Hacker News Reader

Comment by kriops | Hacker News Reader

As long as the companies in question aren't monopolies on violence, it's a complete non-issue. So with that in mind, why would any sane person want to impose such an inefficient mechanism to allocate resources and make decisions within a company or corporation?

The only good thing about democracy in the context of a state, after all, is that every other alternative is worse. But that is strictly because of the fundamentally violent nature of the concept of a state, which does not apply to companies or corporations.

View on HN

Violence is not always physical. The likes of Meta have subjected the world to unfathomable violence, but we give them a pass because we can't see the scars with our eyes.

Huh? Violence is defined as the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy. If you mean "harm", please use that word instead of wrongly using another.

The guy who whispers in the king’s ear also has an effective monopoly on violence.

What we’ve learned over the last half century is that extreme wealth disparities lead to extreme power disparities. Coercion doesn’t just emanate from the state.

You should educate yourself about corporate violence both inside and outside the US - the use of intimidation and murder for strike breaking, the role the Pinkerton agency, the original meaning of "banana republic."

It's tragic - but not accidental - there's no mention of any of this in schools or any public memory of it.

It's tragic, but it was also illegal, and that's a crucial distinction.

Illegal things happen all the time. The current president has committed many crimes and suffered no punishment. Elon Musk is an illegal immigrant. Uber was completely illegal but they did it anyway. The law isn't actually the law - the real law is what gets enforced.

[flagged]

violence is defined specifically as the use of physical force, and I expect the other commentator you're replying to specifically chose that word for a reason.

No, it isn't. Every single definition of violence includes forms other than just physical.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation

That's a pretty broad definition. In this context it refers to physical violence only, which is the same definition you'll find in most dictionaries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com