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

81–90 of 447 posts

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

#81

Post by protocolture »

ianburrell wrote: post #54
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…

We need large nation-states to make the modern world possible. The internet isn't just bits; everything depends on stuff that has to be shipped by sea. It takes a hegemon like the US and its allies to keep the sea lanes open. Navies are super expensive and a collection of small states wouldn't be able to build ships that could operate around the world. If anything, technology is making possible for states like Yemen…

>It takes a hegemon like the US and its allies to keep the sea lanes open

Sea Lanes Opened by the USA: 0 Sea Lanes Closed by US Interventions: 1

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

#82

Post by protocolture »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #59
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…

> In this age, there is no longer any state needs to be larger than say, 1500 square km - about the size of a large county. Assuming a rectangle of 30 by 50 kilometers, and no organized military for defense, it would take the Russians about 30-45 minutes to reintroduce the imperial subject experience on your proposed utopia. The reason states are required are that other people are organized in states. Now I am guessi…

>Assuming a rectangle of 30 by 50 kilometers, and no organized military for defense, it would take the Russians about 30-45 minutes to reintroduce the imperial subject experience on your proposed utopia.

Lmao, which they will get around to after regaining and relosing the same Ukranian square kilometer 20 times for the next 12 months.,

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

#83

Post by jackmott42 »

raincole wrote: post #78

> Should multinational corporations instruct local executives to be loyal to their parent company or the rulers of the country they live in? If Trump administration/US congress told you to use your AI agent to eavesdrop their political enemies should you be loyal to them? To kill children in middle east? To help them in a war against your mother country? When the rulers of countries and corporations conspire, the amo…

[flagged]

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

#84

Post by teraflop »

hollow-moe wrote: post #29

I heard stories from friends where such a system is used to broadcast ads to wide areas in South Korea, never had to deal with it myself but the way they described it made it sound like they were sent using that very same emergency message system.

Another interesting non-hypothetical example: many US states have so-called "blue alerts" which are used to send cell phone alerts whenever a police officer is attacked or injured. I used to live in Texas and blue alerts were a fairly frequent occurrence.

The stated justification for blue alerts is to warn the public of dangerous criminals. But they are only issued in response to attacks on cops, regardless of the level of danger to any other people. Also, at least in Texas, they're broadcast statewide. Texas is an awfully big state, and so the alerts are guaranteed to be irrelevant and non-actionable for the vast majority of people who receive them.

So it's fairly obvious to me that blue alerts are first and foremost a propaganda operation, aimed at perpetuating the stereotype that policing is a uniquely dangerous job. (It is indeed more dangerous than an average office job, but it has a much lower rate of fatal injuries than construction, or farming, or driving garbage trucks.)

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

#85

Post by bombcar »

9x39 wrote: post #55
cwmoore wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds very binary, I don’t see the continuum. More like a steep cliff of shocking betrayal.

In the same society, some people personally experience that others are capable of robbery & much worse within days and some learn it within decades, and everything in between. Some may never have to confront this, all within the same city/state/country. We could represent time-to-reality on a number line.

You can turn a low trust society into a high one by just having nothing whatsoever worth anything.

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

#87

Post by nicerice »

blooalien wrote: post #79
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…

> Civil society only exists when there is a collective general trust that most people are trying to do the right thing. I was taught as a child that most people deep down genuinely want to be "good people". If only I had known what an absolute lie that really truly was, I'd have chosen a very different path for my life. Going out of my way to be a "good person" to the best of my ability was a total waste of a life th…

Having made similar experiences, I do have to say your conclusion to not be the good person isn't in your own interest, especially, but even otherwise, if your goal is power and wealth.

People like good things. They'll go out of their way to expend time, energy and money to have "good". You could be the source of that good and receive all of these if you try to truly understand others' view of what's good.

Coercive systems do happen, but rarely last, because people will also spend time, energy and money to get rid of them.

Just don't be fooled that there's a universal moral code. What's good for one might not be for another. You might appreciate "Science and Human Behaviour" by B.F. Skinner if you're interested in the mechanics of it.

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

#88

Post by conception »

laughing_man wrote: post #69

It's really difficult to see what technologies will be enablers of state power. IMO, the techs ushering in 1984-levels of control are wifi, cheap cameras, and LLMs. The three technologies on their own are beneficial, but taken together they're going to make Big Brother seem impotent.

And drones.

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

#89

Post by what »

layer8 wrote: post #77
pianopatrick wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also have "zero homeless" if you had a certain amount of cheap housing that even drug addicts and mentally ill people could afford. Or where the cost of helping them is not too much. Like some housing that was built to be closer to "indestructible" than "nice" and was small, like 200 - 300 sq ft.

Some homeless people choose to not make use of such facilities, for example because they don’t want to get into fights with the other (ex-)homeless living there, or because of anxiety issues and the like.

They choose not to use these facilities because they can’t do drugs there.

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

#90

Post by paulv »

asaucerful wrote: post #74

I read this up until the movie trope and statement along the lines of "you can martyr youraelf but someone less moral will give in" but I'd say it's more likely they'll just find someone who voted for the other guy with the same knowledge as you. Why waste the bullet?

I think the thought is that if they kill one guy who didn't vote for them, the rest of the guys who didn't vote for them will fall in line. They'd rather waste a bullet than lose institutional knowledge.
Post reply on HN