On HN, it's an item of debate. HN is the only place I've ever had to explain that a quasi-military benevolent dictatorship is an incredibly wonderful idea and would be great for installing if only we could trust anyone who was actually part of it.

Which is why HN is a really bad place for political articles. HN attracts people who believe in momentous change, rather than incremental change: no matter how many times it's pounded in that startups aren't a get-rich-quick scheme, you still have people who think that their big idea is going to make them the CEO of the next Internet giant.

My initial comment was in no way intended to to imply that "a military dictatorship is better than a democracy." That was a construct of your imagination. Many of those whom I referred to as being in uniform are civilians, such as police officers, and I hope that any subsequent government imposed by such action would be a Constitutional Republic in nature since I favor the precepts set forth by the aforementioned Constitution.

As for your failed interpretations of my intent and arguing such points, by your continued comments on this matter you are displaying your own willingness to argue this point.