Ask HN: What is your most unpopular idea/belief?

> private organizations (which could include non-profits, worker owned co-ops, etc.) can (and should) fill most of the roles which are currently filled by "government"

I completely agree - I'm all for (for example) healthcare that's free at the point of provision and looking after the vulnerable, and think our economies throw off more than enough surplus for us to fund this type of programme without disincentivising ambition - but I don't think a vast monolithic bureaucracy is necessarily the best way to do it. The tragic thing is that in the example of the NHS here in the UK, the left have made the organisation so bloody untouchable that even potentially beneficial reform is blocked - for example I think if we had a nominal charge (£15?) for a GP visit it would go a huge way towards discouraging e.g. the worried well and pensioners visiting their GP for a weekly chat..

Everyone is inherently racist/biased but isn't willing to admit it

If you aren't, you probably make a lot of poor decisions or never lived/worked around ghetto areas. You can be inherently biased and still give people benefit of the doubt though.

> it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all)

But is your choice yours, or just your genes speaking? I'd also dispute the idea that there aren't universal indicators of genetic fitness that we all find attractive. Given free choice we would all prefer someone with better skin, brighter eyes, more lustrous hair, better teeth, etc. etc. wouldn't we? No one sets out to look for an ugly, physically lousy mate, do they?

> If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all.

Like it or not, Eugenics of a type is probably coming down the track anyway via gene editing. Who would turn down the chance to upgrade their offspring's intellect or height, given the option?

That climate science isn't very advanced, as far as making reliable predictions is concerned, and places far too much faith in complex and incomplete simulation models.

Baby Boomers are going to die at a much faster clip than their parents (due to sedentary lifestyles/fast food/general excess), and that will cause a lot of unplanned destabilization. I'm willing to put $20 on both my parents (currently 69 and 63) kicking it in the next 5 years.