I don't agree with destroying hitchbot.

However, I can see a strong social justice argument for destroying the property of people who gain profit and/or power from destroying the lives of others. Their behaviors are profitable and there is no legal means to make their behaviors unprofitable, so doing illegal things that cost them money, such as destroying their property, is the only means to dis-incentivize their behavior.

I do think destruction of property can be an ethical action, but I don't think it's a smart thing to do for legal reasons.

By what process are you going to determine what constitutes "destroying the lives of others"?

Ugh, what a small-minded question. If you can't figure out a definition of "destroying the lives of others" that works for you, that's a failure of your own imagination. Use your brain. Just because there are a myriad of valid answers doesn't mean it's a deep, difficult question.

I think the post you're replying to was mostly just trying to propose a possible narrative to explain this incident. We have no reason to believe this particular narrative is true, but trying to understand the motives for other people's actions is a healthy exercise, I think, and I'd be interested in hearing some of your possible explanations.

Police cars.

Anything belonging to rich people who couch their criticism in passive-aggressively neutral musing, I should expect.

Please don't make throwaway accounts to conduct political flamewars on HN.

Please don't conduct political flamewars on HN at all.

It's a sense of realism where only those rights have meaning, that you can up hold, with brute force, the same way wealth f.ex. allows threatening and engaging adversaries with lawyers and court fees.