Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hidden Cost of Privatization

ineteconomics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#161

Post by gnaritas »

subverter wrote: post #108
gnaritas wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a significant part of the U.S. population that wants to roll back gay marriage. Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period; those people are simply wrong, the position is immoral and indefensible. These things belong at the federal level, states should not be allowed to say oppression is OK because a majority of our citizens want to oppress gays.

To quote you above[1]: > That's a matter of opinion. To be clear, I am not one who is in favor of rolling back gay marriage. But you cannot logically say > Oppressing others isn't something that should be allowed to happen, period while in the same breath calling for the oppression of those you disagree with. It's an inconsistent position using the same argument you're railing against. [1] https://news.ycombinator.co…

You're very confused, I haven't called for the oppression of anyone. Disagreeing with people isn't oppressing them, stopping them from oppressing others isn't oppressing them. Stopping a bully from picking on someone isn't oppressing the bully, so yes, I can logically say what I said and you can't logically disagree with it. So please do show me, since you've accused me of it, where I've called to oppress anyone.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#162

Post by gnaritas »

subverter wrote: post #128
bjl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing the paradox of tolerance has been solved for over a century! Now if only we could get the message out to people like you that seem to delight in ignoring centuries of philosophical discussion on this topic.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it makes sense. "I'm tolerant of everyone except those I view as intolerant." In other words, you're intolerant of those you disagree with. I believe true tolerance is respecting that everyone can have their own opinion/worldview. We can certainly disagree and have a good discussion about it, but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

> but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

And where in this thread has me or anyone forced our world view on you? Not allowing you to force your view on others isn't forcing our view on you. Frankly I don't think you understand what oppression or tolerance actually is.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#163

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #159
bjl wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, you believe states should have the right to allow children to work in factories, with no worker protections. The total lack of moral sense in right-libertarianism never ceases to amaze me.

What? That's not what I said at all. In fact, as I initially said, "Please don't think I'm in any way arguing for child labor." How can I make it more clear? My point is, in the hypothetical situation that a state did allow child labor – which I do not at all condone – people could choose not to buy products from that state, as people already do in not buying products from certain brands and countries that use child…

That's functionally equivalent to supporting child labor. The anarcho-capitalist worldview is so incoherent it'd be funny if it wasn't so evil.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#164

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #143
thingification wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea, which lies behind a lot of American libertarianism, says that theft (as taxation is construed here) outranks most or all other moral values, but does not explain why. Instead, it hopes dogmatically that other moral values will be met as a side effect of following this one.

Not just theft, but aggression of any sort, including the most serious offenses such as rape and murder. Is there not a more fundamental moral value that we can all agree on?

Equating theft with rape and murder is just one of the reasons rational people ignore right-libertarianism.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#165

Post by bjl »

subverter wrote: post #158
bjl wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, under your 'utopia', we never would have had the civil rights movement. Or woman's suffrage. Or gay marriage.

If that's what you believe my utopia leads to, then you're completely misunderstanding my worldview. The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else. Period. Everyone has equal rights: black, female, gay, whatever.

> The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else.

Except, of course, the wealthy.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#166

Post by gnaritas »

subverter wrote: post #116
gnaritas wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you justify the healthy paying for the unhealthy? Over the course of time, everyone falls into both categories; this idea that there are healthy people is silly, everyone's health fails eventually and often randomly. Healthy is a temporary state. Everyone should contribute so everyone is covered when they become the unhealthy, as they all will. Better to pay a little bit all of the time than to pay nothing a…

But not everyone is (or becomes) healthy or unhealthy to the same degree. If I have no family history of health issues, or I simply want to take a chance that I'll remain healthy, why should anyone else tell me how much I should value my health?

> But not everyone is (or becomes) healthy or unhealthy to the same degree.

Incorrect, everyone gets sick to the same eventual degree: death. You will require medical care.

> or I simply want to take a chance that I'll remain healthy

No one remains healthy, period, everyone gets sick, everyone.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#167

Post by stale2002 »

crdoconnor wrote: post #153
stale2002 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Why are collective agreements intrinsically bad?" Because I should be able to do what I want, instead of being forced to go along with whatever stupid ideas the union chooses to do. It is called freedom of choice. What if I want to negotiate for myself? What if I want to wear multiple hats? What if I want to work without getting a BS certification? If I negotiate, and convince someone to hire me, then I can get all…

>Sure, fine, if you don't like doing those things, then you are free to join your own private organization and decide for yourself on how to do collective bargaining, and all that. I'm struggling to see what your problem is. If you don't like the idea of democratic control over your workplace and the commensurately higher pay that goes with it you've always been free to go and work somewhere else where they let you "…

No, others can do all those things all they want.

They can get together with their groups of friends and bargain collectively. They just shouldn't be able to force me to bargain collectively along with them.

They can get together and form voluntary agreements. They just can't make me join their voluntary agreements or stop me from making my own agreements with anyone.

And we can see who gets the better deal.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#168

Post by subverter »

bjl wrote: post #165
subverter wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's what you believe my utopia leads to, then you're completely misunderstanding my worldview. The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else. Period. Everyone has equal rights: black, female, gay, whatever.

> The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else. Except, of course, the wealthy.

No, sorry, you're confused with our current system of centralized power in the hands of a few who doll out rewards to their crony friends.

Who gets the money printed by the Federal Reserve first? Banks, where wealthy bankers then loan the money to others who are wealthy enough to be accepted for the loans. By the time the money reaches the poor and needy, inflation has already taken hold.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#169

Post by subverter »

gnaritas wrote: post #162
subverter wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it makes sense. "I'm tolerant of everyone except those I view as intolerant." In other words, you're intolerant of those you disagree with. I believe true tolerance is respecting that everyone can have their own opinion/worldview. We can certainly disagree and have a good discussion about it, but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree.

> but nobody should be forcing their opinion/worldview on others who don't agree. And where in this thread has me or anyone forced our world view on you? Not allowing you to force your view on others isn't forcing our view on you. Frankly I don't think you understand what oppression or tolerance actually is.

Nowhere. I haven't claimed that. We're having a (mostly) thoughtful discussion with different opinions, which is great.

If you read back through the hierarchy to my comment here[1], you'll see that I ask the hypothetical question, What if gay marriage were rolled back in the U.S.?, to make the point that currently you'd have to move out of the country to escape the law. I do not believe in rolling it back! I used it as an example of a law/idea where there's a difference of opinion among worldviews.

We're actually on the same page here, gnaritas. People should have equal rights, regardless of their race, gender, sexual identity, etc. Nobody should be forcing their worldview on others. But that's exactly what the federal government does by making decisions that affect everyone. Every decision they make is made from a specific worldview. It's impossible for them to make a decision that complies with every unique worldview out there.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14554612

Re: The Hidden Cost of Privatization

#170

Post by subverter »

gnaritas wrote: post #166
subverter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not everyone is (or becomes) healthy or unhealthy to the same degree. If I have no family history of health issues, or I simply want to take a chance that I'll remain healthy, why should anyone else tell me how much I should value my health?

> But not everyone is (or becomes) healthy or unhealthy to the same degree. Incorrect, everyone gets sick to the same eventual degree: death. You will require medical care. > or I simply want to take a chance that I'll remain healthy No one remains healthy, period, everyone gets sick, everyone.

Even if you consider death a state of health – which is odd, who says "yeah, they're really unhealthy: they're dead" – the path to that state differs. Some people get sick very quickly right before death, while others are sick their whole life before death. Their required medical care vastly differs.
Post reply on HN