Revolution in Kiev • Hacker News Board

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#251

Post by gritzko » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 2:52 PM UTC

radicalbyte wrote: post #163

mantas wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, Baltic states and ex-ussr-satellites are doing great in EU. Sure we still got a long way to go. But current state is good enough. Well, at least 10x better than Ukraine, Belorussia and other ex-ussr states that stayed together with Russia. Many Russians/Ukrainians/Belorussians come to ex-ussr-now-eu for shopping and medical procedures. Why? Stuff is cheaper and better quality here in Lithuania. And salaries are…

I know a number of Belorussians, and they all want to move to the EU. They also regularly drive to Poland for shopping, because it's cheaper and more things are available there :)

Hell yes! Folks from Saint Petersburg shop in Finland. They even order parcels to Finnish addresses next to the border because Russian mail sucks badly. Once I was crossing from Finland to SPb and I was questioned by customs on whether I've bought my stuff in Finland. Apparently, everybody's doing that and they are trying to tax it. Goods are unreasonably expensive in Russia. I was living in Netherlands which is not particularly cheap but Russian prices for the same stuff are 2x NL price normally. Incomes are lower and inequality is hellish.

TLDR: cleptocracy sucks.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#252

Post by random123455 » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 2:53 PM UTC

I would like to point to another perspective on what is happening. Like most, i hope, i try to make my views fit to the events that have/are happening rather than them being defined by my views. It seems that the protestors have no other clear goal in mind except joining the EU, this is very hard for a country like Ukraine where many people daily cross the border on their way to work, what happens to them does not concern the protestors. I wonder if there are Russians living in the west part of Ukraine, how violently would the protestors deal with them. Because it seems that the protestors are driven by their hatred towards not-signing the deal with Russia instead of EU. Also the current government of Ukraine has support, it is not like the whole of Ukraine has risen against it. But it is interesting that the ones who did in their lines have nazi supporters. Still one thing is clear, Russia EVIL/BAD, EU GOOD. Since these protestors are a bit on the violent side, what would happen to a Russian or an Ukrainian who supports the government in the protestors control area? They would probably feel their hatred on their own bodies. This is not the first time that something like this is happening.And the EU/USA always support the more radical parts of the society(with media, weapon support etc..) often leading to ethnic cleansing, and suppression of rights of some group of people. As in case with many countries where the west supported someone. Iraq, the radicals are taking how many lives per year? Libya, how many are suffering now since the intervention? Turkey and Kurds.Syria, somehow the people who eat their enemies hearts got supported by the USA/UK/GERMANY/TURKEY etc, and then they did not go in because of being outsmarted by the Chinese and Russians, but somehow the media already twisted it to seem that USA did not go to war because of Obama. The nations that have lived under sanctions placed by your politicians, under governments who pushed for your interests and promised growth and progress... The only thing that grows is the hatred. If EU really practices what it speak, as it obviously does not, and neither once are/were part of societies supported by the west tolerant towards their fellow human,even if many years have passed. Are the 'evil' that had to be fought against. One only needs to check on the rights of Serbs who are outside their ghettos our country. Who do not even have the right for their written language.

The only thing EU needs is workforce, destroy Ukraine so they can get more workforce/consumers who are capable of sustaining their own economy. Some mention Baltic states as progress, because russians come and buy there since it is cheaper. But if it really helped so much, why did you lose so much of your population because of immigration to EU, is life hard but you have option to get away? Is your economy not working? At least you have cheaper products because yours were not protected by your politicians and had to close down because they can not compete?

It seems that one more part of society who are driven by hatred is supported by the civilized and superior leaders of the world to who we should look up to. I wonder when will they start directing their hatred on Russians/Ukrainians who do not support their views?

Also, because of immigration in EU how much time do you have before the radical parts of your societies collide inside your home countries?

Divide and conquer.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#253

Post by snitko » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 2:54 PM UTC

nhaehnle wrote: post #249

snitko wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did over his lifetime. And then you should also understand that anarchy doesn't mean no laws and policing. It means that people choose to live by the laws they want (and not by voting,…

What you call anarchism is really a very specific subcategory called anarcho-capitalism. In any case, it is similarly naive as other strands of anarchism. Power vacuums will inevitably be filled. The question is: What do you want them to be filled with.

Calling something naive doesn't make it so. Saying "Power vacuums will inevitably be filled" doesn't make it true because you say so. What if there is no power vacuums and people don't want to be ruled by anyone? Is there anything to be filled then? What I personally consider to be naive is the idea that governance is inevitable, but that's no logical argument against government, so I don't go around saying it.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#254

Post by estebank » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 2:58 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #64

The reality distortion field the protesters have formed is impressive. They've completely overshadowed a few key points: - The Yanukovych government offered a power-sharing agreement with the opposition, offering Yatsenyuk the PM position and Klitschko the deputy PM job, which the opposition rejected: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-oppositions-rejects-vik... - The fascist element - one of the opposition leaders…

> Edit - more fascist imagery at the protests (...)

> http://gwplondon.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/kiev-maidan2.jp...

Not only fascist supporters! Polandball[1] supporters as well!

[1]: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/polandball

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#255

Post by marcosdumay » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 2:58 PM UTC

scribu wrote: post #237

snitko wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me respectfully disagree with what the real problem is. The real problem is not Russia. You are absolutely right that Russia wants influence in Ukraine. You are right that Yanukovych is a thief. But the real problem is people believing they need someone to reign over them. You think you can elect better politicians, who can put your interest in front of their own self-interest; who will not steal while chanting a…

> The only true worthwhile revolution comes when people realize they don't need anyone to rule them. When the majority realizes that, no more revolutions and violence can follow. Indeed, in an anarchy, you don't have any regime to stage revolutions against. But violence? Oh, you'd get plenty of that. It would just be distributed, instead of organized: survival of the fittest.

