6 ms·

Historically speaking, I would say this trend would end with their citizens rebelling, but with robotics becoming more prominent, it's possible that revolution

Historically speaking, I would say this trend would end with their citizens rebelling, but with robotics becoming more prominent, it's possible that revolution becomes impossible. Techno-fascism is the most dangerous form.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 8y ago
And meanwhile, it's the left who argue that the State should hold a monopoly on the use of force.
- vore 8y ago
  If you want to rebel against the state, whether or not they have a "monopoly on the use of force" is irrelevant: civilians aren't going to be able to fight against effectively against a trained military or state paramilitary, especially more so in the US.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Yeah, because that kind of thinking worked so well in Viet Nam and any number of other places.
  - Reelin 8y ago
    This could not be more false. A prime example is the history of the (still ongoing) Iraq conflict - it's nearing 16 years now. Or there's Viet Nam, Northern Ireland (aka the troubles), and you might recall the Communist Party of China? See this Wikipedia page for many more (both successful and not so successful). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements The people making up that "trained military" are themselves civilians at the end of the day. It all comes down to how widely supported the revolutionaries are. In most cases they don't fare well because they aren't actually that widely supported, just vocal and violent. This all changes in the fairly predictable near future where scifi-esque armed machines are a reality.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      The armed-machines idea is dependent on humans being able to author stable and predictable software. As time goes by I’m progressively more convinced we’re not capable of that. It’s quite possible I only believe that in an effort to comfort myself.
      - krageon 8y ago
        If you err on the side of extreme violence, I think it is perfectly possible to arm machines with "good" results. If making "mistakes" when targeting things or people horrifies you, then maybe you are correct. I posit that the state does occasionally care more about results than about whether or not they are horrified (obviously not every state is the same, but certainly the superpowers are like this).
    - cageface 8y ago
      Vietnam at least is not a good example. Their efforts to kick out colonial powers would not have succeeded without a huge amount of help from Russia and China.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        Do you think they'd remain neutral in the event of a hypothetical civil war here?
    - freeflight 8y ago
      Iraq and Vietnam are both examples of populations resisting against a foreign military invading their country, thus having to deal with a population, and culture, they have no clue about. That's quite a different scenario than your own domestic government turning on you, with its way better understanding, and DATA, about the people of the country. In a situation like that, the state institutions will be taken over fully functional and turned against you, while in Iraq and Vietnam these state institutions were among the first to be dismantled by the invaders.
- nilskidoo 8y ago
  Except for the large antiwar subset.
- truculent 8y ago
  A monopoly on the use of force is the very thing that defines the State
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    This is an opinion, stated as fact.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished." Any state that loses the ability to enforce that policy is no longer a state, it's just a bunch of guys issuing suggestions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence for more.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished." As usual, the legal reality is more nuanced than the simplistic definitions that you (and Max Weber) are working with. There's been more than one case in the US where homeowners have legally employed lethal force to defend their homes against invasion by police. (To be fair, I can't think of any other countries where that could ever happen, and it's not exactly common here. It helps if the homeowner is of the approved race and/or economic class, which is a massive issue in itself.) I'd say the defining attributes of statehood are the ability to control one's borders and customs, the responsibility to defend those borders, and the ability to maintain a monopoly on currency within them. There is really no rational basis for pitting an individual's right to self defense against the definition of statehood. Again, it's an opinion, not a fact, and no Wikipedia articles or philosophy textbooks can change that.
- fifnir 8y ago
  Oh yes, private police would be a terrific idea.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Well, considering the worldwide body count racked up by the non-private kind over the last century or so, you might have a point there.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Can_Not 8y ago
  That's going to need a citation from someone that's not Alex Jones and since clarification as to how it's not a Non-sequitur.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. We've asked you this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    it's possible that revolution becomes impossible. So I'm the one who took the thread on a tangent. OK, got it.
908087 8y ago
Corporate and government surveillance of every detail of our lives pretty much guarantees any revolutionaries would be sniffed out and crushed long before they ever had a chance to organize.
SupremeMeat 8y ago
Techno-fascism doesn't scare me, but techno-communism does!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

