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

The Real Adam Smith

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#101

Post by RMGgondella »

buerkle wrote: post #87
randcraw wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's an increasingly compelling argument to be made at this moment in history, with the rise of powerful increasingly intelligent software that can 1) rigorously shape policy to ensure that ends are met and that 2) the means to those ends employ minimal bias, and 3) do so adaptively, shifting policy dynamically as circumstances evolve. I believe it's time to start planning for the day when we shutter the v…

Democratic popular vote did not lead to a dysfunctional state. The lack of democratic vote has led to the problem. We have two entrenched parties because of our winner take all system, gerrymandering designed to take away voter rights, laws restricting rights to vote, and vast media conglomerates.

Back at the dawn of the US, the one with the most votes became President; the next became Vice President. This was a good idea, as it would at the very least encourage some bipartisan discussion. Perhaps the VP would be found more often on Capitol Hill, in the role of President of the Senate.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#102

Post by jeffdavis »

"The invisible hand was invoked not to draw attention to the problem of state intervention, but of state capture"

It's not so easy to separate the two. Intervention tends to have winners and losers, which make the decision makers a big target for all kinds of influence.

Especially in a large country like the US, where a single representative (on average) controls maybe $5B in yearly spending, plus all of the indirect ways they can pick winners and losers.

That doesn't mean it's impossible to have intervention without capture, but it's something to be wary of.

Aside: I don't like the word "capture" as though the poor politicians are somehow kidnapped by evil corporations. I suspect the idea of corruption usually starts with a politician looking for opportunities to exercise their power. Then, it quickly becomes a symbiotic relationship.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#103

Post by RMGgondella »

This is certainly a nuanced look at a figure who is generally cited in stark black and white. The notion of the "merchant elite" setting the tone of politics within the state -- and with neighbors and other competitors -- is a bit of a wake-up call. After all, for better or for worse, what finally dragged the US out of the Great Depression was World War II, and the sudden bulge of manufacturing it brought.

The question is, are we, today, seeing self-interested corporations stimulating or antagonizing hard feelings between countries, states, tribes, or families as a way to push up profits?

And a larger question remains: Is that inherently bad? I suppose that there are many who would think that it is not, by its nature, bad -- not if your nation, or ethnicity, or religion is not harmed. I think that this is the central question the article poses.

Given that, what is the value of a single human life? Or, more broadly, what is the value of any living thing, or living system? Is it okay kill a man through black lung, in order to maximize profit from a coal mine? Is it okay to bulldoze and pave a vast swath of land, to harvest wood, replacing the forest with a monoculture that will not support diversity? Where does that end? Is a culture safe? A nation?

There are, of course, a great number of people who think that one life lost is one too many, that an ecosystem is a living thing, that a culture is sacred.

Smith seems to hew towards regulation of business and industry -- that the watershed must be considered in mountaintop removal mining, that heroin sales on the street are not in the best interest of society. (Even though illicit drug sales are probably the very best example of a truly open and free market.) I would lean with Smith on this account. Government has NO business in business. But truly free people must be free to regulate business in their own interest.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#104

Post by croon »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #77
croon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a difference between a state and a corporation: one of those is a monopoly by definition. There is another difference: one of those grants voting (and other) rights to all its members.

One of those may grant voting and/or other rights to some or all of its members.

> One of those may grant voting and/or other rights to some or all of its members.

That's an implementation issue.

In its purest form a government is set up by the people, to serve the people.

In its purest form, a corporation is set up by one or some people, to make money, usually paying people to be a part of it, and there ends the loyalty.

A government needs to be perverted to stop serving (all) its people. A corporation needs to be perverted to start serving its members, as the goal is simply profits and survival until further profits.

This isn't a moral distinction, it's the function of those concepts.

Without any restraints, one beast will always end up the strongest, and rule all other beasts. The only other possibility is for smaller creatures to cooperate to overcome it/keep it in check. This is what a society is.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#105

Post by aidenn0 »

adynatos wrote: post #78
RobertoG wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. Maybe you can point us to some examples, current or historical, where human societies thrived without the existence of the state.

sure: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part17 should i tell you who will build the roads next?

The bigger issue is that societies organized around a state tend to conquer societies not so organized, because states are much better at forming armies

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#106

Post by marnett »

randcraw wrote: post #56
yedava wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it has to be a democracy. The right points to harms of government overreach to argue for less government. The left points to exploding inequality and argues for more government in order to tackle it. A good faith assumption could be that both are trying to decentralize power and maybe putting it that way will make it easier to reach across the ideological divide.