Well, that's quite a jump from "people ... don't need anyone to rule them" into anarchy. Why do you think both concepts are equivalent?

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#256

Post by bananacurve » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 3:00 PM UTC

snitko wrote: post #240

scribu wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only true worthwhile revolution comes when people realize they don't need anyone to rule them. When the majority realizes that, no more revolutions and violence can follow. Indeed, in an anarchy, you don't have any regime to stage revolutions against. But violence? Oh, you'd get plenty of that. It would just be distributed, instead of organized: survival of the fittest.

States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did over his lifetime. And then you should also understand that anarchy doesn't mean no laws and policing. It means that people choose to live by the laws they want (and not by voting,…

The problem with living in an anarchist collective is that no one does the dishes.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#257

Post by snitko » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 3:02 PM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #245

snitko wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did over his lifetime. And then you should also understand that anarchy doesn't mean no laws and policing. It means that people choose to live by the laws they want (and not by voting,…

My law firm (also a protection service) has simple rules - in all conflicts with clients of other law firms our clients are right by default. We have the best security enforcers, so we can deliver on that rule, too. We may be expansive, but having your home burned cause you signed with inferior security provider is far more expansive, right? How exactly this situation differs from payign mafia for protection? At leas…

If that's the rule of your firm then it is going to go out of business pretty fast. Why? Because if you insist that your clients are always right then you will inevitably get into violent conflicts with other firms. Violence is expensive and since you can't really print money and raise taxes like governments do, you only have this limited amount of money from your customers. As a businessmen, you want to make money, not lose it. Thus, you'd have to really calculate whether it is better to lose a couple of your customers and money by not insisting they are right when they obviously are not, or lose a lot more money by getting into violent conflicts. Conflicts which, by the way, you will inevitably lose, because other firms don't have the rule you have and decide to resolve conflicts among themselves peacefully, while you, on the other hand, are at war with all of them.

Apply logic to your hypothetical situation instead of FUD and you will see how things will work. Governments are simply monopolies on power and law and we know very well monopolies do not work out good for customers.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#258

Post by eatitraw » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #245

snitko wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did over his lifetime. And then you should also understand that anarchy doesn't mean no laws and policing. It means that people choose to live by the laws they want (and not by voting,…

My law firm (also a protection service) has simple rules - in all conflicts with clients of other law firms our clients are right by default. We have the best security enforcers, so we can deliver on that rule, too. We may be expansive, but having your home burned cause you signed with inferior security provider is far more expansive, right? How exactly this situation differs from payign mafia for protection? At leas…

Well, you have to establish such protection agency first. You start your business, run advertising, etc. People come to you and pay for your services. Most people don't want to rob and kill other people, they want peace and protection, and they pay you for such things.

Now, what incentive do you have to blindly protect every robber who payed you? If you try to prevent punishment of a robber, your current(as well as potential) customers won't view your services as desirable, and simply won't pay you. Then you go out of business.

I think Murray Rothbard makes a better argument(while dissecting many common objections similar to yours). I recommend the chapter "Police, Law, and the Courts" from his book "For a new liberty: the libertarian manifesto" : http://mises.org/document/1010/For-a-New-Liberty-The-Liberta...

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#259

Post by snitko » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 3:06 PM UTC

bananacurve wrote: post #256

snitko wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States did a great job convincing people that anarchy == violence. Yet what is the evidence for that? If you look at history, an average state over the course of, say, 10 years, murdered more people than the bloodiest of all anarchists did over his lifetime. And then you should also understand that anarchy doesn't mean no laws and policing. It means that people choose to live by the laws they want (and not by voting,…

The problem with living in an anarchist collective is that no one does the dishes.

That's a very abstract statement. What kind of dishes are we talking about? Also, I'm not talking collectivism here. As was pointed out by another user, I'm talking about a specific form of anarchy which is anarcho-capitalism or market-anarchism. In my opinion, it is only governments which usually don't give a crap about their citizens. Or at best, they do give a crap, but it's still much much worse than private businesses, because there is no feedback loop in the form of prices and business-customer relationship.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#260

Post by IgorPartola » Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 3:07 PM UTC

austerity wrote: post #188

IgorPartola wrote: post #117

Man, the amount of disdain people have for protesters in the comments to this story is really shocking. I do not exactly understand where it's coming from. Yanukovych is a corrupt petty thief and rapist, turned politician, who has very close ties with Russia, and is stealing from the Ukrainian people through corruption. He rigged an election in 2004 and only massive riots prevented him from coming into power then by…

While I sympathize with the protesters, the disdain you speak of should surprise no one. First, Yanukovich won the last election when his opponents were in power. I think this is a good enough indicator that he has lots of supporters. Second, the Ukrainians went through all of this already in 2004 and apparently nothing particularly good came out of it. The country is in the same place it was 10 years ago and Yanukov…

Just because he won does not mean that he has the license to abuse his people and steal from them. That is a flawed argument. He also should not have been eligible to run in the first place. Apply it to your country, imagine if it's current leader told you that you could not oppose the government in any meaningful way, have him/her profiteer off his/her position, then tell me if you feel apathy.

Anecdotes like yours are useless as well: I am a Ukrainian American from the eastern-most part of Ukraine. I do not support Yanukovych and do care about the protests in that I support the rioters. People that leave Ukraine often are apathetic about the fate of their countries because it does not impact them directly. Even people that live there sometimes can display this behavior. It does not legitimize anything that Yanukovych is doing.

Lastly, if he is ousted it does not magically mean that Ukraine will be better off. Ukraine will take 100 years (IMO) to find its identity and grow enough to become a proper democracy. But ousting a corrupt president sends a pretty clear message to any future leader and it is progress.