
The Jews in the Attic Test - exolymph
http://www.joehuffman.org/Freedom/JewsInTheAttic.htm
======
mikeash
“Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a
government intent on their imprisonment or death?”

This makes no sense to me. A tyrannical government can change the law. If
there’s a law that will make it easier for them to commit atrocities, they can
make it happen. Enacting that law _now_ , or refusing to do so, won’t make a
bit of difference. Laws should be evaluated on their merits as things stand
now, not based on their effects on a hypothetical where current laws don’t
even matter.

~~~
pdonis
_> A tyrannical government can change the law_

The article is not talking only about tyrannical governments, or laws passed
by such governments. The test the article is proposing is meant to apply to
any law passed by any government. The example of Jews in the Attic is just an
illustration; it's used because one of the article's points is that failing to
apply the test early on, when your government is not tyrannical but is just
asking for a little bit more power to "fix" some problem, is how you
ultimately get to a government that is tyrannical enough to either just ignore
laws or pass them by fiat to suit itself.

~~~
mikeash
Then perhaps the article should choose a more illustrative example.

My point is that I disagree with the basic premise. Laws which help tyrannies
oppress and murder people are not necessarily the same laws that turn good
governments into tyrannies. I see no reason the two should be connected.

~~~
pdonis
_> Laws which help tyrannies oppress and murder people are not necessarily the
same laws that turn good governments into tyrannies._

Can you give any counterexamples? Also, bear in mind that the criterion in the
article is not "does the law help tyrannies oppress and murder people?" but
"does the law make it difficult or impossible to protect the innocent against
the government?"

~~~
mikeash
The test as quoted makes no sense. It’s always going to be difficult or
impossible to protect the innocent against a government run amok. There is no
scenario where a bunch of maniacs have taken over and you’re trying so save
some innocent people and it’s easy to do.

Thus I have interpreted it as “does the law make it _more_ difficult to
protect the innocent against the government if the government has gone crazy?”
That seems like the more charitable interpretation, as it actually makes a
little bit of sense until you bite into it.

------
camgunz
This applies to almost every law, and illegitimate governments don't suddenly
give up when there are no legitimate means (laws) that lead to their ends,
they just use violence. This is deeply ignorant.

~~~
pdonis
_> This applies to almost every law_

Yep. What does that tell you?

 _> illegitimate governments don't suddenly give up when there are no
legitimate means (laws) that lead to their ends, they just use violence_

Only if they can get away with it. That is not always the case. And that's a
key point of the test: it could be rephrased as "will this make it easier for
an illegitimate government to achieve its ends using violence?"

~~~
pvg
_Yep. What does that tell you?_

It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly
'test'.

~~~
pdonis
_> It tells you exactly what the commenter is saying. This is a really silly
'test'._

I think you and the other commenter are seriously missing the point.

~~~
camgunz
There are a lot of people who live in places that are essentially lawless, but
that experience isn't freedom like extreme libertarians might believe. It's
total fear that at any moment 20 people in shitty Jeeps can drive up and
threaten to cut off your hands unless you kill your parents and join their
gang. This is what we refer to as the state of nature. At some point, people
get pretty tired of it, so they form their own gangs to fight back. Time goes
on, decisions have to be made about how to run things, you make a couple of
rules, and before you know it you've got yourself a government.

But what I find more dangerous is this ersatz common sense tone in the essay.
It lends the argument a certain weight, like "boy, balancing of rights sure is
tricky. Can we __really__ trust governments? I mean, Nazis." Please no one
fall for this. The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization,
not a bullet train to totalitarian town.

~~~
pdonis
_> The rule of law is a bedrock principle of human civilization_

The article is not advocating abandoning the rule of law. It is advocating
judging laws based on a particular criterion. The fact that many existing laws
do not meet that criterion does not mean no laws do, nor does it mean the only
alternative is to abandon laws altogether.

For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of
course. Having a law against murder does not make it easier for the government
to persecute the innocent.

~~~
tacomonstrous
>For example, consider the law against murder. Does it meet the criterion? Of
course.

Not at all. What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of
self-defense?

~~~
pdonis
_> What if the Jew in the attic had to kill an errant Nazi out of self-
defense?_

Killing in self-defense is not murder.

------
zamadatix
The only part I have a strong logical objection to is "Furthermore I told them
that if it fails this test no further discussion is really needed, the law
must be opposed in the most vigorous manner possible."

Asking a single question is a poor way to get absolute perspective on topics.
Especially those as complicated as presented. Instead it leads you to be
overly dismissive and combative of alternative viewpoints.

------
berbec
I've seen arguments like this before. It boils down to "the second amendment
gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself
against tyranny."

The problem is to maintain the private citizen/armed forces of a cou try
balance of power is ludicrous. What exactly do you need to buy to defend
yourself against a troop of Navy Seals? OK, training and gear. For a start:
Teflon coated bullets, high velocity rounds, grenades, land mines, high
explosives.

OK next step. What do you need to defend yourself from an armored tank
division?

The 82nd airborne?

A harrier jet?

Sorry, but once the military reached a certain point, it's impossible. And
trying makes you sound like a madman.

