3 ms·

Institutions tend to trend toward power consolidation and authoritarianism over time. It's just how it is. Free society needs to constantly work to prevent it

Institutions tend to trend toward power consolidation and authoritarianism over time. It's just how it is. Free society needs to constantly work to prevent it. I'm far more concerned about the Americans, many here, who's knee jerk reaction is to engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics to give the government the undeserved benefit of the doubt and minimize the significance when these things come to light. If I wanted to give them the same undeserved benefit of the doubt they give government I would say they are ignorant of the danger.

dmix 4y ago
It will typically start like this on HN: “I dont know why people are surprised the government is doing [x]… [insert minimization]”
hotpotamus 4y ago
What I don't understand is the tendency to limit this thinking to the government. Look at Google's evolution from "Don't be Evil" to today as an example, but they're far from the first to follow that path. People will decry China's Social Credit score, but seem fine with America's private credit scores.
- horns4lyfe 4y ago
  Because Google doesn’t take my money under the threat of violence to fund their escapades.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    If we based what should/shouldn't be allowed for a corporation or any individual based on if it physically causes harm to any person, then we'd have a really shitty place to live.
    - sennight 4y ago
      That actually sounds like an awesome place to live, where victimless crimes have been eliminated and obnoxious busybodies have no recourse but to impotently whine.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        You seem to be confused on my intent. Victimless crimes are completely different than crimes that do not cause physical harm to the victim. I'm suggesting things like hacking where your bank account is drained, but without any form of violence. The person I replied to implied that would be okay, so I was pointing out that violence should not be a precursor. You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. But sure, eliminating laws that make victimless crimes a possibility seems like a good idea. Have fun getting that to happen.
        sennight 4y ago
        > You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. The exact same thing can be said of your reframing of "physical harm" to be "violence" exclusively. You've clearly never debated someone from the voluntarism persuasion, because otherwise you'd know about the concept of externalities. But here is your chance to shine: will you acknowledge the fact that industrial pollution causes physical harm and that your unnecessary reframing creates that blind spot, or will you double down and hamfistedly attempt broaden the definition of "violence" to include pollution (and a thousand other things I could follow up with)?
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Indeed, I think their goal is to perfect advertising to the point where you hand the money over yourself, believing it to be your own idea.

dmix 4y ago

It will typically start like this on HN: “I dont know why people are surprised the government is doing [x]… [insert minimization]”

hotpotamus 4y ago

What I don't understand is the tendency to limit this thinking to the government. Look at Google's evolution from "Don't be Evil" to today as an example, but they're far from the first to follow that path. People will decry China's Social Credit score, but seem fine with America's private credit scores.

horns4lyfe 4y ago
Because Google doesn’t take my money under the threat of violence to fund their escapades.
- dylan604 4y ago
  If we based what should/shouldn't be allowed for a corporation or any individual based on if it physically causes harm to any person, then we'd have a really shitty place to live.
  - sennight 4y ago
    That actually sounds like an awesome place to live, where victimless crimes have been eliminated and obnoxious busybodies have no recourse but to impotently whine.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      You seem to be confused on my intent. Victimless crimes are completely different than crimes that do not cause physical harm to the victim. I'm suggesting things like hacking where your bank account is drained, but without any form of violence. The person I replied to implied that would be okay, so I was pointing out that violence should not be a precursor. You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. But sure, eliminating laws that make victimless crimes a possibility seems like a good idea. Have fun getting that to happen.
      - sennight 4y ago
        > You've taken it as something totally not what was the spirit of the thread. The exact same thing can be said of your reframing of "physical harm" to be "violence" exclusively. You've clearly never debated someone from the voluntarism persuasion, because otherwise you'd know about the concept of externalities. But here is your chance to shine: will you acknowledge the fact that industrial pollution causes physical harm and that your unnecessary reframing creates that blind spot, or will you double down and hamfistedly attempt broaden the definition of "violence" to include pollution (and a thousand other things I could follow up with)?
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Indeed, I think their goal is to perfect advertising to the point where you hand the money over yourself, believing it to be your own idea.