Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 447 posts

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#11

Post by Frieren »

> Should multinational corporations instruct local executives to be loyal to their parent company or the rulers of the country they live in?

Legally, to the rules of the country. That is not even a question.

But if we talk about morality, the answer is to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what it implies.

There is no moral nor legal reason to follow the parent company when it in conflict with the rule of law. People are starting to attribute to corporations a power that they do not have, and that is very dangerous.

(The article is good, thou, and opens a lot of interesting questions)

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#12

Post by jMyles »

cwmoore wrote: post #7
jameskilton wrote: post #3

A good article, but missing one very important word: trust. Civil society only exists when there is a collective general trust that most people are trying to do the right thing. Said society also finds it incredibly important to remove or nullify those who aren't trustworthy because "a rotten apple spoils the whole bunch ". Trust is hard to earn, and easy to lose, and it only takes one person exploiting the trustwort…

But we have built so many enduring systems that rely on bad apples to function the way the do. See "insurance pricing", "private prisons", and "justice enforcement". In the real world, the ideal number of jails or homeless people is neither zero nor "all of them".

I think the ideal number of _prisons_ (as distinct from jails / pretrial confinement) is zero.

This whole charade in the USA of dressing up slavery (without even a single day of interruption on January 31, 1865) as "correction" is absurd. It's obviously a way to continue an economy that relies on a supply of involuntary labor, and has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety.

There are plenty of ways to implement restorative justice which are superior to forcing convicts to make starbucks uniforms (start here if you've never delved into this, but there are great books on the topic which you can find from here: https://harvardpolitics.com/restorative-justice-abolition/).

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#13

Post by mlsu »

Technology is, of course, downstream of society.

We have treated government with a startling glibness, a deep unseriousness. At the end of the day, the government can kill you and your entire family, and the only thing that can stop them from doing that are the laws of civil society. It is incredibly serious.

Unfortunately, we have been unserious going on several decades. They have realized that the front door is unlocked and the gleaming glowing beating heart of civic power is sitting right there completely unprotected. There were warnings after 9/11, with the patriot act and the GWOT. People who raised these concerns were dismissed as cranks but in fact they were the only serious people in the room. The unseriousness has increasingly accelerated in the last 10 years.

Now we are seeing the consequences. There's a timely acronym for this I think. FAFO?

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#14

Post by jMyles »

logseman wrote: post #10
jMyles wrote: post #8

> How would you design a system that simultaneously achieved all these goals: There is an obvious solution that achieves all of these, that, on 1000 year timescales, seems inevitable: deprecation of the nation-state. The internet solves every problem the nation-state purports to. For example, the very real problem of coordination, eloquently and convincingly outlined in the federalist papers (tldr: we need a central…

Given the vacuum left by pinhole-sized states, Vodafone could become the issuer of propaganda itself as it would have the airwaves and the power of a large state.

Well, I suppose my argument does turn on the scope on which you consider each of these 10 points.

My presumption is that, as nation-states are deprecated, coordination between them will have to take the shape of sufficiently decentralized technology that the "networks have the ability to vet and ignore" portion becomes a local and voluntary process.

And - probably an area where reasonable people disagree - it's the (real or perceived) authority that makes it possible to "be used for evil"; if there is no badge and gun, and each message (broadly considered) is to be considered on its own merits (both for its truth and its persuasiveness), then I think that corporate propaganda just lands in the 'ignore' (or even 'spam') pile.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#15

Post by djoldman »

> How would you design a system that simultaneously achieved all these goals:

> Rapid sending of messages

> Careful checking of the content of messages

> Ability to quickly target a specific geographic area

> Inability to mistakenly send a test message

> Requiring strong proof that the message is authentic before sending

> Resilient enough to work after significant damage to infrastructure

> That networks have the ability to vet and ignore

> That networks are compelled to send

> Which can only be used for good

> And cannot be used for evil.

Considering the last two, I'm assuming this must be tongue-in-cheek.

I think that the best approach for public utilities is to design them in such a way as to minimize, or preclude if possible, their ability to choose their customers or level of service. We want them to have a set of rules/instructions, written beforehand and publicly available, that everyone can point to after an event that says, "well, those were the things they were supposed to do, so they did them." The entities that write the set of rules are separate from the utility: the utility solely exists to implement the rules/instructions as efficiently as possible.

There's obviously a reasonableness factor here: it's impossible to foresee all situations. The effort spent on specifying exactly what should be done should be proportional to the potential impact of that possible decision.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#16

Post by cwmoore »

jMyles wrote: post #12
cwmoore wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we have built so many enduring systems that rely on bad apples to function the way the do. See "insurance pricing", "private prisons", and "justice enforcement". In the real world, the ideal number of jails or homeless people is neither zero nor "all of them".

I think the ideal number of _prisons_ (as distinct from jails / pretrial confinement) is zero. This whole charade in the USA of dressing up slavery (without even a single day of interruption on January 31, 1865) as "correction" is absurd. It's obviously a way to continue an economy that relies on a supply of involuntary labor, and has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety. There are plenty of ways to implement…

That too. The check of "without due process" did not undo that rebranding or its many modern forms.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#19

Post by justonceokay »

mlsu wrote: post #13

Technology is, of course, downstream of society. We have treated government with a startling glibness, a deep unseriousness. At the end of the day, the government can kill you and your entire family, and the only thing that can stop them from doing that are the laws of civil society. It is incredibly serious. Unfortunately, we have been unserious going on several decades. They have realized that the front door is unl…

Always be wary of “of course” and “just” as they tend to hide a lot of complexity.

It is not obvious to me that society would keep on going without change if it were not for the technology that we are all exposed to and expected to use.

Re: And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

#20

Post by HWR_14 »

cwmoore wrote: post #7
jameskilton wrote: post #3

A good article, but missing one very important word: trust. Civil society only exists when there is a collective general trust that most people are trying to do the right thing. Said society also finds it incredibly important to remove or nullify those who aren't trustworthy because "a rotten apple spoils the whole bunch ". Trust is hard to earn, and easy to lose, and it only takes one person exploiting the trustwort…

But we have built so many enduring systems that rely on bad apples to function the way the do. See "insurance pricing", "private prisons", and "justice enforcement". In the real world, the ideal number of jails or homeless people is neither zero nor "all of them".

Obviously the ideal number of jails is not zero, but why wouldn't the ideal number of homeless people be zero?
Post reply on HN