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

Life as a Service

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: Life as a Service

#121

Post by enraged_camel »

swombat wrote: post #118
enraged_camel wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do. We don't need a huge military to have that effect. We already have nukes.

No one believes that the US is going to use its nukes in all but the most dire circumstances. Does Iran fear that the US will nuke it? No. But it does fear a traditional war.

Nukes are the most effective deterrent we have against non-nuclear states.

Of course Iran fears that it may get nuked. Why do you think they are desperately trying to develop their own nukes?

Re: Life as a Service

#122

Post by cgmorton »

confluence wrote: post #94
scottlilly wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't see the similarity because they are, in fact, different. If my house catches on fire, and someone doesn't put it out, there is a reasonable chance it will spread to other houses. So it's a societal issue - at least at the local scale. As a societal issue, it makes sense for each member to be forced to pay for it. If I break my leg, there is no increased chance that my neighbor will break his leg. So it's a…

You forgot second order effects. Leg gets fixed - you get back to work - goods and services are rendered, taxed, consumed and saved. Your neighbor benefits by having an individual in whom society has invested millions in to train and care for back at work instead of being dead. That's a waste of money. Humans are worth saving simply because we invest so much in them.

But then you can easily, heck trivially, argue that people should be forced to exercise or to eat a particular diet that makes them more productive. Look, more goods and services are rendered! It's a public situation!

People should be forced to live within 5 miles of work, because they're not being productive during their commute. Also, HackerNews and reddit should be forcibly taken down because of their contribution to idleness at work.

Re: Life as a Service

#123

Post by lmm »

flyinRyan wrote: post #69
eckyptang wrote: post #36

Some thoughts on this: You have no obligation to conform to these laws at all. You are not born into a contract. A contract is a piece of paper which you can use to wipe your bum with if you wish. You can in theory do what the hell you like. People regularly do. You can kill people, not pay tax, walk over the border of any country and urinate anywhere you like. The only downside is that someone who does subscribe to…

But if you think about it, doesn't this seem crazy? I mean, obviously I shouldn't kill people, but if I don't do the things the implicit contract expects me to, some crazy person will come up and put me in a cage. For example, if I happen to grow a plant that will grow on its own without my help, and happen to store a lot of these plants for the winter, I could get locked up by someone for being a drug dealer.

All crazy people think they're sane and everyone else are the crazy ones.

If you can convince other people that you don't deserve to be locked up for growing these plants, then you won't be. All this talk of "implicit contracts" doesn't change that, it only overcomplicates everything.

Re: Life as a Service

#124

Post by lmm »

clneagu wrote: post #83

I'm not seeing anyone complain about the lack of competition for The State. If nothing else why would anyone defend the monopoly of the state? I don't see anyone defending any other monopoly. Why should I be forced to move elsewhere for better service? I understand that for now we don't have a better solution but stop defending the fucking monopoly.

I'll defend anything that I see people criticise without offering a better solution.

Re: Life as a Service

#125

Post by jschuur »

rheide wrote: post #45
jschuur wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge the 'quite a bit of money' part. Fees for a Dutch passport amount to about US $100 at the UK embassy e.g. (I'm Dutch, but live in the UK): http://www.dutchembassyuk.org/page/index.php?i=158 Sure, $100 sounds low for many people, even though it's a fortune for some. However, spread across a 5 year period, it's a little more than 5 cents a day.

It's tax for living. It's bad.

It's no such thing. You're not forced to get a passport. Plenty of people live quite happily in the same country or region they were born. People should travel, and experience other cultures, but they're not being forced to pay for a passport if they don't want to.

I see $100 as an administrative fee that covers the process of applying for a document, the issuing agency reviewing the credentials of the person applying and then manufacturing it based on the current security standards. If it were free, it would still come out of tax payers money somehow (FWIW, I'm not a Dutch taxpayer, since I don't live there).

The fact is, we live in a world with different cultures, different economies, different norms, and some have chosen to place limitations on who may enter/visit/move to them. Having documentation to meet another country's requirements is basic cost of living if I want to participate in a global society.

It's simply impractical to erase all border controls and have anyone be able to enter any country without an ID. Poorer populations would seek to better their lot quicker by moving to a richer country, rather than stimulating the economy where they're from. It's not ideal, but we can't live in a world where the entire third world can just decide to move to the industrial world because they don't impose immigration standards. And in order for them to do so, passports are needed.

If you can't afford $100 every 5 years, how can you afford to travel to another country?

