[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle, and we ban such accounts regardless of what they're battling for or against. I've therefore banned this one. If anyone wants further explanation, see these links:
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Darwinism predates "Darwinism". Yours is not an argument.
People traded before states existed.
Rational actors didn't appear at the date when the model description of capitalism was defined. People kept slaves because they could (obviously). We can argue that they either did this for profit or for laughs. I know what I'd bet.
> You should also read George Fitzhugh, the most prominent representative of anti abolitionist plantation owners. He was a staunch anti-capitalist specifically because the moral framework it is built on humanized black people and this sentiment was a primary driver in the abolitionist movement. Capitalists and abolitionists were extremely closely associated during the abolitionist movement.
"We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism: the former proposes to abolish negro slavery, the latter all kinds of slavery - religion, government, marriage, families, property - nay, human nature itself. Yet the former contains the germ of the latter, and very soon ripens into it; Abolition is Socialism in its infancy." - George Fitzhugh
> > Maximizing rights and freedoms on the macro scale means limiting some people's edge freedoms on the micro scale.
> No it doesn't. It means preventing others from stepping on universal freedoms of others, which is exactly the philosophical foundations of private property.
Meaning someone enforces your right to property from someone else having a different idea of freedoms.
You're not contradicting me. We can only have rights and freedoms by collectively agreeing where those limits are, and enforcing them as a society. That's what laws and regulations do.
> The FAA is heavily dependent on aircraft manufacturers to self certify. EU members met in Brussels to discuss the exact metrics VW was spoofing, but failed to implement a measurement strategy that would have easily detected this manipulation due to pressure from companies regarding the expense and time of tests.
Furthering this line of thought, are you suggesting that these companies complaining about expense and time of tests would volunteer into a trade organization (and pay for it no less, which is how they exist), that of course would still require the same tests to be effective? Otherwise the end result would just be another certification that consumers would want before buying, but wouldn't mean anything unless they entail stringent tests.
> You cannot substantiate this assertion. If the state did not have easily captured, monopolistic, and absolute authority over the certification and other confidence-instilling industries, then it's highly likely trustworthy, neutral third parties would exist and compete to assess and verify the safety and other metrics of various industry. In the restaurant industry, ServSafe and its competitors are a great example.
Not to knock the service industry, but airplanes and cars are a bit more complicated to evaluate.
> There's also tons of nongovernmental safety and quality certifications in plenty of other fields with the potential for catastrophic failure and loss of human life.
I would be much more interested in examples here.
> Please actually read some of the foundational literature. Pretty much everything you've said is explicitly addressed.
So please address it using your already obtained knowledge instead of dodging.