And then the men with guns tell you to do it anyway

Quite recently, actually.

The washing machine broke after 18 years. It was a cheap model at the time, but it held up well until the end. I'm under no illusion that the 50% more expensive replacement will last anywhere as long. You know, the old "they just don't build 'em like that anymore" that even the sellers tell you freely.

I'd like to buy quality products. For example, I own a coffee machine for which the manufacturer provides spare parts for decades. But I'm not willing to spend 3x for an appliance when there's no realistic expectation to get 2-3x the use of it since it's not economically repairable. So the rational choice is to buy semi-cheap and throw it on the heap when it inevitably breaks sooner than the last one. I hate that game, but I'm not made of money either.

Then the TV died. I did some research online and then spend a very disappointing hour browsing a local electronics shop to get a hands-on feel. It's all "smart" shit the software of which will go out of support within 5 years, with dedicated remote buttons advertising streaming services I don't use, too large screens and/or bad build quality, abysmal sound all around, and, not to forget, stuffed full of surveillance and ads. Out of sheer desperation, I got alarmingly close to spending $1.900 for a premium brand 43" that did tick all the boxes - namely, just being a TV that's as good and inobtrusive as the $700 one from 12 years ago. I finally resorted to buying an 7 year old unit from the same premium brand third hand for 1/7 the price. Which in the event turned out to be a really good deal, I admit, but I don't quite think the used market is what we're talking about here.

It did not feel at all like the market for new products catered to my preferences. These may be a bit peculiar, but FWIW, I take that's a sentiment quite a few people on HN share: questions about "good dumb TVs" come up every so often, so I'm not alone in this.

And don't get me started on printers...

Right, which is something Nato does a lot of.

>Yes, and they usually want to form a state based around this identity. I suppose you don't consider that desire legitimate. But then who will perform the functions of the state that you baselessly claim the internet solves? Who will settle disputes, determine land ownership, pass and enforce laws, prevent other groups from taking the territory, etc.? The internet?

Genuinely dont care, but forming a bigger meaner government seems to be absent from most cultural priorities.

>It's telling that you think that because they don't only do good, then the good that they do doesn't count. They're not innocent enough for you, so they should dissolve their militaries, surrender their ability of self-defense, and throw themselves at the mercy of the world (How does that usually work out?) I wonder if you apply this standard evenly, or only to things you dislike.

I genuinely have no idea what you are driving at here.

> And then the men with guns come and tell you what to do.

I'm also a man with guns.

Yes, I know, you see a lot of blowhard statements like that; this isn't intended to be one of them. There are things that I am capable of doing that I will never do, and people and organizations I won't work for. Furthermore, I won't put myself in a situation if I can at all avoid it where those I love are at risk rather than just myself -- but at the end of the day, every person should already know where they draw the line, and not shy away from acting if it is crossed. The earlier you act, generally speaking, the less extreme action is required.

> And we live in a society.

Correct.

> So by extension we do already accept that neutral procedures are possible

Doesn't follow.

> and that we have achieved them.

Doesn't follow.

> The English Common Law systems and their derivatives are an astonishing success in achieving general fairness.

That depends entirely upon what you mean by "fairness," which will itself be loaded with presumptions about how the world is and ought to be.

> People arguing against it have, with remarkable consistency, failed to come up with anything that reaches it's level of neutrality.

Define "neutrality."

> Neutral procedures are a solved problem

If this were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

> the tricky part is convincing the law enforcement system to do things by the book.

"Draw the rest of the owl."