~~~
pdonis
_> It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to
own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny."_

At the time the amendment was passed, privately owned warships, comparable in
power to those available to governments, were common. In fact the use of such
warships as privateers was a key component of the United States' strategy in
both the War of Independence and the War of 1812.

The current situation, where governments have a level of force available to
them that is much, much greater than that available to any private entity, is
a large change from the situation throughout most of human history. That might
indeed make it a good idea to talk about a further amendment to balance the
right to keep and bear arms with the realities of current weaponry; but unless
and until that happens, the second amendment says what it says and you can't
just ignore that because you don't like the implications.

~~~
pas
> but unless and until that happens, the second amendment says what it says
> and you can't just ignore that because you don't like the implications.

People are not ignoring it.

And a lot of people think that the SC has the duty and responsibility to
[re]interpret the Constitution every time they consult it. Therefore there
might not be a need for a new Amendment.

Of course, cleaning up the mess would be great with a new Constitution. But
the time is not right for that, reason is not hip enough nowadays.

------
tantalor
> Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it?
> If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how
> can your "Jews in the attic" receive health care?

This is absurd. The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if
"Jews in the Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice? From this
premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a non sequitor.

This actually happens to undocumented immigrants:
[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/652/ice-capades/act-
two-2](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/652/ice-capades/act-two-2)

~~~
pdonis
_> The government also has a monopoly on law enforcement, so if "Jews in the
Attic" are victim of a crime how can they seek justice?_

They can't. So by the proposed test, a government monopoly on law enforcement
is a bad thing and should be opposed.

If you ask "how can it be possible not to have a government monopoly on law
enforcement?", note that historically that has been more often the norm than
the system we have now. See, for example, David Friedman's _The Machinery Of
Freedom_ for a number of historical case studies.

 _> From this premise, to suggest the government should not enforce laws is a
non sequitor._

No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law
enforcement.

~~~
RandomInteger4
This is an asinine concept much in the same way that people being opposed to
electric vehicles is an asinine concept.

If the government didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, what you'd end up
with are rival gangs each enforcing the law in their own biased way,
propogating the amount of injustice we're already dealing with, and
decentralizing it, making it harder to fight.

When you have a centralized source of law enforcement, you have a "single
point of failure" that you can apply pressure to if it becomes corrupt, much
in the same way that electric vehicles centralize the source of emissions
making it easier to sequester.

Decentralization is not a panacea.

EDIT: That's not even considering the fact that without the government
providing law enforcement, among other things, that many would be guaranteed
to go without those things. Right now that may be the case for many with the
current system, but at least that is fixable by, again, applying pressure to
the single source to adequately provide those things. In a system where the
free market is supposed to take care of this, many poor folks would go
without. That used to be the case with fire fighters, but we soon learned that
it was a bad idea for nobody to show up to fight the fires of the poor folk,
because those fires would spread. Same goes for crime, disease, etc.

~~~
pdonis
_> This is an asinine concept much in the same way that people being opposed
to electric vehicles is an asinine concept._

If this is your definition of "asinine concept", I think you need to re-
examine your criteria. Not everyone who disagrees with your pet beliefs is
asinine.

 _> If the government didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, what you'd
end up with are rival gangs each enforcing the law in their own biased way,
propogating the amount of injustice we're already dealing with, and
decentralizing it, making it harder to fight._

This claim is historically false. I referred elsewhere in this thread to David
Friedman's _Machinery Of Freedom_ , which gives a number of historical
counterexamples.

 _> When you have a centralized source of law enforcement, you have a "single
point of failure" that you can apply pressure to if it becomes corrupt_

But you also have a single point of failure that special interests can apply
pressure to to make it corrupt. Which, historically, is far more likely to
happen than what you describe, because the special interests are concentrated
while the people as a whole are dispersed and can't easily coordinate.

 _> Decentralization is not a panacea._

Nobody has claimed that it is. The fact that decentralization is not a perfect
solution to all of society's problems is irrelevant to the point that
decentralization, all things considered, is better (because it has less
damaging failure modes).

------
ryandamm
That's an awfully crude test, that derives its power from its appeal to
emotion.

Which is not to say it's prima facie wrong, but to point out that its
correctness should be separated from its emotional impact, which is very tough
for most humans to do.

------
acjohnson55
So, the Gestapo knocks on your door looking for Jews. You have three legally
owned guns. Explain how this protects you? Because I'm pretty sure that if you
use them, you're in for a fate worse than death.

------
dblotsky
I’m puzzled that this list doesn’t include laws that allow a government to
kill and imprison innocent lives in the first place.

If the government has been allowed to discriminate and target a demographic,
you’ve already lost.

------
genericid
> Government mandated ID cards and the authority to demand them at any time.

> Searches without probable cause.

> Elimination or severe restriction of anonymous financial transactions.

