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

Revolution in Kiev

zyalt.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 377 posts

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#291

Post by ajuc »

snitko wrote: post #283
scribu wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if other firms can decide to resolve conflicts among themselves peacefully, then they can also decide to band together into a federation that serves their interests. Monopolies form because they're efficient. If you say that regular people will prevent that, then you're just back to having violent revolutions, except against monopolies, instead of governments.

Monopolies and cartels don't exist for long unless governments subsidize them or otherwise help by regulating the industry (and not allowing new players to disrupt the market). You will hardly find an example of a monopoly which was not supported by the government in one form or another. In the free market cartels break down very fast, because one member eventually decides to defect or because another powerful player…

Have you ever heard the term "natural monopoly"? It can form because of network effects, big upfront costs, market entry barriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#292

Post by snitko »

marcosdumay wrote: post #290
snitko wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually that's what I meant, indeed, so he was spot on. Anarchy means no rulers. It doesn't mean absence of law and order and violent gangs of rapists running on the streets with molotov cocktails and baseball bats. Law and order are provided not by a violent monopolist (government), but instead by the free market.

Yeah, ok, then you are jumping to the same conclusion, and my comment was completely orthogonal to the discussion. Anyway, still offtopic, I'm quite eager for the reasons why you both discard democracy (no rulers, but government exist) without even a comment (am I missing something that obvious?).

I don't suggest governments should exist. I think you had mistaken law and order for government. Think of it this way: law and order are services. Government is just one way of providing those services.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#293

Post by bananacurve »

snitko wrote: post #270
bananacurve wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closest I have come to anarchy is off-campus housing. Are there examples of your ideas working in real life?

Think about how many things in our lives we do that governments don't control. We get married, we choose what to learn, what occupation to pick and what to work on, we choose whom to become friends with. All of those things are done in complete anarchy yet those are all very important things and decisions! No one in the western world who's in their right mind would suggest that it's a good idea for government to star…

>I don't see people suggesting we all vote for one specific kind of car we are all going to drive for the next 4 years.

There are huge regulatory hurdles to releasing an automobile, for good reason.

Insisting on absolutely no government sounds dogmatic. Surely we can have enough government to negotiate a truce between warring police tribes.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#294

Post by snitko »

ajuc wrote: post #291
snitko wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies and cartels don't exist for long unless governments subsidize them or otherwise help by regulating the industry (and not allowing new players to disrupt the market). You will hardly find an example of a monopoly which was not supported by the government in one form or another. In the free market cartels break down very fast, because one member eventually decides to defect or because another powerful player…

Have you ever heard the term "natural monopoly"? It can form because of network effects, big upfront costs, market entry barriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

And to that I should respond with an article called "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" http://mises.org/daily/5266

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#295

Post by aaronem »

Someone wrote: post #282
waterlesscloud wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the sewers are even navigable for a human.

I know little about sewer systems, but if there is a man hole cover, isn't that likely?

It could lead into a navigable system of tunnels, or it could just open onto a pit full of pumping machinery.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#296

Post by aaronem »

ItendToDisagree wrote: post #175
nikolak wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, I didn't mean to imply that there have been deadly casualties, but that's the goal of throwing Molotov cocktail on someone. Saying that the protesters aren't using violence is wrong. None have been killed because they have firefighters and fire extinguishers with them, doesn't change the fact that throwing Molotov cocktail into someone's face can, and probably will, kill them.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Molotov being directed at a person because that isn't what they are useful for. Not to mention the fact that unless you were to hit a shield/helmet you likely wouldn't break the bottle and ignite the contents. They have been primarily used for disabling vehicles and making some ground impassable. It doesn't appear that the wiki even references their use against individuals so much a…

"Wikipedia doesn't mention Molotov cocktails being thrown at human targets, so it must not ever happen, and wouldn't really matter anyway if it did."

Oh, HN! You marvel of marvels. Don't you ever change.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#297

Post by snitko »

bananacurve wrote: post #293
snitko wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about how many things in our lives we do that governments don't control. We get married, we choose what to learn, what occupation to pick and what to work on, we choose whom to become friends with. All of those things are done in complete anarchy yet those are all very important things and decisions! No one in the western world who's in their right mind would suggest that it's a good idea for government to star…

>I don't see people suggesting we all vote for one specific kind of car we are all going to drive for the next 4 years. There are huge regulatory hurdles to releasing an automobile, for good reason. Insisting on absolutely no government sounds dogmatic. Surely we can have enough government to negotiate a truce between warring police tribes.

Let's say I agree that regulation is a good thing. I agree that even though I myself may not care for my own safety and want to buy a purely assembled car, I should not be allowed to impose danger on other drivers on the road and this purely assembled car may as well present such danger.

Now the central question here is not whether regulations are a good idea or not, but whether it's a good idea to allow those regulations be issued by one central authority. What if you had like 2-3 agencies inspecting each car manufacturer, then presenting their reports to road companies, who would in turn decide whether or not to allow certain types of cars on their roads? Wouldn't you say that this kind of competition would, in fact, reduce the possibility of corruption? What you have now is a monopoly on regulations, which usually leads to governments abusing this power to prevent certain players from entering the market for their own benefit (bribes from lobbyists for companies that already are on the market).

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#298

Post by thesz »

gritzko wrote: post #286
thesz wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russian mail "sucks" because there was a sudden horrifying jump in mail packages volume. Russian Postal Service wasn't prepared to that. It is doing progressively better as time goes. If you want to talk about cleptocracy, let's talk about US a little bit. Let's start from yellow light duration scandals (from the top of my head): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdD5fvYHtKQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_ca…

Russian mail struggles with that jump for 20 years at least. I am 34.

I had no problems sending and receiving mail packages 10 years ago. I am 42, BTW.

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#299

Post by ItendToDisagree »

aaronem wrote: post #296
ItendToDisagree wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Molotov being directed at a person because that isn't what they are useful for. Not to mention the fact that unless you were to hit a shield/helmet you likely wouldn't break the bottle and ignite the contents. They have been primarily used for disabling vehicles and making some ground impassable. It doesn't appear that the wiki even references their use against individuals so much a…

"Wikipedia doesn't mention Molotov cocktails being thrown at human targets, so it must not ever happen, and wouldn't really matter anyway if it did." Oh, HN! You marvel of marvels. Don't you ever change.

so it must not ever happen, and wouldn't really matter anyway if it did.

You really do sum up HN right there! Congrats! ;)

Re: Revolution in Kiev

#300

Post by ItendToDisagree »

nikolak wrote: post #211
ItendToDisagree wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Molotov being directed at a person because that isn't what they are useful for. Not to mention the fact that unless you were to hit a shield/helmet you likely wouldn't break the bottle and ignite the contents. They have been primarily used for disabling vehicles and making some ground impassable. It doesn't appear that the wiki even references their use against individuals so much a…

> * It doesn't appear that the wiki even references their use against individuals so much as against vehicles.* No need for wiki citations when you can see it clearly being used against police forces here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuO53xeZkm8

A pencil can be used against someone but it is not the primary intention. A pistol can be used against a Tank but it is not the primary intention. A molotov cocktail is primarily intended for anti-vehicle use, as many instances throughout history (indicated on the wiki page), shows to be the case.

I'd never heard of it being used in an anti-personnel situation (you primarily hear about/see it in its intended capacity). But I guess it would be ridiculous to claim it never has been used against an individual.

Post reply on HN