Hacker News Reader

Comment by danbruc | Hacker News Reader

Well, if there was I new guy around and he refused to steal a getaway car while I and my friends were preparing to steal the crown jewels, I know which guy I would be suspicious of. Also if I knew an agent is allowed to steal cars but not to beat up people, I know what I would ask the new guy to do. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs is a different question but if you concluded that it is a net positive then there is at least this argument to not be too public about it.

View on HN

You'd hire a 'new guy' when planning to rob the Crown Jewels?

I guess I'd suggest not considering crime as a profession.

There's a really tough interview process. They make you plan a heists on a whiteboard. 5 rounds of technical interviews. Very merit based though. You don't even need a rap-sheet to get hired.

> You don't even need a rap-sheet to get hired.

I'd personally want the guy that's good at not getting caught...

It's funny, back when I used to hang with, umm, "suspect" folks they'd look at me strange when I'd tell them the only time I've ever been in the back of a police car was after I crashed the SuperBeetle and got a ride from the investigating officer while transporting (minor quantities of) marijuana. Not enough street cred I suppose.

Plus, it would be really counterproductive to hire set-in-their-ways old lags if you're planning to disrupt crime.

> if I knew an agent is allowed to steal cars but not to beat up people, I know what I would ask the new guy to do.

See my other comment. The thing about state actors is resource and information asymmetry. It can be really difficult to pick a "random person to beat up" who doesn't happen to be an undercover agent. Given there's enough of an interest.

It's a little like cheating at cards: it's much easier with two "strangers" working covertly together, than being one person. You can count the card and lose, and your partner just so happens to win...

The argument of the net gain is flawed. A hallmark of modern, free societies is that it's exactly not one for all, but the right and freedom of the individuum.

This is not true at all. All modern societies limit personal freedom in countless ways for the better of the entire society. And those limits are not flaws of the current systems, i.e. you will not get a better societies by abolishing them. There are still some instances where we should abolish limits on personal freedom for the better but this is certainly not the general case.

This part of the thread is becoming ridiculous.

In all societies at all times there is some system to act against the interest of some people under some conditions. That is trivial. What differentiates modern free societies, then?

Modern free societies are characterized by a system of law that not only the weak must obey, but also the powerful. Everbodies basic rights are protected, even against the government.

Sure, we pay taxes, and cooperate by compromise in countless ways. However, that's not what we are talking about here, at all!

There is simply no way a government can lawfully kill a citizen to help some others, at least not in the EU, whatever the net gain may. That is just one obvious example of how the argument of the net gain is simply overruled by modern principles of basic human rights.

But it is not known which laws they are allowed to break and which not, you just mentioned killing people for the first time, neither I nor the article did this. What about breaking into houses to plant bugs? I would actually be surprised if they were not allowed to do this.

And I picked the example of beating someone up not totally at random, people went to court against the MI5 and MI6 because of their involvement with deportation of British citizens to Guantanamo [1] which may or may not turn out to be a worse fate than getting beaten up in a dark alley.

And last but not least, the licence to kill [2] seems to be an actual thing.

[1] http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_to_kill_(concept)

That's anarchy. Societies are societies because they put the good of the group above the good of the individual.

> Societies are societies because they put the good of the group above the good of the individual.

Doesn't necessarily make a society good (aka righteous).

No, but putting the needs of the individual before the needs of the group does create a bad society.

The individuum? Getting into /r/iamverysmart territory here...

The hallmark of unfree societies is the the right and freedom of the individual. (So long as they are part of the chosen group.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com