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

The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 418 posts

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#391

Post by _0ffh »

lovich wrote: post #369
_0ffh wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corporation (that runs internally as a planned economy) will get more and more inefficient the larger it gets, because that is what planning an economy does. Which in turn means it will loose market share and be forced to lean up until it is competitive again.

Or it just uses its power to influence government regulations and suppress or buy out competition. Like what one of the current crop of mega corps has an internal market for how its capital is allocated. The closest example I could think of in history was IBM and its blue dollars.

Buying out maybe, but that only exacerbates the problem for the company in the long run. Regulatory capture is what actually works, but not within the libertarian framework, because regulation again is not a market mechanism, but government intervention into the market - exactly what libertarians say we should have less of in the first place.

Mind you, not different, or "better" intervention, but less, or even none at all. One could argue the point about libertarianism is that you can't trust the government to do a good job because it is based on force, and not voluntary market interactions, and hence lacks the proper incentives. It's just a bunch of guys on a spending spree with other peoples money, and their incentive is to make as much of it as humanly possible land in their own pockets.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#392

Post by stkdump »

nozzlegear wrote: post #348
stkdump wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you to make rules for others to follow?

I'm citing a rule, not making one. American is in the dictionary, used by the UN, recognized by everyone and their dog as the proper demonym for citizens of the United States. Who are you to question that authority and replace the proper demonym with a neologism?

I didn't. Languages aren't defined by dictionaries. If they were they would not have come into existence in the first place and they wouldn't evolve the way they do.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#393

Post by olelele »

_0ffh wrote: post #391
lovich wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it just uses its power to influence government regulations and suppress or buy out competition. Like what one of the current crop of mega corps has an internal market for how its capital is allocated. The closest example I could think of in history was IBM and its blue dollars.

Buying out maybe, but that only exacerbates the problem for the company in the long run. Regulatory capture is what actually works , but not within the libertarian framework, because regulation again is not a market mechanism, but government intervention into the market - exactly what libertarians say we should have less of in the first place. Mind you, not different , or " better " intervention, but less , or even n…

To me the biggest problem w. libertarianism & game theory etcetera is that humans are not only motivated by greed/personal gain.

Pure anecdata; the libertarian/capitalist anarchists I've met have all been close to sociopathic in their disregard for others. I always figured that people who have an underdeveloped sense of empathy project this onto everyone else.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#394

Post by _0ffh »

olelele wrote: post #393
_0ffh wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying out maybe, but that only exacerbates the problem for the company in the long run. Regulatory capture is what actually works , but not within the libertarian framework, because regulation again is not a market mechanism, but government intervention into the market - exactly what libertarians say we should have less of in the first place. Mind you, not different , or " better " intervention, but less , or even n…

To me the biggest problem w. libertarianism & game theory etcetera is that humans are not only motivated by greed/personal gain. Pure anecdata; the libertarian/capitalist anarchists I've met have all been close to sociopathic in their disregard for others. I always figured that people who have an underdeveloped sense of empathy project this onto everyone else.

I prefer to judge such advice by the available facts, not by hearsay about the moral character of the advisor - especially not hearsay spread by his enemies. Your ad hominem has no bearing on the argument.

So, how is trusting politicians and bureaucrats to be selfless and focused on their duty to society working out for you?

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#395

Post by pbmonster »

abc123abc123 wrote: post #316
JKCalhoun wrote: post #191

Also old enough to have been pre-internet: > Paper maps were absolutely horrible… No, and still not horrible. I jeep a trucker's atlas in my van for road trips. Siri and Google Maps (Gigi, we call her) don't seem to realize I want to stay on interstates making distance. Wandering some two-lane country road diagonally through Kansas might save me 10 minutes but having oncoming traffic and the possibility of a rock int…

This is the way. I use printed maps when on vacation. Then I laugh at tourists who are hysterical because their smartphones ran out of power. I print my boarding cards and then I laugh at hysterical people who's smartphonse do not work. When I walk around on town, I do not take my phone with me, so anyone looking for me has to leave a message on my answering machine or send me an email, and I'll get back to them when…

> This is the way. I use printed maps when on vacation.

