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

Thomas Sowell interview

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 457 posts

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#431

Post by jahaja »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #429
jahaja wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. 99% of socialist want to expand democracy, not establish another dictatorship. Yet, people like yourself dogmatically focus on that other 1% that are authoritarian and paint every socialist as such. 71k people die every year in the US due to lack of healthcare. You need to open both eyes. I should read a book by the some libertarian god that unsurprisingly dismisses socialism, while your own knowledge about soc…

> 99% of socialist want to expand democracy Yes I know they do. This is a bad thing. The Founding Fathers were famously skeptical of democracy as were many, many thinkers and societies before them. And yes it's always democratic in the beginning but democracy is not a panacea (as the Founding Fathers understood) and quickly things devolve into despotism. Just because someone exists doesn't mean they should have a say…

> This is a bad thing.

It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words.

> And yes it's always democratic in the beginning

Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic.

> Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and that is because there's a functioning market clearing mechanism (price).

That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#432

Post by [deleted] »

SantalBlush wrote: post #414
ramblerman wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but in physics the maths and experiments run very close. In fields like economics it's easier to make a grandiose and "falsifiable" piece of math that is absolutely correct but doesn't actually reflect anything real. Or more often reflects a tiny part of a first order effect. Yet people get blinded because the math is right.

Nobody is "blinded because the math is right". You're using the same sort of argumentation that is used in all of the pseudo sciences. If you know of a way to improve upon the existing methodologies, then show it to us, and be precise. Then you will have an argument that deserves to be engaged with. Ambiguous claims that the math "doesn't actually reflect anything real" sound intelligent, but really aren't saying muc…

[deleted]

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#433

Post by googthrowaway42 »

jahaja wrote: post #431
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 99% of socialist want to expand democracy Yes I know they do. This is a bad thing. The Founding Fathers were famously skeptical of democracy as were many, many thinkers and societies before them. And yes it's always democratic in the beginning but democracy is not a panacea (as the Founding Fathers understood) and quickly things devolve into despotism. Just because someone exists doesn't mean they should have a say…

> This is a bad thing. It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. > And yes it's always democratic in the beginning Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. > Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and tha…

> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words.

This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all.

Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it.

Pure democracy is evil.

> Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic.

What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy

> That's a sociopathic response to why on earth 71k people should die every year in a country of abundance simply because they don't have any money.

This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy.

"There are three questions which will destroy most of the arguments on the left: 1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have?" – Thomas Sowell

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#434

Post by jahaja »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #433
jahaja wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a bad thing. It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. > And yes it's always democratic in the beginning Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. > Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and tha…

> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. Pure democracy is evil. > Please l…

> This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all.

It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda.

> Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights.

Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights?

> What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union?

Are you really going argue that it was a democracy because of the name? Why are you doubling down on your own ignorance? Even the link you yourself posted contains this:

"After Lenin's party, the Bolsheviks, only got a minority of the votes in the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly, he disbanded it by force after its first meeting".

The Bolsheviks took power in a coup for themselves and never let go of it.

> This is a utopian response which is actually indicative of sociopathy.

What? There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now. That also sounds like a means to an end argument which is sociopathic if anything is.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#435

Post by dragonwriter »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #433
jahaja wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a bad thing. It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. > And yes it's always democratic in the beginning Please let me know which of the communist regimes of the 20th century that started out democratic. > Millions are born each year due to abundance and millions more don't die for want of food and other essential services and tha…

> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. Pure democracy is evil. > Please l…

> We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it.

That's implausible, since sufficient people voting on it can change the Constitution.

> What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union?

It means “council”. Leninism was vanguardist, not democratic; vanguardism is a top-down paternalistic elite-led structure based on the idea that the masses aren't ready to lead themselves, and would lead to bad outcomes if allowed to do so without guidance from their more sophisticated betters to direct them to observe proper ideological constraints. Basically, the same position your espousing, but differing only in what the right-thought is that it is feared the masses would depart from if not constrained.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#436

Post by googthrowaway42 »

jahaja wrote: post #434
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's refreshing to see that this anti-democratic sentiment is said so bluntly, usually it's covered up in weasel words. This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. We have a Constitution because individuals have human rights that cannot be violated no matter how many people vote on it. Pure democracy is evil. > Please l…

> This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda. > Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights? > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? Are you really going argue tha…

> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now

Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which means rationing.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#437

Post by parasubvert »

bergstromm466 wrote: post #395
mr_overalls wrote: post #218

I'm going to be a nonconformist myself and oppose the near-univeral approval of Sowell in this discussion. His book Basic Economics was the first book on econ that I read, and I was very impressed by it. It reaffirmed the rather right-wing political views that I'd inherited from my parents. However, after taking a few introductory econ classes at university and doing further reading on my own, Sowell starts to appear…

> I'm going to be a nonconformist myself and oppose the near-univeral approval of Sowell in this discussion. > It reaffirmed the rather right-wing political views that I'd inherited from my parents. I really did not know HN was this conservative. I am very surprised at all this unanimous approval of Sowell.

HN isn’t necessarily this conservative, there is a lot of selection bias in a headline. Sowell draws out the libertarians.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#438

Post by jahaja »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #436
jahaja wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda. > Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights? > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? Are you really going argue tha…

> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which…

Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#439

Post by googthrowaway42 »

jahaja wrote: post #438
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which…

Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.

It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement.

Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?

Re: Thomas Sowell interview

#440

Post by dragonwriter »

googthrowaway42 wrote: post #436
jahaja wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sentiment is at the core of America. It's not a secret at all. It's not a secret no, but it's certainly not part of the propaganda. > Pure democracy is necessarily predicated on a rejection of human rights. Why is that? Maybe you should be blunt here too and just say private-property enforcement instead of human rights? > What do you think the word "soviet" means in Soviet Union? Are you really going argue tha…

> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which…

> A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people).

Even ignoring that healthcare lacks the factors that approximate the rational choice model’s information requirements well enough for it decisions in that space in a market to even reflect average net utility well, a market matches supply with money; it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility, which it's not (because money also experiences declining marginal utility) when financial resources of each potential customer vary wildly.

Post reply on HN