Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hokusai | Hacker News Reader

> Why would the people want the government to fight a business that they could voluntarily avoid, without any government intervention whatsoever?

In my case, I am willing to pay more to the local shop if everybody is doing it. If Im the only one, the benefit is lost but I personally pay the cost.

You can see it as a community agreement. When I travel with friends we agree to pay each one a lunch, it is way faster than to pay individually. But, I agree to do it because all of us agree. If Im the only one, the it is problematic.

View on HN

Except that you and your friends agreed to do this voluntarily. I want to shop at Amazon and I don't want to pay for a government alternative that's a sop to obstreperous and uncompetitive local retailers. I'm buying your lunch twice.

> I want to shop at Amazon and I don't want to pay for a government alternative

And I want abortion to not be restricted, and that other person wants to discriminate by age, and that other one wants to throw the trash to the street or I want let my factory dump dangerous chemicals into a river.

Democracy is NOT perfect. But, it is a great solution. Even if sometimes you need to follow a law that you do not fully agree with. And, if it does not work you are free to express your side of the story, go to the justice system if the laws are unconstitutional, and also vote differently next time. That's a very good system.

No - democracy and social responsibility aren’t perfect and I’m fine with that. But don’t dress up coercion and force as “community agreement” and compare it to a bunch of friends who’ve agreed to voluntarily pay for each other’s lunches.

I haven’t agreed to anything and you’re forcing me to pay for this. You’ve got my money. But you don’t get to delude yourself that you have my willing cooperation.

"In my case, I am willing to pay more to the local shop if everybody is doing it. If Im the only one, the benefit is lost but I personally pay the cost."

But a significant number of people should be wanting to do it - after all, the elected government wants it. So at least 30% of the people or so should want it, the ones who elected the government.

30% of people should be enough to keep some local shops afloat?

Also, I don't get the analogy of sharing travel costs. Shopping locally doesn't get cheaper if more people do it. Unless you build a huge mall, if that is what you want.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com