CamperBob2 8y ago

And meanwhile, it's the left who argue that the State should hold a monopoly on the use of force.

vore 8y ago
If you want to rebel against the state, whether or not they have a "monopoly on the use of force" is irrelevant: civilians aren't going to be able to fight against effectively against a trained military or state paramilitary, especially more so in the US.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Yeah, because that kind of thinking worked so well in Viet Nam and any number of other places.
- Reelin 8y ago
  This could not be more false. A prime example is the history of the (still ongoing) Iraq conflict - it's nearing 16 years now. Or there's Viet Nam, Northern Ireland (aka the troubles), and you might recall the Communist Party of China? See this Wikipedia page for many more (both successful and not so successful). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guerrilla_movements The people making up that "trained military" are themselves civilians at the end of the day. It all comes down to how widely supported the revolutionaries are. In most cases they don't fare well because they aren't actually that widely supported, just vocal and violent. This all changes in the fairly predictable near future where scifi-esque armed machines are a reality.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    The armed-machines idea is dependent on humans being able to author stable and predictable software. As time goes by I’m progressively more convinced we’re not capable of that. It’s quite possible I only believe that in an effort to comfort myself.
    - krageon 8y ago
      If you err on the side of extreme violence, I think it is perfectly possible to arm machines with "good" results. If making "mistakes" when targeting things or people horrifies you, then maybe you are correct. I posit that the state does occasionally care more about results than about whether or not they are horrified (obviously not every state is the same, but certainly the superpowers are like this).
  - cageface 8y ago
    Vietnam at least is not a good example. Their efforts to kick out colonial powers would not have succeeded without a huge amount of help from Russia and China.
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Do you think they'd remain neutral in the event of a hypothetical civil war here?
  - freeflight 8y ago
    Iraq and Vietnam are both examples of populations resisting against a foreign military invading their country, thus having to deal with a population, and culture, they have no clue about. That's quite a different scenario than your own domestic government turning on you, with its way better understanding, and DATA, about the people of the country. In a situation like that, the state institutions will be taken over fully functional and turned against you, while in Iraq and Vietnam these state institutions were among the first to be dismantled by the invaders.
nilskidoo 8y ago
Except for the large antiwar subset.
truculent 8y ago
A monopoly on the use of force is the very thing that defines the State
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  This is an opinion, stated as fact.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished." Any state that loses the ability to enforce that policy is no longer a state, it's just a bunch of guys issuing suggestions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence for more.
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      I'm not sure you understand what "monopoly on the use of force" means. Perhaps you think it's nothing more or less than "private citizens can't own weapons"? But it's more than that. The state decides who is authorized to enact violence, and under what circumstances. The state may say "you can own a gun, you can shoot trespassers on your property." But at the same time it says (at the very least) "you cannot shoot agents of the state performing their duties, or you will be punished." As usual, the legal reality is more nuanced than the simplistic definitions that you (and Max Weber) are working with. There's been more than one case in the US where homeowners have legally employed lethal force to defend their homes against invasion by police. (To be fair, I can't think of any other countries where that could ever happen, and it's not exactly common here. It helps if the homeowner is of the approved race and/or economic class, which is a massive issue in itself.) I'd say the defining attributes of statehood are the ability to control one's borders and customs, the responsibility to defend those borders, and the ability to maintain a monopoly on currency within them. There is really no rational basis for pitting an individual's right to self defense against the definition of statehood. Again, it's an opinion, not a fact, and no Wikipedia articles or philosophy textbooks can change that.
fifnir 8y ago
Oh yes, private police would be a terrific idea.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Well, considering the worldwide body count racked up by the non-private kind over the last century or so, you might have a point there.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Can_Not 8y ago
That's going to need a citation from someone that's not Alex Jones and since clarification as to how it's not a Non-sequitur.
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. We've asked you this before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  it's possible that revolution becomes impossible. So I'm the one who took the thread on a tangent. OK, got it.

908087 8y ago

Corporate and government surveillance of every detail of our lives pretty much guarantees any revolutionaries would be sniffed out and crushed long before they ever had a chance to organize.

SupremeMeat 8y ago

Techno-fascism doesn't scare me, but techno-communism does!