Please stop perpetuating this myth- started by Eric Raymond and happily encouraged by SV "thought leaders"- that hackers must, by definition, be laissez-faire capitalists who love Ayn Rand and treat breaking laws as a noble goal in and of itself. I do none of those things, because I recognize that many times regulations are vital for ensuring human health and happiness, and think that free-for-all capitalism leads mostly to misery for all but a few in the plutocracy. "We can do beter" implies not settling for a world like that.
Other people don't have to agree with my politics, but if they want to say I'm "not a hacker" because of that, they can take their very-politically-motivated prescriptivism and... well, I got told by dang the other day and I'm trying to cut down on the angry HN posts because of it, but you get the idea.
I agree. The regulations created for the war on drugs has lifted millions of African Americans out of poverty and into group-oriented communities that promise shelter, free food, and at least one hour of happiness per day.
Nice strawman. Luckily I didn't say anything about esr, laissez-faire, capitalism, or Ayn Rand in the post you replied to. Hell, I didn't even say that breaking the law is a "noble goal in and of itself".
All I'm saying is that it's disturbing to me how so many HN'ers have just completely sold out to the idea that the State is their proper master, and should regulate / control pretty much everything and anything. It seems to me that in the past, there was a more individualist / freedom oriented mindset around sites like this - whether it was from "American style libertarians" or socialist anarchists or whatever. Personally I find the change to be a bit depressing.
Sure you can. Laws aren't magical and there's nothing about the State that gives it any actual innate authority.
What gives the state its authority is that me and three hundred million other people continue to give the state its authority. Break a severe enough law and we'll take away your freedom of movement for a while.
Behold, society!
Since when does hackerdom constitute blindly following dogma, whether it be libertarian or not?
Furthermore, even supposed would-be laissez-faire capitalists know this- I doubt that startups pass up the chance to use government policies to their own advantage, or pursue rent-seeking behaviors that help their startups. The perfect libertarian society you envision exists next to the perfect communist society, as utopias that contravene human nature.
In theory. I think we're pretty far removed from that in reality.
Remarkable.
"ultimately, though, the state is still made up of the people it rules."
Well, that's one reason why it can be so dangerous. It's made of humans! :)
Bleat? People would give Uber a pass if they actually created new and innovative technology.
Right now they're much more of a financial services (attracting VC funds) and DC lobbying firm than a technologically innovative company. They have a few (albeit NP complete) interesting technological problems. The rest is mostly legal and finance.
Why wouldn't people complain about companies who try to muscle in with money and lobbying featuring products that are not noticeably superior at all?
Hacker News is fairly progressive/authoritarian. The kind of attitude you describe can still be found on slashdot.
This is one of those places where people will happily sit around and argue that breaking laws is moral and necessary, no matter what the law.
This is one of those places where people will happily sit around and argue that breaking laws is moral and necessary, no matter what the law.
It looks like there are about two of us in that camp, in this discussion, versus pretty much everybody else. It's pretty clear the pendulum has swung and this site is largely oriented towards big government interventionism.
And of course, in their regular operation, many companies routinely pollute the environment: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/05/10722/koch-industries-to...
Funny how libertarians never seem to consider dumping millions of lbs of poison into the environment an "initiation of force", but god forbid government raise taxes by one cent.
It's also worth noting - both of your examples involved the state actually doing the dirty work.
Funny how libertarians never seem to consider dumping millions of lbs of poison into the environment an "initiation of force"
Citation needed - AFAIK there is no such consensus.
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/12/15/1559226/uber-we-don...
When they replace all taxis, do they really think they can just permanently ignore all driving laws?
Since when do hackers bleat about obeying laws and regulations? What happened to having a "we can do better" mindset? Has everybody wigged out and flipped their "I want a nanny state to protect me 24/7" bit?
And as far as that goes... I guess no "certified" taxi driver has ever turned out to be a criminal or done anything to harm a passenger? Me personally, I prefer to exercise some personal discretion and simply decide whether or not I will ride with a particular Uber driver, or cabbie, or Lyft driver, or whatever, based on my own judgment in the moment, as opposed to abdicating responsibility to either the State or a corporation.