Hacker News Reader

Comment by breadandcrumbel | Hacker News Reader

In the last few years I had the chance to live in Amsterdam, Buenos Aires, Perth, Sofia and Tel Aviv

From all of those cities Amsterdam and Tel Aviv a lot more innovative and the number of entrepreneurs was high (at least felt like it)

I think that there are few criterions that a city need to have to become a tech hub

- Relatively small city - Society who worship startups and entrepreneurs - Many Programmers and engineers (In Israel every 4 months few hundred talented programmers are releasing from the top units in the Israel Defence Forces, bringing high quality manpower to the ecosystem)

There are probably more criterions, those are just few I thought about now

View on HN

IDF is a great Israel’s advantage. This high quality manpower is not only highly qualified, but also understands hierarchy and is not afraid to take responsibility when needed. The same is valid for Switzerland and their mandatory military service. University cannot replace army.

Unlike IDF, the army is only mandatory for men in Switzerland. A lot of men are also doing alternative services (civil service or civil protection) instead of the army. In 2008 [0], only ~65% of men was declared fit for the military during the recruitment process (on 38.597 young people).

IMO I wouldn't conclude that the "high quality manpower" is due to the half of the half of the population.

[0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20110724085052/http://www.vtg.ad...

I don't understand the down votes (maybe they are anti-Israel?). Heck, I'm pretty libertarian but see the value in a mandatory military service. There's many lessons to be learned in an environment like that including how to effectively work together, take initiative as well as the lifelong relationships you create.

Doesn’t mandatory service violate the Non-Agression Principle[1]? It is after all coercive by definition.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The Non-Aggression Principle has its limits, mainly that we humans are by nature self-centered and tend to short-term, me-focused thinking; we therefore sometimes need to be compelled to do things we don't want to do, sometimes for our own good and sometimes for the good of the society that provides us with the opportunities to do what we do want to do. By analogy, parents know better than young kids what's best for them and for the family; likewise, for some things (I stress some), individuals probably aren't the best judges of what's best for us personally, let alone for the society as a whole that provides the framework for our individual choices.

I wouldn't call the analogy between states and parents insane, but I also wouldn't call it libertarian. In fact it may be the exact opposite of libertarian.

Certainly not libertarian, and I would argue that it should be troubling to anyone who values civil liberties.

I don't claim that it's libertarian. Libertarianism, at least as I understand it, is too simplistic. Personal liberty is of high value, but it shouldn't be made into an idol.

Yes, which I one of the reasons I'm still against it. Just acknowledging the potential upsides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com