Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive • Hacker News Board

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#91

Post by xenophanes » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:28 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #74

xenophanes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally they don't make money because they don't charge, and also don't sit around trying to think of ways to make money (while still remaining true to their core values and purpose). I don't think we should assume it's an insoluble problem. Once one has an audience and does something useful, monetizing can often be tricky, but is often possible. Just as one example, what if libraries had some ads somewhere? Th…

> Just as one example, what if libraries had some ads somewhere? Then they could be provided for free to poor people but also gain some revenue. Perhaps when people borrow a book they are only given the first four chapters; they have to promote the library to get access to the next three chapters; and they have to pay to get access to the last four chapters? I doubt freemium models will translate well to libraries.

Doubt all you want, but we shouldn't give up and declare it impossible without actually trying.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#92

Post by philwelch » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:32 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #88

philwelch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the position of Ayn Rand, especially the part about not really caring if poor people get to have things like libraries or housing or food. To Ayn Rand, a "rational" homeless person would rather stave to death on the streets than accept the first crumb of unearned bread or a single night's sleep under an unearned roof. The only reason there's no conflict for Rand is because Rand doesn't recognize a leg…

Rand doesn't recognize a legitimate interest in public goods,... This is simply false. In Atlas Shrugged, she explicitly acknowledges that providing public goods is a legitimate function of government, and taxation is legitimate insofar as at it used to pay for public goods. If I remember correctly (it's been a long time), it was Hank Reardon who states this point. I believe a (fair) judge was also allowed into Galt'…

I think this is actually one of the contradictions in Rand, and I'm not the first person to think so: http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#93

Post by jberryman » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:32 PM UTC

clintjhill wrote: post #40

skymt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early fire departments were run by insurance companies to fight fires on their customers' properties. Those who couldn't afford insurance would be left to burn. http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/FireMarksAndPayments.asp

I didn't know about this and it's quite interesting. But I wonder why it no longer exists this way? Is there a reason why a "for-profit" discontinued a service like this? EDIT: Seems I found a clue .... "In 1862 insurance companies told the government that they were unwilling to be responsible for London’s fire protection as the cost of compensation was becoming too high. The government decided that the Metropolitan…

It's also worth remembering that fires spread. If the house two doors down is on fire you better hope they and the house next door have insurance (and remembered to pay the bill this month).

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#94

Post by true_religion » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:33 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #72

true_religion wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't asked to voluntarily pay for the police force, however people in the middle class and above do pay for security services which approximates a part of what the police do. People also pay for detective services when the police fail, are unwilling, or are not tasked to inquire into a particular crime. Also people pay investigative services for breech of contract civil offenses that the police generally do…

The crux of libertarian thought is that public services like the police can be entirely replaced by voluntary organizations--that the neighborhood watch or private detectives should assume the powers of, say, arresting people and putting them in jail.

The neighborhood watch can already commit citizens arrests in certain circumstances.

Private detectives provide investigative materials that are used in civil courts.

It's already happened.

---

Now libertarian thoguht doesn't say just because you can replace something by a voluntary institution then you should.

However, you should think about the scenario.

The alternative, more mainstream viewpoint, is that the government should provide for certain goods because it is assumed that the private sector won't or shouldn't do it. There's no reasoning behind it, its just taken as a given.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#95

Post by uiri » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:33 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #72

true_religion wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't asked to voluntarily pay for the police force, however people in the middle class and above do pay for security services which approximates a part of what the police do. People also pay for detective services when the police fail, are unwilling, or are not tasked to inquire into a particular crime. Also people pay investigative services for breech of contract civil offenses that the police generally do…

The crux of libertarian thought is that public services like the police can be entirely replaced by voluntary organizations--that the neighborhood watch or private detectives should assume the powers of, say, arresting people and putting them in jail.

Yes, the logical conclusion of libertarian thought is anarchy (in the sense of no government at all, not communism or syndicalism). Some people might think that is a horrible state of affairs. But, no taxes, right? And without pesky immigration and border control, you can just move if you don't like the way the people's justice system is treating you.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#96

Post by true_religion » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:35 PM UTC

sopooneo wrote: post #42

feralchimp wrote: post #21

TL;DR - Just because you don't use the library doesn't mean no one needs them anymore. Not everyone's Real Life Issues are amenable to a self-service web portal, and that's not just because no one has built the right widgets yet. > it will be a slow death by a thousand cuts It will be a slow descent into budget fugue, followed by an extremely quick death when we pass an inflection point in "the number of people who r…

That is a good idea, though I favor chalk boards. But it would be great. In order to bring it about a lot of difficult management problems would have to be solved. For instance, people are going to be turning tricks in all those separated rooms pretty quickly.

