We've banned this account for violating the HN guidelines. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise to abide by the rules in the future.
His point is the codes require a certain stabilities so that they are "constructed to survive a natural disaster". Without the codes, people cut corners, and then later disaster strikes.
You /might/ replace 'unfair' with 'immoral'. Lots of things in life are unfair and are just a part of life, so there's a mentality that unfairness is just a part of life. Hopefully those who wish to take from those who work can see that this is theft and theft is immoral.
Productivity per worker-hour goes up as technology progresses. It's okay to take some of that increase away and use it on other people. It's a mutually beneficial setup between you and society.
Other people don't share your values, nor should they, nor should you expect them to. I would rather have more humans working these jobs, but minimum wage laws prevent that.
There's no reason why your human interaction would suffer if you truly value it. With the money and time saved, perhaps people now go to the cafe and talk more often, or perhaps there's now a vendor outside the shop where you can get a conversation and a coffee. More than likely there will be a solution that i can't even think of.
Aristotle said that a city should only be as large as to encompass everyone that could hear the sound of a ram's horn or trumpet. Beyond that, you weren't part of the city or it's governance. Seems like a good rule which would prevent taking money from Florida and giving it to Alaska.
No, saying that an issue is for the states to decide is simply acknowledging that US citizens are individuals, and they know better than the Federal government what they want. Regulation at the Federal level removes choice and freedom.
You can't enforce many regulations at the state level, even if people want them, because the Constitution forbids discriminating against out of state commerce or citizens. If Californians wanted to have single payer health care, their system would be very susceptible to abuse because people should could cross the border when they got sick. Then Arizonans get the best of both worlds--they don't have to raise taxes to pay for healthcare, but they can still get the service if they need it. Same thing with environmental regulations. Even if everyone in California voted to have environmental regulations, that just creates an opening for goods manufactured in environmentally harmful ways in Arizona to undercut California goods in price.
Citizens don't really have the freedom to choose on issues like that unless they have the freedom to close their markets to people who do not play along. The Constitution takes away that freedom.
How is it bad for those things, especially freedom? Regulation takes away freedom, by definition. An ISP start-up offering services which discriminate traffic now can't exist, and therefore can't give consumers more options. This is why I'm against net neutrality. I also believe that even with NN, companies will do what they want if it's worth the risk of being caught.
Regulation takes away freedom is simplistic libertarian drivel. According to that malarkey the 13th Amendment took away the freedoms of slaveholders:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction
TIL that the 13th amendment is a regulation. It's ironic, since you're explaining to others in a post above this one the very difference between "laws" and "rules", so it's pretty clear that you understand the false equivalence you're making.
To put a more fine point on it, generally speaking, an action that is subject to an adversarial system, is debated upon in plain view, is subject to pressure by consistuents, and is voted upon by the body populace, especially where the bar is as high as a constitutional amendment, tends to be less restrictive than a rule imposed by a regulatory agency that carries the effective force of law. Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule, but the trend tends to be pretty well defined.
But, if your assertion is that they're the same thing now, then that's cool too, I guess.
Is there nuance that can be added? Sure. Pretending one thing is the same as the other is not, in my opinion, a nuance that furthers the discussion.
It's really, really hard to equivocate the 13th amendment to, say, the EPA rules overturned by Michigan v EPA, or any of the other thousands of regulations imposed last year.
The 13th Amendment ended slavery by regulating away the property rights of slaveholders and so I can understand that libertarians are a might bit peeved about this reduction in their freedom to own other human beings. I offer my condolences.
The obvious rebuttal being that "laws" allow for the military draft, which is also slavery, or jury duty, which is an admittedly much milder form of the same thing, or the internment of the Japanese, or the infinite detention in Guantanamo, but since you probably already know that libertarians wouldn't be on board with slavery in the first place and are just positing up strawman after strawman, I think it's fair to assume that your arguments aren't being made in good faith, so I'll leave you to it.
It's scary how much power simply give to the government, and how thankful they are that government officials who they've never met can make decisions for people neither of them have ever met.