Come on, then you know their limits. Get to your destination city? Better hope your road atlas comes with a city map, and the road you're going to is large enough to have its name printed. Otherwise, you're shopping at the next gas station. Have the city map? Better hope the outer borrows are on it, too. Found your destination on the map? Better hope you have a competent navigator riding shotgun, because otherwise you'll have to stop and park 15 times to consult your map while navigating an unfamiliar jungle of a city.

I think much of the software written over the last 20 years is very close to worthless. A significant fraction has negative worth.

But geospatial software is amazing.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#396

Post by DFHippie »

Permit wrote: post #304
pocksuppet wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think it's just the hypocrisy. Either copyright for everybody or copyright for nobody is much more defensible than the current state of affairs, where infringing copyright is legal as long as you're rich. Some random guy in Nebraska had to pay $250,000 to a music company for downloading one MP3, but OpenAI can download all music that ever existed and pay nothing. Meanwhile they prosecute "Anna" who did the exact same…

> where infringing copyright is legal as long as you're rich. This isn’t true. A rich person and a poor person can train LLMs on copyrighted material in 2026. How they acquired those materials matters. Wealthy corporations hold no legal advantage in this space. For example, Anthropic recently settled for $1.5 billion due to acquiring books via piracy: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/technology/anthropic-sett... My…

> A rich person and a poor person can train LLMs on copyrighted material in 2026.

Updating an old adage for the modern age:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” ― Anatole France

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#397

Post by lovich »

_0ffh wrote: post #394
olelele wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the biggest problem w. libertarianism & game theory etcetera is that humans are not only motivated by greed/personal gain. Pure anecdata; the libertarian/capitalist anarchists I've met have all been close to sociopathic in their disregard for others. I always figured that people who have an underdeveloped sense of empathy project this onto everyone else.

I prefer to judge such advice by the available facts, not by hearsay about the moral character of the advisor - especially not hearsay spread by his enemies. Your ad hominem has no bearing on the argument. So, how is trusting politicians and bureaucrats to be selfless and focused on their duty to society working out for you?

Cool, how is letting companies go even more hog wild a solution when right now the problem is occurring from their semi hog wildness.

And it’s not an ad hominem on its own when the argument he is making is that the people espousing a certain world view are doing so because they believe everyone else has their same myopic view on reality and empathy.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#398

Post by _0ffh »

lovich wrote: post #397
_0ffh wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer to judge such advice by the available facts, not by hearsay about the moral character of the advisor - especially not hearsay spread by his enemies. Your ad hominem has no bearing on the argument. So, how is trusting politicians and bureaucrats to be selfless and focused on their duty to society working out for you?

Cool, how is letting companies go even more hog wild a solution when right now the problem is occurring from their semi hog wildness. And it’s not an ad hominem on its own when the argument he is making is that the people espousing a certain world view are doing so because they believe everyone else has their same myopic view on reality and empathy.

What problem would that be that has not already been addressed further up the chain?

And it is an ad hominem - it's nothing more than an allegation impugning the character of libertarians in order to dismiss their arguments. The allegation alone does neither prove anything about the actual character of these people, nor what their view on reality and empathy actually is, nor if that view is actually wrong, nor who is doing the actual projecting here.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#399

Post by dleslie »

sph wrote: post #388
dleslie wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world? I can think of nothing.

Then you need to read outside your bubble.

It would have been as easy to write a valid answer as a non-answer; _unless_ there is no valid answer.

Re: The hypocrisy of cyberlibertarianism

#400

Post by Cider9986 »

dleslie wrote: post #373
Cider9986 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, just because 99% of cryptocurrencies are a scam doesn't mean that crypto as a whole is a scam.

Ok. Where is crypto currency used in a way that fiat currencies cannot be, and is adding value to the world? I can think of nothing.

Monero gives people the ability to transact privately online. Privacy is a human right; therefore, through the technical innovation of private cryptocurrency, Monero allows individuals to exercise this right, adding value to the world.

Please look into Monero and try to understand privacy activist's, marginalized peoples', and my point of view. You don't have nitpick, you can accept this one cryptocurrency as having benefits—I agree that a vast majority of cryptos are a scam and are unnecessary and bad for the environment, but there are some cryptos that are less flawed than the banking system.

Here's a good discussion to learn more: (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47841149)

Post reply on HN