This comment adds nothing to the discussion, and hackernews isn't the place for comments such as these. If you disagree with the ideas, elaborate and disect those you take issue with. Additionally, please keep the tone civil, disagreeing and adding nothing more that saying "hah" is not really the maturity level expected in debates on HN.

Fair point, I've now elaborated in a child comment.

Then it should be easy to say what's wrong with it.

My favorite way to characterize this is "it's not even wrong".

Which part is wrong? Some parts are obviously correct.

The US is definitely one of the most diverse large countries. India is probably more diverse along language lines. China is definitely not along any dimension. Even the EU states (that depend on US for defense and use oil to power their economies) are less diverse.

Some parts are correct, true. Mostly "It’s ALWAYS a safe bet to assume people will lose liberty." is really wrong.

The US is a far more free country now than it was 100 years ago or at any point since the introduction of agriculture.

Compared to one hundred years ago, there's political changes:

- Minorities and women can vote

- Labor rights

- Consumer protections (No more debtor prisons, etc.)

And tech changes:

- People aren't stuck on their farms all day

- Families aren't stuck doing chores all day

- Birth control has allowed sexual freedom

- The trains, planes, cars and the internet has allowed freedom of location

Etc.

I agree with much of this as I think some of this has contributed to people's economic agency. But I think we should analyze the impact of these and not just chalk them up as actual improvements in people's liberty.

For example does enabling a person's ability to vote actually increase one's liberty in a corrupt/narrow system.