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

What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

loc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 659 posts

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#391

Post by wbsss4412 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #378
wbsss4412 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I define liberty differently than you do. I don’t accept the popular, modern definition of negative rights vs positive rights as the bedrock or liberty. It leads to nonsensical conclusions. There is no such thing under my definition as a “free dictatorship”. A system where rulers aren’t bound by legitimate laws is by definition un-free. I don’t think my definition is super far off from yours though: liberty as non do…

A free dictatorship would be one where the dictator's powers are very limited, but he is not democratically elected. > liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another. Yes exactly. I just see things like "interfering in private negotiations/transactions between free, equal people" as fundamentally authoritarian/dominating.

If interference with private transactions is fundamentally authoritarian, I still don’t understand how you see any sort of state as compatible with liberty.

Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation?

At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#392

Post by iso1631 »

slg wrote: post #309
iso1631 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inflation is a flat tax of a few percentage points Flat tax on cash holdings, which poor people don't have. It's a negative tax on debt, which poor people tend to hold. It doesn't apply to assets. Now if wages don't keep track with inflation, that's not a tax, it's an employer reducing wages.

I'm not sure the distinction you are making here. A flat tax is called that because it is flat in percentage not in nominal value. Yes, debtors will benefit more than creditors, but that doesn't mean it isn't a flat tax. Also it doesn't just impact cash which should be obvious from the last sentence. If inflation decreases the real amount owed by debtors, it also decreases the real amount that is owed to creditors, a…

> If inflation decreases the real amount owed by debtors, it also decreases the real amount that is owed to creditors, and therefore decreases the value of their investments.

I'm sure that's upsetting for wealthy people with investments

For the mom working 3 jobs at Macdonalds, as long as Macdonalds continues to pay an inflation linked salary, her debts being whittled away, that's great news.

Now if Macdonalds can cut salaries relative to inflation, that's a whole other problem.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#393

Post by dukeofdoom »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #277
mistrial9 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is horribly misguided to say "disguised as saving the environment" .. it is conflating real environmental crisis with political posturing.. It is intellectually lazy to blur two big topics like this..

It's not just intellectually lazy, it's deadly. The last thing we need is to conflate politics with a catastrophe that will wipe out our lifestyle, a significant proportion of species, and potentially our civilization.

This reads more like am emotional outburst from somone with a belief system than an actual opinion. It's hard to argue against belief systems. And it will probably be taken by you in entirely the wrong way. It would be like trying to convincing a hasidic jew the messiah isn't coming. Kind of rude to even try.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#394

Post by thegrimmest »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #365
thegrimmest wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because compliance with that monetary policy is enforced with.. force? You must pay taxes in USD, and if you don't you go to jail. The government also conveniently controls the USD supply, which allows the to debase it as they see fit, forcing you to obtain a set amount of USD per year to pay taxes. If the government accepted tax revenue in gold or bitcoin or anything else they don't totally control, you'd be absolut…

Any centralized authority with a monopoly on force is going to have to levy taxes. Otherwise you’d end up with people just refusing to pay because they didn’t get the judgements they desire. If there is a state _at all_ there is force involved. I don’t really understand what you believe is possible here. What you’re discussing is tantamount to assuming that American traditions of due process just exist in a state of…

I believe it's possible to have a state whose powers and authority are fundamentally limited. I also believe that was the original intention of US. I agree taxes must be levied. I just disagree it's legitimate to levy them for most of what they are spent on today.

If I ask myself "what should the state be allowed to do?", it's basically answered by "what would I be comfortable holding a gun to someone's head for?". To take a popular example: If it's wrong to hold a gun to a doctor's head in order to force them to treat a patient (which I think it is), and it's wrong to hold a gun to a bystander's head to force them to pay the doctor, then it's wrong to fund healthcare with taxation.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#395

Post by wbsss4412 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #374
joshuamorton wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we all agree that the government is legitimate, and so it's use of force is legitimate. Additionally, if the government forced you to pay it $1000 a year, even if you could deposit that in gold, you would still be forced to pay. The currency seems irrelevant. It seems like what your saying is you believe taxation is legitimate, but requiring taxes to be pain in USD is illegitimate. Which, like, is just your opini…

The currency seems irrelevant, but it's not. Imagine my government in Tyrannia only accepted taxes in a currency which was impossible to obtain except by stealing it (also illegal). The government would then hold every citizen in a catch-22, allowing it to arbitrarily decide whom to imprison for not paying taxes and who to imprison for stealing the currency required to pay them.

