4 ms·

Good. Everyone who is not relying on the strongmen with guns to put a moat around their business is benefiting from Uber and Lyft.

by lghh 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago
> strongmen with guns You mean the democratic choice of local citizens?
- burnished 5y ago
  You don't have to be suspicious of election results to have low faith in government. And it doesn't change that the state operates under the implicit threat of violence.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > the state operates under the implicit threat of violence No, despite that hot trope, it's not true and doesn't survive much examination. I have never experienced a threat of violence from the state; that's certainly not why I do anything. In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people. If they lose it, no matter how much violence they use, the state collapses. This isn't theoretical; it's government 101. I'm not saying that violence isn't used, but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      > I have never experienced a threat of violence Because you decide not to partake in whatever would cause that. This might or might not be a decision you notice. You probably wouldn't kill someone else even if it was legal. Would you do drugs if it was legal (to pick on a current hot topic)? I generally support my state, but that doesn't mean that the state doesn't exist because it uses force on those who don't like it. > In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people. Myanmar is a current counter example: the military just took over and few people have the ability to do anything about it, and those who are trying are doing at risk of their life.
    - lghh 5y ago
      > I have never experienced a threat of violence from the state I have not experienced !== it does not exist. That isn't theoretical; it's logic 101. > but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone. You and "almost everyone" support the rules of this specific set of laws, there are others who have morals that do not line up with that set of laws very well who do indeed follow them due to thread of force. That's government 101. Most people !== every person. That should be evident by us talking about Uber and Lyft circumventing these rules. The fact that this conversation is happening invalidates your thesis.
- lghh 5y ago
  HN broadly, but not necessarily you specifically, frequently talk about the moats that large businesses like Amazon and Facebook create through regulation once they have crossed the point where the moat will effect them. That's a common business tactic. Why is this different? How are those moats enforced?

Good. Everyone who is not relying on the strongmen with guns to put a moat around their business is benefiting from Uber and Lyft.

by lghh 5y ago

Good. Everyone who is not relying on the strongmen with guns to put a moat around their business is benefiting from Uber and Lyft.

wolverine876 5y ago

> strongmen with guns You mean the democratic choice of local citizens?

burnished 5y ago
You don't have to be suspicious of election results to have low faith in government. And it doesn't change that the state operates under the implicit threat of violence.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > the state operates under the implicit threat of violence No, despite that hot trope, it's not true and doesn't survive much examination. I have never experienced a threat of violence from the state; that's certainly not why I do anything. In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people. If they lose it, no matter how much violence they use, the state collapses. This isn't theoretical; it's government 101. I'm not saying that violence isn't used, but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    > I have never experienced a threat of violence Because you decide not to partake in whatever would cause that. This might or might not be a decision you notice. You probably wouldn't kill someone else even if it was legal. Would you do drugs if it was legal (to pick on a current hot topic)? I generally support my state, but that doesn't mean that the state doesn't exist because it uses force on those who don't like it. > In fact, even states run by totalitarian dictatorships require the support of the people. Myanmar is a current counter example: the military just took over and few people have the ability to do anything about it, and those who are trying are doing at risk of their life.
  - lghh 5y ago
    > I have never experienced a threat of violence from the state I have not experienced !== it does not exist. That isn't theoretical; it's logic 101. > but my state survives because I support it and the rule of law, like almost everyone. You and "almost everyone" support the rules of this specific set of laws, there are others who have morals that do not line up with that set of laws very well who do indeed follow them due to thread of force. That's government 101. Most people !== every person. That should be evident by us talking about Uber and Lyft circumventing these rules. The fact that this conversation is happening invalidates your thesis.
lghh 5y ago
HN broadly, but not necessarily you specifically, frequently talk about the moats that large businesses like Amazon and Facebook create through regulation once they have crossed the point where the moat will effect them. That's a common business tactic. Why is this different? How are those moats enforced?