I think there's an increasingly compelling argument to be made at this moment in history, with the rise of powerful increasingly intelligent software that can 1) rigorously shape policy to ensure that ends are met and that 2) the means to those ends employ minimal bias, and 3) do so adaptively, shifting policy dynamically as circumstances evolve. I believe it's time to start planning for the day when we shutter the v…

Yea... technology at large scale has, countless times, been a large detrimental to large amounts, if not all, members of societies. I can already see the hyperintelligent AI realizing the only way to force pliability amongst very slow-to-change socialized humans is what many throughout our history have also learned - force and slavery allow the cogs to adapt to where you need them. I'd rather not be totured because I don't modify my behaviors to keep up with the ever-changing, cost-optimizing algorithms that be.

Also are you suggesting that, instead of the standard dystopian model of AI overthrowing humans, that we, instead, have a revolution to put AI in the place to do all that it may? That would be ironic. More realistically, no one would join in the bloodiest revolution in human history for the glorious resolution of running our government on AWS.

Fictitious fun thoughts aside, and to quote J. Tillman, I'd rather not have the "world [be] written in lines of code." And, to be honest, your response is exactly the type of extreme SV character response I'd write in mocking hyperbole on a site where those very ideals might, quite frighteningly, actually be lurking.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#107

Post by marnett »

RMGgondella wrote: post #103

This is certainly a nuanced look at a figure who is generally cited in stark black and white. The notion of the "merchant elite" setting the tone of politics within the state -- and with neighbors and other competitors -- is a bit of a wake-up call. After all, for better or for worse, what finally dragged the US out of the Great Depression was World War II, and the sudden bulge of manufacturing it brought. The questi…

Your second paragraph is answered by post-9/11 American foreign policy in Iraq (to say the least). But just to echo that answer, yes - Halliburton (and plenty of other private military, security, cyber security service companies) did and continues to thrive off war profiteering. War is an economy. That's why the military-industrial complex is discussed so frequently. Not many other nations subsidize an entire market segment to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. One that, again, generates profit off of the selling of weapons and arms to be used against other human beings.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#108

Post by CryptoPunk »

ScottBurson wrote: post #96
CryptoPunk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine how you don't see it. All of his warnings are against regulations that make collusion more likely, and he explicitly says that it would be impossible for any regulation that would prohibit people from the same trade from meeting to "be executed" or "be consistent with liberty and justice". Every single admonishment was against regulations, whether on grounds of contributing to collusion, or being unen…

> Every single admonishment was against regulations Every single admonishment was against particular kinds of regulations. It's not at all clear that these amount to an argument against all regulation. In fact that strikes me as a very odd generalization... like saying "Java sucks so let's do away with software".

Yes you're right that he criticizes particular regulations in that passage. My point is that he doesn't endorse any regulations and criticizes several. This is context in which the passage about collusion between merchants, which Sangar claims supports his contention that Smith's intention was the "opposite" of that of modern free market advocates, appears.

That passage in no way conveys a position in opposition to the free market. If anything, it only supports it.

Moreover, I'd argue statements like "It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice" take a philosophical position against regulations in general, and there are many such statements in the Wealth of Nations.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#109

Post by ScottBurson »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #108
ScottBurson wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every single admonishment was against regulations Every single admonishment was against particular kinds of regulations. It's not at all clear that these amount to an argument against all regulation. In fact that strikes me as a very odd generalization... like saying "Java sucks so let's do away with software".

Yes you're right that he criticizes particular regulations in that passage. My point is that he doesn't endorse any regulations and criticizes several. This is context in which the passage about collusion between merchants, which Sangar claims supports his contention that Smith's intention was the "opposite" of that of modern free market advocates, appears. That passage in no way conveys a position in opposition to t…

> statements like [quote elided] take a philosophical position against regulations in general

I don't get that at all. Regulations cover lots of things other than potential collusion.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#110

Post by CryptoPunk »

ScottBurson wrote: post #109
CryptoPunk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you're right that he criticizes particular regulations in that passage. My point is that he doesn't endorse any regulations and criticizes several. This is context in which the passage about collusion between merchants, which Sangar claims supports his contention that Smith's intention was the "opposite" of that of modern free market advocates, appears. That passage in no way conveys a position in opposition to t…

> statements like [quote elided] take a philosophical position against regulations in general I don't get that at all. Regulations cover lots of things other than potential collusion.

I read the "[in]consistent with liberty and justice" quote as a stance against laws that inhibit the right to associate, and that is very closely related to the right to freely contract, which the vast majority of regulations inhibit.

If he believed that it would be consistent with liberty and justice to prohibit certain classes of contracts, he would have simply advocated for a law against collusion agreements/contracts as the solution to merchants colluding.

Post reply on HN