Violence is a law of nature and a law of human history. Voting was created as an alternative to violence - I think most of us have forgotten that. Voting allows us to achieve similar results as the former solution (killing powerful people who abuse their power), but without anyone actually having to die.
It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. And if that happens, whoever starts first has the advantage of surprise.
Game theory is the most powerful force on the planet, and it sucks.
According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.
> According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.
Ironically, this is the only line that I see that goes against the forum's expectations for decorum. What do you think you would otherwise be punished for saying? (And to be honest, I don't think the last line adds _anything_ to the discussion.)
The forum doesn't just have civility standards; it also has standards for the content of what you say. Apparently it's not allowed to make claims about politics. You have to say "I think" in front of everything.
I've been informed that positive statements about politics aren't really allowed on HN - they're "too ideological" - and my account has been restricted for making too many of them. As I understand, it's allowed to say things like "in situation X it wouldn't be surprising that Y" but not to say "because X, Y"
It's not surprising that if voting stops working as an alternative to violence, the world goes back to violence. And if that happens, whoever starts first has the advantage of surprise.
Game theory is the most powerful force on the planet, and it sucks.
According to HN moderators, this is a bad comment and I should be punished for posting it.