I'm Allowed to Rob You!

What Hacker News said

Recommends anoncowherd · 2013-12 · on “Edward Snowden, after months of NSA revelations, says his mission’s accomplished”

The only way to "solve" the problem is to spread awareness of it. Political authority is the idea that a small group of people "has the right" to impose their will on everyone else. In reality though, they obviously do not. Everyone has the exact same rights (and they don't include coercing other people), and you can't delegate rights you do not have. But the belief in political authority is the root cause of practically all problems in today's world. Once the "Authority Religion" unravels, so does mankind's enslavement: [this video]

Recommends sillygeese · 2015-08 · on “Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows”

Yeah, speaking the truth tends to get you downvoted. People are silly and emotional. But it's nice to see another independent thinker here. I've noticed you before. Don't pay much attention to the political circus though, the false choice between "Demopublicans". That's all smoke and mirrors to make you think you have a say in how you're "governed" (i.e. coerced ). > The current mess of the US economy is due to the choices of many politicians, in congress and the presidency, from both parties. It's much deeper than that. The dollar was detached from the gold standard in 1971, and that was the beginning of "the real end". Before that, the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 set the s

Recommends HiYaBarbie · 2015-09 · on “America’s Fragile Constitution”

In reality, it's not that complicated. Here's all you need to know about the Constitution: [this video]

Recommends kakapupu · 2017-03 · on “Anger as US internet privacy law scrapped”

> I do not understand. I thought that in the current climate, where people are becoming increasingly aware and concerned about privacy, that such laws would be expanded in scope. It's very simple. The government is not working towards our interests, but their own. That applies to every government everywhere, all throughout history, because all governments are populated by psychopaths. They don't want you to have any privacy at all. Instead, they want to monitor everything you say and do, because it helps them maintain their rule over you. Red Pill: [this video] Oh and by the way, this account will be shadowbanned, because HN is controlled by psychopaths too, and anti-government (=pro-sanity) post

Cites whatevsbro · 2014-03 · on “ Schneier Born Yesterday?”

I'll try to keep this brief, in case you won't respond again. And yeah, this is getting too taxing on my time too :p > For one thing, I might want to control the laptop you paid for, so it's clearly leaving something important out. Blindingly obviously, "value you want to control" only applies when you've produced or legitimately acquired that value, through a voluntary exchange for example. But I think this idea covers all property, regardless of whether it's a house or a book you wrote. There's no point in bickering about "what if you don't want to control the value you've produced? -is it property then?" .. etc, what you want to do with value under your control is up to you. As for an app

Cites whatevsbro · 2014-03 · on “Obama to Call for End to N.S.A.’s Bulk Data Collection”

> The other alternative is if the Supreme court rules spying is unconstitutional but then they are just ignored by the Executive branch Is there any doubt that mass surveillance is "unconstitutional"? Do you think the people organizing the surveillance (ie. establishing the police state) give a fuck? > for now there is still constitutionally protected rights and limited government Constitutionally protected rights, such as Bradley Manning's habeas corpus, perhaps? Limited government? -Oh please. The takeaway here is that strangely enough, a piece of parchment written 200+ years ago cannot magically prevent tyranny in 2014. (Much like the very same parchment cannot magically grant some people

Cites whatevsbro · 2014-04 · on “Popcorn Time Devs Drop Like Flies But No One Will Talk”

>> we should not have rulers > Explain "should not"? It’s a violation of our rights, for starters. Second, it doesn’t benefit society at large. A ruler’s rule only benefits himself, and his cronies. And finally, as the “If You Were King” video explained, you can’t be a “good ruler” - there’s no such thing, because whatever good you’d like to accomplish, is financed by the immorality of robbing people for taxes. Besides, whatever you wanted to accomplish would require people doing something to that end, and they’d either do it voluntarily (and your rule would be unnecessary), or you’d have to force them and then you’re just being a thug. > Life's unfair. Rule of law applies in some sense - if

Cites sillygoose · 2015-05 · on “Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck”

Yeah, we can agree that utility is non-linear. What we haven't established yet is: "so what?" :) > I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used". Why would it be hypocritical? I'm not advocating for someone else using your property, nor for helping some through harming others. > However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1] Didn't we already conclude that evidence is really quite meaningless in this discussion? It's not difficult to find statistics and arti