing order to the country as they are law enforcement.
> This type of thinking is what is leading to the destruction of order there. Are you sure it's this kind of thinking that's at fault? I would've said that it's actually caused by giving people without training and any serious screening extreme power with absolutely zero accountability. Would love to hear your take on this though.
Yes, I am sure it plays a factor, giving people justification for their actions. The issue is that restoring order is not easy. And when the people making disorder are antagonistic to the people restoring order that clash leads to unfortunate scenarios. Lack of training (specifically direct experience of dealing with such behavior) or screening plays a role in how order is restored but these are reactive actions. In my mind everyone would be better off if we all maintained order so these clashes didn't have to happen in the first place.
2 replies →
> There weren't ex post facto laws being passed during the holocaust.
the argument isn't that states can't create ex-post facto laws (even though they can, see: any country with parliamentary sovereignty)
it's that what the law says doesn't matter when the executive no is longer bound by the rule of law
see: the United States under the Trump regime
the fact that some previous legislature has passed a law saying that "using the gay/jewish/disabled/... database for bad things is illegal" is of no consequence when the state already has the database and has no interest in upholding the rule of law
No, this argument is about the database of past events being prosecuted in the future.
>"using the gay/jewish/disabled/... database for bad things is illegal"
If it is legal than I want to be able to use such a database as it makes law enforcement more efficient. It gets rid of inefficiency in the government. Wanting such inefficiency is wanting to allow for unlawful behavior. It's the whole using privacy as an excuse to hide from the government.
2 replies →