Hacker News Reader

Comment by buro9 | Hacker News Reader

It's not that black and white.

Working on missile guidance? Then I can see your point of view... but everything else in some way facilitates or contributes to facilitating such things.

One can rapidly reduce it to "fixing a Linux bug... facilitates the military industrial complex". You might wish to not work on things that directly are used by the military, but the vast majority of technology is indirectly used because the military and their supporting companies, processes, logistics is so broad that it's almost everything.

At which point can you say your work truly does not facilitate or contribute?

View on HN

I am not trying to over-simplify, but should I stop buying goods and services because the taxes taken on these transactions benefit the military?

The dividing line varies from person to person, of course. I think most would agree that improving a guidance algorithm for missile targeting is directly supporting the military. Fixing a kernel bug is not directly supporting the military. I'm a pacifist and I would go by my definition of direct support.

A group of Quakers drafted a law in the 60s that would have allowed them to pay their taxes to UNICEF instead of the US treasury for that reason.

The concept is called “Conscientious objection to military taxation”

I know of an immigrant couple that although they were green card holders and have been living in the US for about 10 years, they decided to pack up and leave to Europe (to another foreign country, not to their native country) and one of the reasons they said was that they didn't want their tax money to support an immoral government and military. It seemed weird to me at the time, was the first time I ever heard someone say that for a reason to leave the US but they seemed dead serious and knowing them I have no reason to belief they were lying...

What a luxury to be a pacifist. Definition of 1st world privilege.

So because other people might not be in such a position, I shouldn't use my ability to choose not to support the military?

No and I never said that nor implied it but you should recognize that it is absolutely a luxury. There are people around the world literally fighting for their right to exist while you sit here on your "Moral High Ground" as though your position is unassailable but it isn't.

So basically, you're complaining that some people do have the ability to take a stand.

Here's the deal: Yes, some people are not as fortunate. That does not matter one iota in this conversation. Just because others have it worse does not in any way, shape, or form mean that we shouldn't continue fighting for better. You complaining about this is nothing more than you advocating a race to the bottom.

Right, what about Microsoft Office? I'm sure that's used by some military. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it makes up a vital part in planning real military operations, where people die.

But would you refuse to work on Office if you worked at MS?

There's some in the military that'd beg you not to work on MS Office - specifically Powepoint:

http://theweek.com/articles/673091/general-mattis-save-milit...

[Genuine question: New here, is this style of post too Reddit for HN?]

I think it's okay. Just a small quip thrown in from the side that's still relevant to the topic of discussion. It would not be okay (IMO) if you tried to derail the discussion to focus on your link instead; in this case, a regular submission should be made.

To be fair you should just refuse to work on PowerPoint because you will save millions, potentially billions of hours of other people's time that have to endure those presentations.

Crimes against humanity.

Imho, the important thing is the degree to which a comment contributes or adds information to the discussion.

So something like linking an article about PPT overuse in the military w/ a quip is much better than just a quip at PPT's expense. (Given that some people might not be aware of the reported overuse of PowerPoint in the US military)

Ha. I was going to say death by PowerPoint. Or even PowerPoint commandos. I hated working with PowerPoint when I was in the USMC.

Including the article makes it an interesting tangent in my view.

This is me speaking for them but it seems to me that they mean to say that the point where they draw the line is where you take a contract/business from the military. In other words, if they are paying you that is over the line. Working on missile guidance for NASA? That's okay. Working on a text processor for the military? That's not okay.

This seems like a reasonable way to draw a line. Obviously things get questionable as they might work for a company that has a contract with a company that has a military contract. How can they be sure that their work won't be used as a part of that contract?

But as a start I think this framework isn't so bad. Probably better than something I would be able to come up with on the spot

Maybe we need a “War Dove GPL”?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com