Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthebuilders | Hacker News Reader

We already have that though, it's called repossession. This feature just removes the human barrier and makes it vulnerable to hacking.

View on HN

It removes the risk of a human getting hurt or injured. I can't be the only one that's seen repos gone bad. I'm not talking about that dumb, scripted _reality_ show either

The human getting hurt or injured is a necessary evil against abuse and puts a limit on how unreasonable or petty the lender can be (as the risk of repos is ultimately baked into the commission charged by the goons, thus not making it profitable to repo for minor things).

Same reason why people are generally much more civil in real life than online - the risk of being punched in the face keeps everyone in check and assigns a real cost to assholic behavior.

Ehhhh...really? Physical injury is a necessary risk for enforcement of a legal contract? Where else does this extend?

Does a marriage contract bear the risk of injury? How about a business merger?

This is weird logic that belies a desire for vengeance, not justice.

A fundamental physical limit on corporate greed sounds like a very good thing to me.

Keep in mind that the potential for violence doesn't mean violence has to occur - every party in the contract is still free to not force the other side to resort to violence (which usually happens out of desperation).

I would rather rely on well-structured legal limits rather than brutish physical ones. People who advocate for physical violence as an arbiter of disagreements tend to either be the types who prefer to get their way by strong arming others or have not experienced the devolving of the rule of law for extended periods of time.

Keep in mind that I have never advocated for violence being the primary arbiter of disagreements. In fact, resorting to violence pretty much always turns out poorly for the attacker and is thus not a winning strategy - it is usually done out of desperation more than anything else.

The possibility of someone reacting unreasonably however keeps everyone more honest and assigns an actual cost to pushing people to a situation where they will resort to violence out of desperation.

That possibility exists regardless; someone can always create a "Falling Down" scenario when they're fed up. But I don't see any real advantage to a civilized society in increasing the possibility of the equivalent of vigilante justice.

I'm not talking about some kind of organized, premeditated, high-cost vigilante operation like making people fall out of windows (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "falling down" scenario?).

I'm talking about the repo goon having to risk that the car leasee he's repossessing from being at their breaking point (because that car is the only way they can keep their job and avoid losing everything) and/or mentally unstable and pulling out a gun or a crowbar and thus pricing this risk into their services (or outright declining the job if it feels too sketchy) which ultimately trickles back up to the lender and encourage them to let go or be more lenient with this particular case (something they'd have no reason to do if they could turn the car off remotely).

“Falling Down” was a reference to the movie by the same name.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a threat of violence from the enforcement of a contract. There’s a reason why we tend to give the monopoly of (non-self-defense) violence to the government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com