Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Indeed, YouTube was my first answer to this.

We need more Huey P. Newton and Malcolm X for the issues of today (regulatory capture and the shredded constitution, political campaign finance, income/opportunity inequality being the main meta-issues), I think, rather than more MLK.

MLK is just as useful for today's issues. This seems the same to me:

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.


You're saying we need more people who physically harm others?

Without the threat of someone more extreme, I don't believe someone like MLK can be terribly effective. I also don't think someone like MLK can work in a repressive regime which isn't generally subject to public will, or when trying to enforce human rights which are constitutionally protected, strongly wanted by a small affected population, but meaningless to the greater population.

I can't see 50-80 year old non-technical voters caring about key escrow or mandatory data retention, even though it's an infringement of 1A/2A/4A/5A/6A/14A/+.

(It's not violence per se, it's extremism. RMS is a copyright extremist, and that makes things easier for people like Lessig I think. Gilmore is a fly-without-papers extremist, etc.)

Crypto as a 2nd Ammendment issue

That's why I like you rdl; munitions are munitions.

"Bombes not bombs!" (or Bombs not Bombes, I guess). RKB Bombes? Ban the Bombe?


There was for several decades--decades in which we saw perhaps the most progressive action on civil liberties--a very real and immediate threat of domestic terrorism from factions who felt oppressed.

At the end of the day, having ceded the monopoly of violence to the government, it becomes very difficult to merely ask nicely to have your freedoms restored. More Malcom X's would probably have helped the Occupy movement, least of all because the "We are oppressed, we're starting to fight back" is a narrative familiar enough to the American psyche.

I think the threat went beyond domestic terrorism; it was bordering on armed revolt and revolution.

We don't need that now (and it would be hopeless vs. modern police/military unless you had an issue, like 2A, supported by most of the individuals in police/military, combined with a constitutional justification like an unambiguously unconstitutional move by one branch of government vs. the others, like a hypothetical future President closing the Supreme Court), but a similarly forceful threat, like removing $100b/yr of business from the US or a mass expatriation, could probably work.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact