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

Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

defcon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 260 posts

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#201

Post by mpyne »

etherael wrote: post #175
mpyne wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you thought long and hard about how you will avoid contributing to the corporations that also stand in the way of complete liberty? Or is it just the government you're afraid of?

Yes, it was extremely complex and I consider myself quite ingenious for accomplishing this breathtaking feat of ingenuity, but here's the trick; If you disapprove of anything about a business, it turns out that you can actually choose not to support them economically. When you make this choice they lack the ability to send thugs in costume around to kidnap/torture/murder you. Further, if enough people in a free marke…

As enjoyable as the sarcasm is, you've only eliminated direct contribution to corporations that you know that you disapprove.

But you have already stated that you oppose even indirect contributions to government. Why the contradiction? Do you oppose indirect support to things that take actions you disapprove of, or not?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#202

Post by jlgreco »

mpyne wrote: post #201
etherael wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was extremely complex and I consider myself quite ingenious for accomplishing this breathtaking feat of ingenuity, but here's the trick; If you disapprove of anything about a business, it turns out that you can actually choose not to support them economically. When you make this choice they lack the ability to send thugs in costume around to kidnap/torture/murder you. Further, if enough people in a free marke…

As enjoyable as the sarcasm is, you've only eliminated direct contribution to corporations that you know that you disapprove. But you have already stated that you oppose even indirect contributions to government. Why the contradiction? Do you oppose indirect support to things that take actions you disapprove of, or not?

You are confusing the concepts of degree and knowledge.

Knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly... these lay on difference axises.

I could excuse those who unknowingly willingly contribute to an atrocity (Paul Stabenow of the Tesch & Stabenow corporation is arguably an example). The unknowing unwilling are similarly hard to blame. Examples for this escape me at the moment though I am certain that there are examples in history of people compelled to work who did not know what they were contributing to. If I had to guess, I would say that workers for the Tesch & Stabenow corporation in the company's later years could perhaps fit this category.

Examples of the knowing unwilling could be the workers at Mittelwerk. They knew what they were contributing to and were forced to continue. Knowing willing could arguably include Wernher von Braun, though some would (mistakenly, I think) put him on the edge of knowingly unwillingly.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#203

Post by zeckalpha »

msandford wrote: post #147
zeckalpha wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Pau...

Okay, I read the link. What's the point you're trying to make?

Ron Paul would have gotten rid of the one thing they think the government does do for them, as well as a number of things they don't notice.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#204

Post by charonn0 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #90
mcantelon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one doesn't want to be besmirched by the dealings of an employer that profits from supplying mass surveillance tech then one should work elsewhere.

So discrimination against employees is okay if you don't like the employer?

I would say that any voluntarily acquired and freely renounceable attribute is a valid and ethical attribute by which to judge the character of, or discriminate against, another person.

It may or may not be a good idea to do so, but the organizers of a private gathering may exclude whom they wish; the nature of ones employer is not an unethical standard for exclusion.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#205

Post by foobarbazqux »

deathcakes wrote: post #197
foobarbazqux wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to understand how your mind works, I'm not making a specific point or leading you in a certain direction. It doesn't help when you don't answer questions directly, it looks like you're trying to avoid answering them - this could have been less painful. For my part I could have been less obtuse and aggressive. I believe that discriminating against someone on the basis of their legal employment is unethical…

In the case where you are able to make a choice about which job you take then yes you definitely should be held to account for that choice. Because it is a moral one. You had the choice of hacking for the good of people or you could join forces with 'The Man' and make a bunch of money. Maybe the choice isn't so binary, but nonetheless the choice is there. I could understand your statement, 'People need jobs to surviv…

So is it ethical for universities to reject applicants on the basis of their past/present/future employers being unethical in the selection committee's eyes?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#206

Post by rosser »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #183
Myrmornis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this can be in question, if the employees chose their employer freely. How can one seriously oppose a corporate entity if one may not oppose the people who comprise the corporate entity. "Corporations are people, my friend".

If employees choose their employers freely, what are interviews for?

If people choose their spouses freely, what is dating for?

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#207

Post by msandford »

zeckalpha wrote: post #203
msandford wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I read the link. What's the point you're trying to make?

Ron Paul would have gotten rid of the one thing they think the government does do for them, as well as a number of things they don't notice.

Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the income tax. Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for middle aged working folk like my parents.

If two people are making a combined $120k/year their tax burden is around $27k. With 10-15 years to go til retirement that's another $270-$405k in gross savings, neglecting any ability to earn interest (which right now is effectively 0%).

I don't know what the social security pay-out rates are these days but $300k today versus a decreasing probability of future benefit payments from the SSA seems like a reasonable risk to take, given the choice. Not that we'll ever have the choice, mind you.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#208

Post by dragonwriter »

msandford wrote: post #207
zeckalpha wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ron Paul would have gotten rid of the one thing they think the government does do for them, as well as a number of things they don't notice.

Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the income tax. Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for middle aged working folk like my parents. If two people are making a combined $120k/year their tax burden is around $27k. With 10-15 years to go til retirement that's another $270-$405k…

> Okay, but he also believes that the income tax is unconstitutional. If he's able to get social security to go away it's likely he'd also eliminate the income tax.

X wants A. X also wants B. Therefore, if X gets A, X will also get B.

That doesn't work.

> Losing social security AND the income tax would likely be a net win for middle aged working folk like my parents.

Your analysis seems to be pretty shallow on this, particularly, it seems presume that the income tax can go away with everything else operating as is with no effect except taxpayers not paying the tax.

Re: Feds, We Need Some Time Apart

#210

Post by mpyne »

jlgreco wrote: post #202
mpyne wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As enjoyable as the sarcasm is, you've only eliminated direct contribution to corporations that you know that you disapprove. But you have already stated that you oppose even indirect contributions to government. Why the contradiction? Do you oppose indirect support to things that take actions you disapprove of, or not?

You are confusing the concepts of degree and knowledge. Knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly... these lay on difference axises. I could excuse those who unknowingly willingly contribute to an atrocity (Paul Stabenow of the Tesch & Stabenow corporation is arguably an example). The unknowing unwilling are similarly hard to blame. Examples for this escape me at the moment though I am certain that there are…

I have no confusion between the two concepts. Common sense always applies for starters ("Wow, a 99¢ hamburger! Obviously those cattle were treated humanely!").

Likewise blissful ignorance is no excuse (in an indirect world) for being unaware of the reasonable impact or influence of your allocation of capital. Otherwise there's no reason to complain of indirectly helping the government by paying taxes, for all I know every single penny of my tax money could have gone to provide food for the needy and beds for the homeless and it's just your taxes that are going toward funding guns and NSA.

The whole idea that one must know that some corporations are shadier than others belies the very question I asked, since one could willingly contribute to only those aspects of government which are considered good and to none of the other ones (which are considered bad, knowingly or unknowingly).

OP has rejected that argument in its entirety though; there is no way to claim unknowing and unwilling support of bad government in that view, so why should it be permissible to unknowingly and unwillingly support bad corporations?

Post reply on HN