'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#151

Post by Jabanga » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #149

Jabanga wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly have evidence that suggests welfare leads to people having children when they're in poorer financial circumstances: https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Gl5Xvza-bmsC&oi=f... The rise of the welfare state over the last 50 years has been associated with a massive rise in out-of-wedlock childbirth: http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/r... >Maybe an example of a species which, upo…

1. Welfare doesn't mean access to education. At no point have I mentioned welfare, only access to public education, specifically public primary and secondary education. 2. Just because people are having more out-of-wedlock children doesn't necessarily mean they are having more children over all. It could simply mean people aren't getting married anymore. 3. Your first link has the following quote in the introduction…

1. You wrote in your previous comment: " A study suggesting that increased access to education, or welfare in general, increases the birth rate among the poor?"

2. The fact that an increasing number of people are having children out of wedlock should be very concerning. Many social problems are strongly correlated with high single parenthood rates. The evidence suggests to me that more welfare encourages single parenthood by changing its costs/rewards.

3. Even that finding is shocking in how anti-welfare it is, given the well-documented leftist bias in the social sciences. Even accepting it at face value, it points to a definite negative effect. Over time, it could get worse due to natural selection.

4. I can do some research and see what I find. As for human populations, I think the most likely outcome is that they inevitably reach a state of evolutionary optimal behavior.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#152

Post by Jabanga » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 8:42 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #127

ashark wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't bother responding. As soon as you catch a whiff of "taxation is theft" in a thread on the Internet you can be pretty sure you're communicating with someone who's solved government, coordination problems generally, and ethics from first principles (or, rather, read those who have, or been convinced in discussion with those who have read those who have). The only way to open them up to the possibility that some o…

That's pretty much my attitude as well. "taxation is theft" crowd of fringe libertarians are pretty up there with hardcore Scientologists, anti-vaccers, KKK members and level 5 vegans (don't eat anything that casts a shadow). Government is bad, taxes are theft, regulation is evil. Repeat ad nauseam until your opponent gives up. Best way to treat them is like the trolls they are - ignore them.

I don't think that's a constructive attitude to have. It's better to have a mind that is at least open enough to hear the other person out, and debate them.

You've basically dehumanized a large section of the population in a manner that you would agree would be pretty offensive if done to you.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#153

Post by Jabanga » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 8:43 PM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #132

Jabanga wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're also welcome to not respond to me if my views bother you. I'm simply expressing my viewpoint. There is nothing in the Constitution about social welfare programs to provide equality of opportunity. It's all about the "general welfare", which had a distinctly non-redistribitive definition in the 18th century. > it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers,…

It's clear you're expressing your viewpoint, just know that they seem to be in line with sociopaths. Pulling the rug out from under others is right in line with what white supremacists believe.

I see advocating force as more similar to the definition of sociopathic behaviour. But I also don't think arguing over which belief is more or less sociopathic is constructive.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#154

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 9:05 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #7

ikeyany wrote: post #5

Obama used a few phrases that not only sounded pleasing, but accurately addressed what's happening to Americans: "Everyone, including the rich, need to pay their share." "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." He tapped into equality of opportunity, while acknowledging that some will be more successful than others. Th…

I personally disagree that this should be the rallying cry. Why should someone who invests nothing in their own children get to see their children have equal opportunities to the children of another person who invests everything into their children? Why should a person who has 10 children get to see each one have the same amount of opportunity as each one of the children of someone who has 2 children, assuming equal…

Those kids whose parents don't invest anything in them? Some of them start stealing packages off of my front porch. (Yes, that literally happened to me. I know which kid did it, too. His mom caught him - so maybe I shouldn't list him as a kid whose parents weren't investing anything.) Some of them start breaking into houses. (Hasn't happened to me... yet.) Some of them start mugging people. A few of them get frustrated enough that they decide to kill as many people as they can.

At some point there, do you start seeing reasons for us to start caring about what happens to those children? If not for the childrens' benefit, at least for our own?

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#155

Post by ashark » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 9:31 PM UTC

Jabanga wrote: post #152

antisthenes wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much my attitude as well. "taxation is theft" crowd of fringe libertarians are pretty up there with hardcore Scientologists, anti-vaccers, KKK members and level 5 vegans (don't eat anything that casts a shadow). Government is bad, taxes are theft, regulation is evil. Repeat ad nauseam until your opponent gives up. Best way to treat them is like the trolls they are - ignore them.

I don't think that's a constructive attitude to have. It's better to have a mind that is at least open enough to hear the other person out, and debate them. You've basically dehumanized a large section of the population in a manner that you would agree would be pretty offensive if done to you.

In... god, nearly[0] 20 years of reading and engaging in Internet arguments and discussions, I don't think I've ever seen a productive exchange with a certain flavor of common-on-the-Internet outspoken and confident market-focused libertarian, though it occupies an enormous number of bits (and person-hours) on the global network. The best case for these is that we discover (again, hooray) that there's more than one reasonable way of understanding individual liberty. The worst case is that some of us discover that (again, OMG can we please stop?), while it continues to elude others and they go on thinking people just don't understand their position because if they did they'd surely agree, leading them to start the whole thing over again the next time it's half-relevant anywhere they post, leaving a trail misery and mises.org links (sigh) in their wake. Let's all spend that time reading some IPE, game theory, comparative politics, and undergrad readings in political philosophy textbooks instead, shall we? It'd be far more improving.

