Hacker News Reader

Comment by walrus01 | Hacker News Reader

reminds me a little bit of when ubiquiti networks got phished to redirect a SWIFT wire transfer to a different location, and had to report it on their 10Q

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ubiquit...

at least the SEC requirements for publicly traded companies requires them to disclose it. it's kind of funny that a for profit corporation has more transparency going on in its disclosure of getting scammed than a municipal government entity.

View on HN

You find it funny, but this is by design. Governments are not benevolent parties, gifts of the gods to society.

Companies aren't either, but at least we can choose which companies we deal (not for everything, but still for many things) and companies can't use violence against us. We can't choose governments (if you live in a "democratic" state, you can choose a politician, which is another thing) and if you don't subscribe to what they impose, they have an excuse to use violence against you and your family.

EDIT: private bodies in theory can use violence, but then we also can fight back in legitimate defense. This doesn't apply to governmental violence.

You can't choose to opt out of the city government of Fresno? I think it's pretty easy, I'm often not subjected to it.

You'll just end up in another one just like it...

This is very circular. You prefer companies to the state, because we can chose which companies we deal with and companies can’t use violence. But it’s the state that says companies can’t use violence.

I don't prefer companies, just don't like the idea that other people can use violence against me and it's illegal for me to defend myself.

A monopoly on violence is a necessary condition for being a state. It is something that is true for states but not other things, and it isn't circular to say they are potentially more dangerous for having that attribute.

I think the parent poster’s idea is that a state is a necessary condition for a nonviolent company. In the absence of a state enforcing trade laws you’d just have companies running their own navies and armies to keep the peace, as was the case at times in the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com