It seems like the government issuing their own currency still isn’t really the issue in this thought experiment…

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#396

Post by Manuel_D »

VirusNewbie wrote: post #278
Spooky23 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably a waste of time to argue this, but the arguments for central banking were the same as the arguments put forth by Alexander Hamilton. More stability, greater resilience, etc. The arguments against it were vague references to tyranny, orchestrated by people whose wealth is generated from resource extraction and inherited wealth.

Inflationary monetary policy is wealth transfer into the upper class without most people realizing it. Wealth, be it institutions or individuals, will always push for central banking as it entrenches their power.

Is this really the case? Inflation favors debtors over creditors, the upper class tends to be the latter not the former. While it is the case that the value of savings goes down, the lower class are much less likely to save.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#397

Post by rbanffy »

evancoop wrote: post #38

The reality is that no such projection is plausible. Could a human being living in 1903, before the Wright Brothers have predicted a moon landing only 66 years later? Could anyone in 1990 have predicted the smartphone, let alone 1922? Only one prediction is worthy of confidence - the world of technology will increase at an exponential rate...and the world will improve. We lament progress, but few of us would choose 1…

> The reality is that no such projection is plausible.

It's getting increasingly difficult. The world of 1600 would be easily understandable to someone from 1500 or 1400. When I was born, no human eyes had seen the far side of the Moon (although it was reasonably sure someone would, shortly, as happened in december that year) and the closest thing to a cellphone was a prop being used by Captain Kirk on the 23rd century.

> the world of technology will increase at an exponential rate

There are physical limits to that, so the exponential factor may be reduced for a while. There is also a limit on how fast we can develop new things that will give us a hard time (at least until we develop a general enough AI, at which point all bets are off - because we are literally not smart enough to predict what happens next).

BTW, a couple years ago I had an accident that, if it happened in 1900, I'd lose my leg.

So, yeah, 2022 is good for me, but I wouldn't turn down a chance to last until 2122.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#399

Post by Aunche »

pzo wrote: post #390
Aunche wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> irresponsible central banking Would you also consider triple bypass surgery done on morbidly obese patient as irresponsible? It enables bad behavior and arguably the patient may be better off dead than living in a life of pain, but it's undeniable that emergency heart surgery is a good thing.

Current situation looks for me more like a surgeon doing this triple bypass, and also keep selling junk food and cigarettes to this patient on another shift.

How exactly the Federal Reserve selling junk food and cigarettes? Nothing they do is pressuring Congress to increase our deficit.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#400

Post by thegrimmest »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #391
thegrimmest wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A free dictatorship would be one where the dictator's powers are very limited, but he is not democratically elected. > liberty as non domination, one isn’t subject to the arbitrary will of another. Yes exactly. I just see things like "interfering in private negotiations/transactions between free, equal people" as fundamentally authoritarian/dominating.

If interference with private transactions is fundamentally authoritarian, I still don’t understand how you see any sort of state as compatible with liberty. Yes yes, “keeping the peace” but how is such an authority deemed to be legitimate? Who gets to define due process? How are they funded if not by taxation? At the end of the day I don’t understand how you aren’t just an anarchist.

The state is compatible with liberty in so far as it acts to secure the liberty of its citizens. Again, liberty here meaning, basically, freedom from violence by other people. A state which acts to protect its citizens liberty is legitimate (in my view) regardless of how its members come to authority. Democracy (in one form or another) seems to be the least-worst option for administering this state (defining the process, etc.), but to me, is it not the source of its legitimacy.
Post reply on HN