Hacker News Reader

There is one difference. When you have a government, it indebts people, who do not necessarily agree or understand the terms and the consequences. You cannot reasonably argue that because 50% voted for that government, 100% should face the consequences.

View on HN

In fact is 100% plus their children and grandchildren. The real percentage of people marked by the debt that voted for the corrupt government is much, much, lower.

Actually, I can reasonably argue that. We get the government the majority wants (subject to filtering by the property holding oligarchy). I would much rather have that than a libertarian dystopia, which would be pure oligarchy in practice.

That's not an argument. That's a preference to which you'd like to forcefully subject people who disagree with you.

It was an argument: it had premises and a conclusion. The premises happen to disagree with yours.

The premise might expose a preference but that's because we are debating politics, wherein at some points up the chain of logical reasoning, one needs to pick preferences among conflicting principles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com