Remix clone Hacker News

I didn't get that reading from it at all, just that it was the state of the world in the story and it had it's benefits and downsides like anything else. It wasn't so much a dystopia than a prediction of where our networking, compute and cryptography technology would take the international power structure. I think a part of the depiction was that power structures and hierarchies are emergent and are not symptoms of a dysfunctional social system, and that no matter what the structure of a society is, hierarchies form and injustice still occurs.

The reality I want for humanity is one where we aren't born partially enslaved, which almost all human beings are currently. A world of power structures, but where people can choose their tribe, where we aren't subject to the dictates of others as a consequence of the coordinates where we are born, would be a much more free world.

▲

marcus_holmes 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The protagonists (literally Protagonist in Snow Crash) got to choose because they're connected, wealthy individuals with relevant skills. It's a very privileged viewpoint.

Nell's folks did not get to choose. The implicit dystopia is that of Nell's folks, who don't have skills, don't have connections, and have no way of getting out of their shitty situation.

The flip side of flexible nationality is if you're unwanted. Can nations choose to eject natural-born citizens who will incur too much medical cost during their lives? Or people who don't fit the nation's norms of sexuality, gender identity, religion, whatever? Can you suddenly find yourself ejected from your nation because an algorithm detects something in your profile?

	▲	cgriswald 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Nations can and have done all those things. Possibly an argument can be made that forced nationality based on geography tends to make those things less likely than they are in Stephenson’s fictional world.

▲

em-bee 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

but this doesn't work both ways. in order to be able to freely choose which group to join, no group must be allowed to reject me. otherwise we will end up with a numer of people that are rejected everywhere.

it most not be allowed to remove people from a group, but, if they violate rules they must be given a chance to rehabilitate themselves.

we already have to many people who can't find a group where they are being accepted the way they are, and such a system would only increase that number.

there has to be a balance between both. certain rules depend on the location where i am, and other rules may depend on the culture, and yet again others depend on the family.

i am absolutely for the abolishment of nation states, but we can't abolish local rules. we could reduce some of them though.

▲

big-green-man 2 days ago | parent [-]

> in order to be able to freely choose which group to join, no group must be allowed to reject me.

That's not how free association works. Both the individual and the group, each according to their own criteria, determine if they want to associate with one another.

The same point applies to many of your other arguments.

I don't really think it would increase the number of people who are left behind. There are many left behind people all over the world who on paper have states they belong to, but which the rules of those states leave them cut out of any real participation. If they could participate in whatever groups they currently belong to, with full sovereignty rather than under a state attempting to destroy these groups and subsume them, I think those people would be better off. And, for those few that are unwanted by anyone, much fewer than there are now in a state dominated environment, they can always choose to associate with one another.

There will be rules based on location no matter what you do. You don't need a state for that. People live in places, and they have customs and etiquette and rules of decorum. You probably won't be able to walk around naked in Kabul no matter whether there's a state or not.

	▲	em-bee 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There will be rules based on location no matter what you do. You don't need a state for that. People live in places, and they have customs and etiquette and rules of decorum. You probably won't be able to walk around naked in Kabul no matter whether there's a state or not. the state is needed to protect this person from undue punishment and give them a fair trial. the same goes for benign things like traffic violations or for murder. the moment where a rule violation crosses multiple groups you get an issue with jurisdiction. the only way to resolve that is by having an entity governing rules for the locality. otherwise justice can't be enforced. now again, we don't need the nation states from today to do that. a global system would be better, but we still need local enforcement and local influence over what the rules are. there is simply no way around that if we want to protect all individuals in a location. in general when it comes to enforcement of rules and punishment, the only groups that will survive will be faith based ones, because for any other group people will simply leave if they feel they are not being treated fairly. we can already see that with the controversies around some code of conduct violations. only the people who have a big stake in the group or depend on the group will accept any punishment. others will just give up and find another group. the only way to avoid that is to have justice be handled by an independent institution. it can't come from the group itself, or we make it difficult to switch groups.
	▲	em-bee 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's not how free association works. Both the individual and the group, each according to their own criteria, determine if they want to associate with one another. i know that. my point is that absolute free association is not a good idea because it will create a group of outcasts that noone wants to associate with. but that is something that we must not allow to happen. And, for those few that are unwanted by anyone, much fewer than there are now in a state dominated environment, they can always choose to associate with one another. no they can't. similar to the quote "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" those outcasts will all be different and many won't want to associate with each other. i am actually experiencing this frequently as an expat. although being welcomed, i am often treated as an outsider, and i have no interest to associate with other expats either. while there still exists groups that i can associate with, i am sure there are people that noone wants to associate with, and we can't allow to let these people be left behind.