Hacker News Reader

Comment by basil-rash | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

In the spirit of https://existentialcomics.com/comic/289 please familiarize yourself with Hobbes' Leviathan and the concept of state monopoly on violence and the advantages of it before embarrassing yourself with posts like this.

I’m not embarrassed. I occasionally explore contrarian interpretations of events in order to Cunningham a reasonable argument against them into existence. It’s a good exercise in reevaluating one’s internal implicit biases: if no argument exists against hypothesis H, one should reject that hypothesis in favor of the null.

In this case the only argument is “I read a book that says X is good”, which isn’t much of an argument at all. Null hypothesis is looking strong.

You however should be embarrassed for suggesting folks opinions don’t matter if they haven’t read the same books as you.

You completely misunderstood what happened here.

I do not argue with you because it's pointless. I recommended a book as a starter in order to get to a point where we can have a discussion. Some things can't be explained in a short comment.

You embarrassed yourself not with the statement itself but that it makes crystal clear you have no idea about what underpinnings of a modern state, its interaction with society and so forth.

No argument against ~H, or for H, that is.

> Literally: the barbarians with a monopoly over violence who control the land come by to pillage your spoils, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

What makes this analogy particularly funny is that Apple fits the role of the barbarian perfectly. Together with Google they've established an untouchable duopoly and feel empowered to set rules, collect arbitrary fees and threaten violence (banishment) upon every technology company that is forced to work with them.

>violence (banishment)

Are we redefining words to fit our agenda now?

Edit: Downvoting is violence. :-)

Parent comment used the same word to describe fines levied against Apple. It's an analogy, I was just using it in kind.

Nobody is threatening Apple with violence either, merely fines.

Parent comment used “monopoly on violence” correctly: the government can physically show up to your house and forcibly imprison you or even kill you if you resist hard enough. No one else can (legally).

That's great, but it doesn't apply to this situation in a literal sense, so I interpreted it figuratively.

If you're going to police the figurative use of words, why don't you go after the parent poster for describing the situation as "barbaric"?

Our (mostly) democratically elected leaders and regulators are protecting the EU citizens by imposing fines on misbehaving organizations. That's unquestionably civilized behavior.

What do you think happens if the fines aren’t paid? Fines only work because if the implicit threat of violence behind them if the finor is not paid.

What happens? They garnish your wages or corporate bank accounts.

By participating in society, you agree to follow the law, with prescribed penalties for breaking it. If you don't wish to participate in society, then you're free to leave, peacefully.

I've yet to witness or hear about anyone facing violence over an unpaid fine in real life.

The argument being: “they aren’t being violent, they’re just threatening to rob me of everything I have unless I comply with their demands”?

I’d prefer the roughing up scenario.

if the fines arent paid, then apple as a corporation cannot operate in the EU (is banished) there arent going to be EU hit squads rocking up to punch apple executives for not paying fines

You say “cannot”, what does that mean? If they try, who will stop them, and by what means. My guess is they’ll be forcibly imprisoned, and if they resist there is very likely going to be a violent engagement between them and the State.

It's not entirely clear why the power to destroy livelihoods, obtained by monopolistic network effects (ie., racketeering) is substantially different in kind than the power to fine and imprison.

In that, many developers would gladly take a week in prison and a fine, over being banned from the app store; which is, in large effect, banning them from using their (developed, life-time specialised) labour effectively within an economy.

It's weirdness of the rightwing american mentality, especially, that the potential collective physical aggression of the state has a special status in one's oppression (presumably the civil war, etc. plays a large part here).

Since europe's civil wars are long-gone, the most relevant sort of oppression, for most people, is economic and metered out largely by monopolists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com