14 Killed in anti-government protests in Nepal

Funny that you say that. I am by no means a countryside person, I'm as urbanite as any other. But while I never was in Iowa or Ohio (save for a short layover), I lived in West Michigan, and therefore in the Midwest, for some time; and yes, despite the climate being quite different, things seemed somewhat familiar to me in many aspects.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Every democratic country has professional lobbyists.

> Corporations are centralized entities that have access to a lot of money and (also through money) to lobbying specialists

Indeed the purpose of money is to purchase goods and services. That doesn't contradict anything that I said. My point is that you don't need a lot of money to lobby. There are plenty of people who are willing to lobby for just causes for their bare minimum expenses. Nowadays, people have forgotten it is even an option.

> Normal citizens face and uphill struggle in every step - they have to get organized, get money, get specialists.

Achieving goals requires investment and effort. Boo hoo. The demographic that frequents HN absolutely has the time and money to make meaningful changes in the world that they complain about, yet they act like they're helpless victims.

> Shouldn't voting for the people who represent your interests be actually enough?

For one, voters only care about vibes. They don't give a shit about policy. Mitch McConnell reassured fellow Republicans that voters would "get over" the Medicaid cuts. He may be evil, but he is good at what he does and is 100% correct here. This attitude goes across the political spectrum. The most popular politicians on the left (e.g. AOC and Sanders) have some of the weakest

Even in a best case scenario of an informed voter base, voting still isn't enough. Politicians and their dozen or so staffers can't be experts in every aspect of society.

> Colonisation of North America was not a central plan.

It's almost as if you brought up a famine in a different continent. Colonization of land and resources is different from the colonization of a people, which is central planning.

> Ultimately, it is not about who has the power and where does the legitimacy of power come from, but how is that power wielded.

I don't really disagree with anything below.

Incentivizing victims to behave in certain ways such as not fighting back makes it easier to determine victim and aggressor.

I never said victims have power. Just that victimhood is encouraged from a young age.

It used to be normal for kids to fight and for parents to teach them to always fight back, stand up for others, do not let injustice stand, etc. Oh and do not tell on others, nobody likes a rat. Now the message is to not fight or you might get hurt, tell an adult to resolve conflicts, everything you do might have consequences later so be careful about what you do or say. There are schools where if two kids fight, both get suspended. You're literally not allowed to defend yourself. I've seen a video of a girl getting beaten in the head while she was lying on her desk, waiting for it to be over.

And you're right, victims have no power to influence those in positions of power. But victimhood is used as a weapon against those on the same level of power by making the "authorities" punish them for victimizing you.

It works on multiple levels of severity.

Online, if you're in a place which forbids swearing, you provoke others into swearing at you and they get punished - you used mods against them. At school, you make yourself cry and go tell the teacher what supposedly happened - you used the teachers against them. At work, you do pretty much the same thing, minus crying if you're a man. Using the legal system in this way is harder because unlike the previous places, it requires a certain level of proof which is harder to fabricate but false accusations do happen, not with the intent to be prosecuted but as a method of slander through a third party. Look how many men are afraid to make the first move because of the low-probability high-severity event that the woman sees it as harassment.

Yes. Does your business have people who second guess local laws and customs according to their higher sense or morality?

> the general concept of freedom is pretty universal

No it’s not. To some freedom is doing whatever you want. To some freedom is free from bad choices and unhappiness. To others, freedom is for themselves and not others.

> Secondly, ideas of western origin might well be widely supported by people anywhere.

You’re still missing where this is a responsibility for operating a business.

> Will you be entirely amoral and cooperate with any laws

That’s what businesses generally do, yes. And they use the legal system to fight laws they disagree with.