Hacker News Reader

Comment by SerLava | Hacker News Reader

>We all choose to spend time here anyway, because he does a good job responding to our needs.

>A lot of things work this way, in fact. When you go to a restaurant, you don't get to vote on the menu. You order what's there.

The problem isn't that someone else might choose something for you. That's not what anyone is worried about here. An incredibly silly comparison.

The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.

View on HN

> The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end.

This is the environment, as it exists, for hundreds of millions around the world right now. So even if your critiques are true, we're no worse for trying.

Surely investing in and supporting putting even more people in such a position, rather than helping those already in it, is obviously worse?

> The problem isn't that someone else might choose something for you. That's not what anyone is worried about here. An incredibly silly comparison.

> The environment they are trying to set up makes them unaccountable and undemocratic, capable of entrapping and exploiting people to no end. The potential actual consequences are infinitely greater than condiment selection.

Explain to me what you think the difference between "undemocratic" and "people choosing things for you" is.

I promise I will do that for you if you tell me you are having trouble differentiating between an organization physically capturing you and locking you in a box, versus an organization deciding which brand of mayonnaise they will bring to your table.

Which organization is physically capturing you and locking you in a box, here?

The unaccountable billionaire rulers of the oceanic fief who went to incredible expense for the sole purpose of escaping democratic accountability.

Ok. So don't move there.

Holy Christ.

Do you understand that if these types of fiefdoms are built, they will be able to attract people with misleading claims or by dangling short-term economic relief in front of desperate people who they can then ruthlessly victimize?

Maybe you do, and you just think "ah fuck em"

Which is in character for the types of people who want to start a fiefdom in the ocean.

I'm gonna have to recommend you pick up BioShock, for real. It's on sale for 5 dollars.

You're making a bunch of very weird assumptions about what's going to happen. All of which apply to the formation of literally any new country. You're not making any specific arguments about these structures and why they would lead to this. Your argument is a blanket argument against all forms of experimentation in this regard.

Some people like to try new things, and they're ok taking risks to do so. They should be allowed to do that. If you want to make a rule that says "such and such amount of disclosure is required for people moving there", i'd be fine supporting something like that. But just saying "well theoretically it could be exploited in this way" is not a very strong argument against trying it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com