You know that a jew-hunting government can simply pass these laws? In fact, ID
cards were introduced in Germany in 1938.

> If it is illegal for you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how
> can your "Jews in the attic" receive health care?

Illegaly.

> The registration information can be used to confiscate the firearms used to
> protect innocent life -- as it was under the 1938 Weapons Control Act in
> Nazi Germany.

Not having a registered weapon does not stop a jew-hunting government from
searching your house for weapons.

------
jcstryker
This is a powerful argument for limited government and decentralization,
requiring a simple premise that I think most people can agree with: That the
protection and concealing of Jews and other groups under Nazi Germany was a
just and desirable act.

Especially with the rhetoric today about creeping fascism, we should recognize
that all authorities have the potential to become corrupt and oppressive. We
should ensure proper checks against that and consider the potential
consequences before implementing centralized services. Efficiency and cost
effectiveness should not be the only consideration.

For instance, you might think that there are no potential downsides to a
centralized welfare system. However what happens if those benefits are
provided only to people of specific ideologies or races? What if it becomes
contingent on giving up your biometric data or subject to drug testing as we
have already seen in many areas of the US? Maybe we should consider the
potential consequences of centralizing essential support structures and social
safety nets.

~~~
mikeash
What happens if the Army is told to kill everyone of a particular race?

If maniacs take power, we’re deeply screwed. Our efforts should go toward
making sure that doesn’t happen.

~~~
jcstryker
Absolutely agreed, and I think decentralization is a part of that. Instead of
a single point of failure, spreading power between multiple groups reduces the
potential damage and the incentive to corrupt a system.

Consider a treaty organization organized against a hypothetical enemy. If the
adversary succeeds in corrupting and neutralizing one of the member states,
that is significantly less damaging than if it were a centralized command that
was corrupted.

It increases the cost dramatically to neutralize the treaty organization, and
the threat to the system is easily and publicly recognized. As opposed to the
slow and eventually catastrophic corruption of a centralized command.

~~~
mikeash
I think what you’re after is robustness, which decentralization can achieve,
but it’s not the only way. For example, a strong central government built
around a large representative legislative body can still be robust, depending
on how it’s set up.

------
vokep
This is kind of perfect.

~~~
tacomonstrous
It's okay, I guess: the firearm registration thing applies to essentially
every kind of private ownership that the commons might have some interest in.
Pinpointing it out of all possibilities betrays a very American perspective
where the ability to bear arms is considered a fundamental right.

Edit: as another commenter astutely pointed out above, this rule, when
sufficiently contorted, can essentially be applied to invalidate every law. It
amounts to a radical mistrust of government. I wonder what the author's
perspective is on property rights and their enforcement.

------
toomanybeersies
American society is quite interesting in that there is a belief that rights
are absolute and any negative effects just have to be accepted as an
unfortunate side effect of those rights.

Firearms are the topic where this seems to apply the hardest. The USA is the
only country in the world that allows any citizen (except those declared
unfit, i.e. felons) to own a firearm with the express intention of using it to
kill people. Even if you don't intend to go out and shoot somebody, buying a
handgun or a shotgun for home defence is buying one with the intention of
killing people.

So of course, with this uninfringed right, you have people killing their
spouse, children accidentally killing their family members, people seeking
help after a car crash getting shot [1], increased rates of suicide, etc. etc.
That's not to mention otherwise lawful firearms owners shooting up schools,
churches, and theaters.

These are all negative side-effects of unrestricted firearms ownership.

Of course, there are benefits. Theoretically the people can stop a tyrannical
government. People can stop home invaders, muggers, rapists, abusive ex-
partners, etc.

I can understand the argument that people have a right to own arm themselves
to stop the above from happening. But on balance, is there more or less pain
and suffering from this right to bear arms?

The same applies to freedom of speech. The concept of (almost) complete
unrestricted freedom of speech is very American. Most countries have laws
against hate speech or laws against incitement to violence with a much lower
threshold than the USA. Germany bans Nazis, and they have a very good reason
to, given their history.

There seems to be this common thread of argument in regards to "constitutional
rights" that if they aren't absolute, the USA will turn into Nazi Germany.
It's a false dichotomy.

[1] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renisha-mcbride-detroit-
woman-s...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renisha-mcbride-detroit-woman-shot-
to-death-while-seeking-help-after-a-car-accident-family-says/)

~~~
yellowapple
"Even if you don't intend to go out and shoot somebody, buying a handgun or a
shotgun for home defence is buying one with the intention of killing people."

Not necessarily. Even assuming there's an intention to fire the gun in the
first place (it might be meant as a deterrent), there also might be the
intention to only wound the assailant. Not all gunshots are fatal, after all.
Of course, even a shot to the leg can be fatal, but the intent is still not to
kill.

~~~
toomanybeersies
If you've ever handled a firearm, you will have been told to only ever point
it at something you intend to kill.

Any shot is a potentially lethal shot, and the only reason that a gun is a
deterrent is that you have the potential to kill the assailant.

------
exabrial
I can't believe this is flagged, wow.

