Hacker News Reader

Comment by indeed_thetruth | Hacker News Reader

This argument is trivially inconsistent. The state must protect liberty by interfering with one's liberty?

State interfence is a direct transgression against an individual's liberty. Thus far the majority has decided that such interfence is a greater evil than the "inequality" that it could reconcile.

View on HN

The only way to have the freedom from being punched in the nose, is by taking away the freedom to punch people in the nose, punishing punchers with more nose-punching, but constrained by due-process (peer-reviewed violence).

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes!

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltwhitma132584...

(You dropped a clause.)

I contradict myself and mis-quote Whitman.

That's the point.

Which is why the most morally consistent position is to be an anarchist. Perhaps not practical in many cases, but morally defensible.

Anarchism is a paradox though. Because it doesn't exist naturally. We always develop some kind of hierarchy. To do away with hierarchy, we need some kind of enforcement body. And how do we get that without some kind of hierarchy?

I'm kind of anarchic myself, in that I like decentralization of power and resources.

I think the key is to realize that no ideology will work by itself in its absolutist form. Rather we try to get close to it.

So the question to me is, how do we get relative equality without losing the benefits of companies like Google and Amazon.

It's a hard problem. Maybe we're already at the best compromise?

There's a difference between "statelessness" anarchism and the type of anarchism entirely opposed to power structures or other forms of central authority.

"It's full of contradictions!"

"So is independence!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com