3 ms·

Because those private companies earn unspeakable wealth off the societal infrastructure we have built and provide them with. They would be nothing without the

Because those private companies earn unspeakable wealth off the societal infrastructure we have built and provide them with. They would be nothing without the shoulders of giants they are standing on. Those giants are us, collectively, which is required to negotiate with them since an individual is completely powerless against them. I gotta say this breathless free-market purse clutching is getting a bit tiresome.

gnaritas 9y ago
No, they earn wealth off the societal infrastructure they have built. > I gotta say this breathless free-market purse clutching is getting a bit tiresome. Less tiresome than this communist bullshit you're spouting. You do not have a right to their services, period.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  You're being massively downvoted, as it is happening with me in a lot of posts when I disagree with these radical leftists that appear to have taken control of HN. I think this wasn't so fully dominated by SJW and communists two or three years ago as it is now. Downvotes were not so commonly used as censuring mechanisms for contrary political opinions also.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    Oddly enough, I'm a liberal; the SJW's society wide are getting out of hand even for me. I'm not convinced HN has been taken over by them however.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    Characterizing everyone with a different opinion than you as "radical leftists" or "SJWs" only demonstrates your own ignorance and close-mindedness. What we're talking about here is a perfectly ordinary application of antitrust law, which has been a well-supported framework of law for over a century. This is not some radical new idea proposed by a fringe group. And while it is off-topic, HN "dominated by SJWs"? Good grief, you cannot be serious. Just to give one example, the HN commenters overwhelmingly supported James Damore and thought Google was in the wrong for firing him. Regardless of the merits of that opinion, it is not what you would see in a community "dominated by SJWs".
    - fiatjaf 9y ago
      My comments were about the downvotes the other guy was receiving, for which I could only see political motives, not about the matter. It is pretty clear in the HN guidelines that downvotes shouldn't be used to punish people you disagree with, but I see an army of politicized people doing it consistently, so it makes sense to identify these people with what I personally think from certain political groups. The discussion could continue from that point, with other people disagreeing with me and saying that the downvotes had a reasonable motive or whatever.
  - knowaveragejoe 9y ago
    I think in this case you're both being downvoted for calling up some of the right's favorite bogeymen(SJWs, communists) without any real cause for it here.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Property is a social invention, maintained and enforced by government, whose laws are controlled by the people. We have free enterprise not because freedom is absolutely right or an absolute right, but because we've determined that's the best way to get a decent outcome for the most people. Should free enterprise start oppressing the people, we'll change the rules. Because we made the rules.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    > Property is a social invention, maintained and enforced by government, whose laws are controlled by the people. Yup. > We have free enterprise not because freedom is absolutely right or an absolute right, but because we've determined that's the best way to get a decent outcome for the most people. False. We have free enterprise because there is no freedom without the freedom to exchange labor, goods, and services. It's the natural order of things to trade, always has been and probably always will be. It's not about the best outcome for most people, never has been, and never will be. It's about the right of self determination and autonomy. > Should free enterprise start oppressing the people, we'll change the rules. Because we made the rules. True, but Google and Facebook and Amazon aren't oppressing anyone, so your point is moot in this conversation.
    - Analemma_ 9y ago
      > We have free enterprise because there is no freedom without the freedom to exchange labor, goods, and services. It's the natural order of things to trade, always has been and probably always will be. It's not about the best outcome for most people, never has been, and never will be. It's about the right of self determination and autonomy. So I think we're getting to the root of the disagreement here. All of this your opinion, not fact. Quite a few of us do not believe property and free exchange are unconditional freedoms, but rather ones whose definition should be tuned to best serve the freedoms of the individual. A few countries (like Germany) even explicitly encode this belief into the constitution (previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14317712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14317712). If you disagree with that, fine, but note that history, Constitutional scholarship, and case law are not on your side, so you should not go around saying that your opinions are absolute fact.

gnaritas 9y ago

No, they earn wealth off the societal infrastructure they have built. > I gotta say this breathless free-market purse clutching is getting a bit tiresome. Less tiresome than this communist bullshit you're spouting. You do not have a right to their services, period.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fiatjaf 9y ago
You're being massively downvoted, as it is happening with me in a lot of posts when I disagree with these radical leftists that appear to have taken control of HN. I think this wasn't so fully dominated by SJW and communists two or three years ago as it is now. Downvotes were not so commonly used as censuring mechanisms for contrary political opinions also.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  Oddly enough, I'm a liberal; the SJW's society wide are getting out of hand even for me. I'm not convinced HN has been taken over by them however.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Characterizing everyone with a different opinion than you as "radical leftists" or "SJWs" only demonstrates your own ignorance and close-mindedness. What we're talking about here is a perfectly ordinary application of antitrust law, which has been a well-supported framework of law for over a century. This is not some radical new idea proposed by a fringe group. And while it is off-topic, HN "dominated by SJWs"? Good grief, you cannot be serious. Just to give one example, the HN commenters overwhelmingly supported James Damore and thought Google was in the wrong for firing him. Regardless of the merits of that opinion, it is not what you would see in a community "dominated by SJWs".
  - fiatjaf 9y ago
    My comments were about the downvotes the other guy was receiving, for which I could only see political motives, not about the matter. It is pretty clear in the HN guidelines that downvotes shouldn't be used to punish people you disagree with, but I see an army of politicized people doing it consistently, so it makes sense to identify these people with what I personally think from certain political groups. The discussion could continue from that point, with other people disagreeing with me and saying that the downvotes had a reasonable motive or whatever.
- knowaveragejoe 9y ago
  I think in this case you're both being downvoted for calling up some of the right's favorite bogeymen(SJWs, communists) without any real cause for it here.
barrkel 9y ago
Property is a social invention, maintained and enforced by government, whose laws are controlled by the people. We have free enterprise not because freedom is absolutely right or an absolute right, but because we've determined that's the best way to get a decent outcome for the most people. Should free enterprise start oppressing the people, we'll change the rules. Because we made the rules.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > Property is a social invention, maintained and enforced by government, whose laws are controlled by the people. Yup. > We have free enterprise not because freedom is absolutely right or an absolute right, but because we've determined that's the best way to get a decent outcome for the most people. False. We have free enterprise because there is no freedom without the freedom to exchange labor, goods, and services. It's the natural order of things to trade, always has been and probably always will be. It's not about the best outcome for most people, never has been, and never will be. It's about the right of self determination and autonomy. > Should free enterprise start oppressing the people, we'll change the rules. Because we made the rules. True, but Google and Facebook and Amazon aren't oppressing anyone, so your point is moot in this conversation.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    > We have free enterprise because there is no freedom without the freedom to exchange labor, goods, and services. It's the natural order of things to trade, always has been and probably always will be. It's not about the best outcome for most people, never has been, and never will be. It's about the right of self determination and autonomy. So I think we're getting to the root of the disagreement here. All of this your opinion, not fact. Quite a few of us do not believe property and free exchange are unconditional freedoms, but rather ones whose definition should be tuned to best serve the freedoms of the individual. A few countries (like Germany) even explicitly encode this belief into the constitution (previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14317712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14317712). If you disagree with that, fine, but note that history, Constitutional scholarship, and case law are not on your side, so you should not go around saying that your opinions are absolute fact.