These days it seems to have replaced arguing/trolling about religion (anyone else remember the distant past of the 90s?) as the most common waste of everyone's time in Internet discussions. It'd be best if we just recognize when this kind of thread is about to start and stop posting.

[0 EDIT] uh, whoops, that should be over 20 years. How time flies.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#156

Post by parenthephobia » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #19

"Inequality" is a bad rallying cry because no two people are equal, and few would like to be equal to someone else. So what people mean by "inequality" is always something else, and varies in meaning from person to person. Even if you choose something concrete, like "equality of income", few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old. Ordinarily a meaningless word is great for a rall…

> few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old

Surely people don't believe that an 18 year-old shouldn't have the same income as a 45 year-old?

A 45 year-old shouldn't have higher income just because they're older. In the UK, at least, we have laws about that sort of thing.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#157

Post by refurb » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 12:21 AM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #105

boona wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Americans from all backgrounds should have a fair shot at a quality education, not just those who happen to grow up in nice neighborhoods." While the rich pay more than their fair share and then some ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KENaWXPmBr0 ), I would think that quality education is something we could all get behind. It's unfortunate though that the left in large part seem to be opposed to school choice. That…

> While the rich pay more than their fair share and then some Do you honestly think every tax bracket pays the same effective rate as the middle class? I think you will learn a lot in this thread.

Take a look at who bank rolls most of the federal gov't budget. It's the rich.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#158

Post by tropo » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 1:01 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #30

eric_b wrote: post #6

Midway down the author mentions a study that showed most Americans object to "unfairness" rather than "inequality". I've found this to be the case for me personally. If someone tries hard, works diligently, and makes smart decisions, but are still living in poverty, I want to help them. No hardworking, disciplined, motivated person should live in poverty, or have trouble making ends meet, in my opinion. Unfortunately…

Counter-anecdote: my wife has a Master's degree and works 60 hours a week, trying to transition from biotech to teaching. She has to cobble together multiple jobs, some of which are in the "low-wage sectors". She works 60 hours a week because, well, budgets have been cut to school districts. She'll be earning $16k/year next year as a teaching fellow, albeit earning her education Master's while doing it. We have a fri…

If you wife counts the cost of commuting, dress clothing, supplies/materials, paying others to cook/clean/care, taxes... does this even make a profit? What is the point?

Meanwhile, there is an impact on family life. There are only 168 hours in a week. Take out 56 for sleeping, 60 for work... now down to 52, which is 7.43 hours per day. In those 7.43 hours you must cook, eat, bathe, poop, shop, make love, commute, exercise, and more. I don't think that really fits. Something is not getting the time required.

Is there a good reason she persists? Would she feel unvalued as a stay-at-home mom? Does she fear that she might be inadequate? Does she somehow think she'd be a failure if she chose a traditional role? I hope you would still respect and value her if she did that, and that she knows it. (don't just assume she knows it -- and she may hesitate to believe you if you say it, due to upbringing or peers)

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#159

Post by Jabanga » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 3:02 AM UTC

ashark wrote: post #155

Jabanga wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a constructive attitude to have. It's better to have a mind that is at least open enough to hear the other person out, and debate them. You've basically dehumanized a large section of the population in a manner that you would agree would be pretty offensive if done to you.

In... god, nearly[0] 20 years of reading and engaging in Internet arguments and discussions, I don't think I've ever seen a productive exchange with a certain flavor of common-on-the-Internet outspoken and confident market-focused libertarian, though it occupies an enormous number of bits (and person-hours) on the global network. The best case for these is that we discover (again, hooray) that there's more than one r…

I've seen plenty of minds changed in discussions with libertarians. But I agree that the odds that any one debate will lead to a consensus being reached are very low. Debates where one side insists on a politically incorrect position are especially unlikely to lead to anyone's mind being changed. Anecdotally, I used to oppose "market fundamentalism", and there would have been no hope of a free market advocate winning me over. So I agree that 99% of the time it's futile. But there is that rare occasion where someone learns something new. I've personally learned a lot from those who disagree with my market fundamentalist positions.

Re: 'Fight Inequality' Is a Poor Rallying Cry

#160

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sat, Apr 22, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

tropo wrote: post #158

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-anecdote: my wife has a Master's degree and works 60 hours a week, trying to transition from biotech to teaching. She has to cobble together multiple jobs, some of which are in the "low-wage sectors". She works 60 hours a week because, well, budgets have been cut to school districts. She'll be earning $16k/year next year as a teaching fellow, albeit earning her education Master's while doing it. We have a fri…

If you wife counts the cost of commuting, dress clothing, supplies/materials, paying others to cook/clean/care, taxes... does this even make a profit? What is the point? Meanwhile, there is an impact on family life. There are only 168 hours in a week. Take out 56 for sleeping, 60 for work... now down to 52, which is 7.43 hours per day. In those 7.43 hours you must cook, eat, bathe, poop, shop, make love, commute, exe…

We don't have children. We don't believe in that "traditional role" rubbish. And also, we live in Boston: if you don't have two professionals working here, you don't make rent. Biotech was toxic for her, so she's taking a hit for a year to change fields.