Re: Life as a Service

#126

Post by yummyfajitas »

jmcqk6 wrote: post #104
yummyfajitas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights should be based on the veil of ignorance principle - the weak should be protected and the strong should pay for they are one car crash away from welfare. Your moral values seems to hold that individuals have few rights, and that collectively we should operate from the principle of infinite risk aversion (i.e., the Rawlsian veil of ignorance). Great - we all agree that if these are your values, Libertarianism i…

Somalia is, or at least was, a land without a government. If libertarians or randians are correct, it should be a land flowing with milk and honey. Of course, this is not the case. At least, that is how the argument goes. I'm a former libertarian of the anarcho-capatilist-rand flavor, and I think there are much better arguments against that stance than somalia.

Somalia was a land without a government for a very brief period. It now (and has, for many years) has several governments in different regions. Some are based on Sharia (or at least purport to be), others on Guurti (traditional clan-based government). None are or claim to be based on libertarian principles.

None of it's governments are recognized by the UN, but as far as I'm aware, no one claims that the mere withdrawal of UN recognition of a government leads to prosperity.

Re: Life as a Service

#127

Post by cgmorton »

rdtsc wrote: post #99
scottlilly wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't see the similarity because they are, in fact, different. If my house catches on fire, and someone doesn't put it out, there is a reasonable chance it will spread to other houses. So it's a societal issue - at least at the local scale. As a societal issue, it makes sense for each member to be forced to pay for it. If I break my leg, there is no increased chance that my neighbor will break his leg. So it's a…

> If I break my leg, there is no increased chance that my neighbor will break his leg. So it's a personal issue. But is not a just personal issue. If you break your leg and don't have insurance, you could lose your house over medical bills. The bank will reposes and will write down losses over your mortgage. If your lot starts to look like crap the value of his house will be affected as well. If you have a wife and k…

This argues equally well for completely supporting the family indefinitely for any reason. The only difference between paying medical bills and paying for the whole lifestyle is a matter of cost, and medical bills can be really expensive.

Doesn't it bother you that an even-handed application of this principle leads to absurdity?

Re: Life as a Service

#128

Post by jmcqk6 »

endersshadow wrote: post #112
jmcqk6 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somalia is, or at least was, a land without a government. If libertarians or randians are correct, it should be a land flowing with milk and honey. Of course, this is not the case. At least, that is how the argument goes. I'm a former libertarian of the anarcho-capatilist-rand flavor, and I think there are much better arguments against that stance than somalia.

Libertarianism is not anarchism, nor does it ever purport to be. In fact, libertarianism holds that a government should be in place, and that its job is to protect the rights (defined by libertarianism--most often, the Bill of Rights is pointed to) of its citizens.

Libertarians do overlap quite a bit with anarcho-capatilism and randism. You might not define libertarianism that way, but many do. The best you might say is something like, 'libertarianism, as espoused by [X], hold that a government should be in place.' As a counter example, I can easily find self-identified libertarians who are anarchists.

edit: grammar and clarification.

Re: Life as a Service

#129

Post by jmcqk6 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #126
jmcqk6 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somalia is, or at least was, a land without a government. If libertarians or randians are correct, it should be a land flowing with milk and honey. Of course, this is not the case. At least, that is how the argument goes. I'm a former libertarian of the anarcho-capatilist-rand flavor, and I think there are much better arguments against that stance than somalia.

Somalia was a land without a government for a very brief period. It now (and has, for many years) has several governments in different regions. Some are based on Sharia (or at least purport to be), others on Guurti (traditional clan-based government). None are or claim to be based on libertarian principles. None of it's governments are recognized by the UN, but as far as I'm aware, no one claims that the mere withdra…

>None are or claim to be based on libertarian principles.

I think part of the argument is that if libertarianism is so good / efficient / other desirable criteria, why don't societies naturally evolve into those societies?

Again, I don't think that this is the entire argument, or even a particular good one (in the case of somalia). I'm just pointing it out.

Re: Life as a Service

#130

Post by infinite8s »

rglover wrote: post #88

This article is brilliant. Each and every point Jacques makes is spot-on. I'm sure many will disagree with his stance, but he makes an excellent point. Irrespective of our personal preference, we are effectively locked in to and subordinate of our government and its policies. Any self-respecting human who has contemplated this should be sick to their stomach. Realize this: we're floating in space. Not one soul on thi…

Why should you have a choice? Taking this article to it's logical conclusion, no obligations nor rights should be granted to you. As another commenter above mentioned so brilliantly, individuals don't have rights. Rights only arise in groups of individuals.
Post reply on HN