Hacker News Reader

Comment by voakbasda | Hacker News Reader

Yes, unquestionably. The question is not whether it is happening; the real issue is what does anyone think we can we do about it.

The bigger problem is that’s also exactly how the government works: I never opted into any of the laws to which I am subjected, and I have zero bargaining power. The entire premise of our civilization is effectively based on such bad faith. Good faith would be more akin to referendums rhat give the public the chance to affirm or strike any or all existing laws on the books.

Which is why I now endorse violent revolution. Reform is not a realistic option. Those in power demonstrate every single day the kind of bad faith that deserves a firing squad. I would rather endure the terror of anarchy than suffer this tyranny for much longer. Things are not going to get better any other way.

View on HN

Do you believe that after a revolution a new and more benign organization would arise? Wouldn't it be a democracy? What could type of organization could it be? Anarchies with millions of members don't exist, some kind of organization arises with systems at that scale.

If people don't analyze in detail what the politicians that they vote plan to do, why would they act wisely at referendums? Depending on how a certain idea is framed by the media, the same idea may be seen as good or bad. And it's not possible to make a referendum for every one of the thousands of laws we have. The democracy with representatives was created in part because of practical reasons regarding the labor of studying the laws.

The biggest change that needs to happen is the dissolution of nation states. All of them. They are top-down authoritarian regimes (every last one of them, don’t pretend otherwise) and have no place in the modern world that espouses democratic ideals.

Instead, I want to see local governments become the first-class line of order. County/provincial/regional government would be nothing more than an emergent property of local governments banding together, pooling resources from the bottom up. The current top-down model of federal taxation and trickle-down funding is completely backwards.

Anarchy is a necessary part of the transition, because the existing power structures or not going to peaceably dismantle themselves and transfer power to “lesser” powers that previously would have been groveling at their feet for scraps.

> Anarchy is a necessary part of the transition

perhaps a rebranding is necessary

how about... Freedom Prime. Super Freedom. Hyperliberty

You believe that from anarchy, benign local governments would arise. And that a benign emerging regional government would emerge from that.

I may be mistaken, but I don't see any reason for that situation to happen. We humans started with groups, then they organized as tribes, then as regional governments, and then national states. And the bigger entities had power to assimilate either by force or by diplomacy smaller entities. Why would it occur differently this time?

> And the bigger entities had power to assimilate either by force or by diplomacy smaller entities. Why would it occur differently this time?

maybe the final form is one giant super-state, made up of smaller nation-states, itself containing multiple city-states, surrounded and cooperating with neighboring estates

League of Nations -> UN -> ???

hope it doesnt take a third WW to clear that up :(

Global instantaneous communication? Because we all should know better by now?

But, really, I don’t expect things to go any differently. Tyranny is here, and it is here to stay. It is unacceptably bad now, and it will only get worse. This is what I believe will happen, which is fully independent from what I would like to see happen

Expect more domestic terrorism everywhere. From both the people in protest and from the governments in response. Already, I see the government committing acts of terrorism (shielded under the cloak of “authority”) on a daily basis, and I hope some people will at least finally have enough and stop bending over to take it without a fight.

See what happened in Serbia: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/serbia-votes-students-s...

Also, I think big and powerful government would implement very strong surveillance and stop any kind of revolution, even stop every nascent seed of revolution and control every communication medium. The acts of terrorism would be sufficient justification for an increase in control and surveillance.

So, as a summary, I think that it's a better idea to try to improve the system from within and peacefully, and that observing what happened in Serbia may be helpful.

Yeah, let’s see how it plays out in Serbia. Never has there ever been a state level transition that did not lead back to tyranny.

The problem is that all politicians on a national stage are utter sociopaths, just like the C-level executives of every large corporation. These institutions cannot be managed by people with real emotions and empathy; the scale of their operations make it literally impossible. We simply need to make it illegal for such institutions to exist in the first place, except ephemerally through collective action.

Douglas Adams had it right: anyone that wants to hold an office of power should under no circumstances be elected to such a position.

If you make national states illegal, a large national state that arises in another part of the world where they don't follow your preferred rules and allow big states, may conquer the smaller states.

To impose a rule like "no national states" you need a world scale big and powerful organization. And somebody would govern it.

I wonder, would it be possible to filter sociopaths from politics?

> would it be possible to filter sociopaths from politics?

"You are walking along the beach. You see a tortoise laying on its back in the hot sun. You don't help it get up; why is that?"

What I've never understood about this perspective is, surely you agree that the revolution isn't going to happen until you convince at least a substantial plurality to agree with you? At which point why not just convince them to vote with you?

> I never opted into any of the laws to which I am subjected, and I have zero bargaining power.

the balance seemed to lie with the body of the citizen of the state: if someone didnt agree with their leader/laws, they simply laid down their arms when a benevolent invader / reformer arrives

it doesn't have to be violent

It will be violent, because that is how the existing powers maintain control. They will not relinquish it peacefully.

> because that is how the existing powers maintain contro

if that's how existing powers maintain control, then the new status quo _cannot_ be violent

otherwise it would just be another participant in the existing power struggle

it seems impossible because it hasn't happened, but that doesnt mean it cant necessarily. we discover new things about our selves every day :)

There will never be power without violence.

> There will never be power without violence.

not with that attitude :P

Reply on news.ycombinator.com