Hacker News Reader

Given the choice between having to constantly fight the masses and having to sometimes fight a state that was designed to safeguard freedoms but sometimes infringes upon them, I'll take the latter.

A quick look at how the natural world works is a good enough deterrent: https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/

View on HN

This seems like a false dichotomy. Finding the right balance between individual autonomy and working together for mutual benefit might be a better way to frame it.

>A quick look at how the natural world works is a good enough deterrent: https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/

What does this prove? No being can survive without destroying another being. Moreover, no plant or animal has threatened the entire Earth moreso than nuclear armed States

counterpoint: nuclear-armed USSR, and since then nuclear armed former Soviet Republics with poor nuclear security, definitely including Russia in this. second-counterpoint: global warming is also bad, actually damaging the earth instead of potentially damaging it.

"Moreover, no plant or animal has threatened the entire Earth moreso than nuclear armed States"

Cyanobacteria have accomplished far more than we have on that front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

Reply on news.ycombinator.com