Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

My post was not meant as proof, it was just intended to trigger a thought process in the reader.

We make a lot of arbitrary distinctions about the legitimacy of institutions.

When we see the leader of an Afghan city state traveling around in an SUV with a bunch of guys with machine guns, we call him a "warlord", yet we offer utmost deference to the US presidential motorcade.

Look at it this way, society has winners and losers. Winners generally want to continue being winners, so they end up in control of coercive force (guns, military, etc.) and they end up with the tools of propaganda at their disposal (newspapers, puppet officials).

What differentiates one nation's winners from those of another is far less than we tend to think, since much of our "consent" to the status quo is built upon our belief in certain doctrines and institutions.

Surely our democracy is worth something, and many of our institutions are worthy of some deference and respect, but so are China's and Mexico's and Iran's...

There are a variety of other fallacies which add to our distorted view of the rest of the world, which I could also go into detail about.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: