[rauhl]

> I don't know why you are downvoted.

I don’t agree with the downvoters at all, but I think it’s fairly obvious why he’s being downvoted: either folks think he’s wrong that such a thing is possible, or folks think he’s right but don’t care (i.e., they think that the society he describes is desirable, or at worst neutral).

I don’t think that his described society is impossible, and indeed we already see a slow, less-regimented version of that playing out.

I cannot emotionally understand someone who would find such a society desirable, but intellectually it kind of makes sense: one needs to be just authoritarian enough to want to control non-violent behaviour, while just naïve enough not to realise that there are aspects of one’s own behaviour which would be controlled, too (i.e., every one of us disagrees with the majority on at least one or two items).

[squiggleblaz]

It's shocking to me that here, on Hacker News, posts like these get voted down. I could understand them being regarded as unpopular on mainstream media, but HN? Wow.