My old university library had private rooms that you could use to get away from the crowds. They were sound proofed, but had a giant glass wall that faced towards the rest of the people. You couldn't turn tricks there unless every onlooker was in approval.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#97

Post by _delirium » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:39 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #57

xenophanes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was trying to present the good side of libertarianism. The argument you present for libertarians is bad and borderline shameful (and, I think, not representative of the majority of libertarians. but certainly something some of them would say). But there much better arguments with similar conclusions. The main reason it's an awful position, in my view, is that it's premised on conflicts of interest and compromise --…

This is exactly the position of Ayn Rand, especially the part about not really caring if poor people get to have things like libraries or housing or food. To Ayn Rand, a "rational" homeless person would rather stave to death on the streets than accept the first crumb of unearned bread or a single night's sleep under an unearned roof. The only reason there's no conflict for Rand is because Rand doesn't recognize a leg…

On the plus side, I don't think there are many hardline Randians. In technology, I would guess that libertarianism boils down to some mixture of: 1) being really annoyed about civil-liberties, EFF-type issues; 2) being moderately annoyed about regulations seen as unnecessary; and 3) being mildly-to-moderately annoyed about taxes.

Varies by person, but I think if you took a vote even restricted to people in Silicon Valley who actively called themselves "libertarian-leaning", over whether libraries should get some funding, the answer would probably still be "yes". Not too many people are actively against libraries; I think they get cut more because, unfortunately, their constituency isn't as powerful as other things that might be cut instead.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#98

Post by philwelch » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:39 PM UTC

xenophanes wrote: post #87

philwelch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the position of Ayn Rand, especially the part about not really caring if poor people get to have things like libraries or housing or food. To Ayn Rand, a "rational" homeless person would rather stave to death on the streets than accept the first crumb of unearned bread or a single night's sleep under an unearned roof. The only reason there's no conflict for Rand is because Rand doesn't recognize a leg…

You're wrong and should stop hating people you're ignorant of. I'll give brief examples in hopes you, recognizing you really were wrong about some basic facts, will either learn about the subject or stop making nasty, ignorant accusations in the future. Ayn Rand did not have a policy of "never accept handouts", said so, and, for example, signed up for medicaid. Ayn Rand's argument I cited does not consist of denying…

I was a fanatical Randroid myself in my younger years, and while she may not have gone as far as "never accept handouts", she did go as far as "never expect handouts", and in Rand's system there is explicitly no right or expectation to anything unearned.

Rand's opposition to "libertarians" was purely a personal dislike of the people in Rand's time who called themselves libertarians. Most sensible definitions of the word "libertarian", ranging anywhere from "an advocate for limited government" to "an advocate of the non-aggression principle" easily entail Rand's philosophy.

Finally, while I think Ayn Rand was irrational or just plain wrong in many aspects of her philosophy and in her personal and political dealings, and while I think her philosophy has frankly horrific consequences, I don't hate the woman. I actually have a degree of fondness for her, and her role in my intellectual development.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#99

Post by pacala » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:39 PM UTC

lemmsjid wrote: post #69

yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

I'm going to reject one of the premises of the article, namely the premise that he is helping people who are "barely surviving". Let's consider people who are receiving cash or non-cash benefits, as the article described. Among these people, 67% have cable or satellite TV. 38% have a playstation. 47% own a computer. 23% have a big screen TV. Only 14% of people receiving government benefits lacked all of these luxurie…

I'm struggling to understand what conclusions you can draw from that. For one thing, what of that 14%? Do those people not exist? Are they not statistically significant for you to care about them? For another, are the 47% who own a computer somehow automatically well off? Do you understand the economic situation a family can be in? They own a computer whose net worth is about $50. At some point they bought a televisi…

But the poor might, gasp, enjoy their $100 a month cable. The horror, poor people enjoying something in their otherwise deprived and miserable life.

Re: Every day at my job I helped people just barely survive

#100

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 8:41 PM UTC

urbanjunkie wrote: post #82

yummyfajitas wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "massive positive externalities" are created by a library? The sole benefit you describe, namely the ability to borrow books, is a private benefit. I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? Since I am the sole beneficiary, the library can charge me for it, and prevent me from consuming it if I don't pay. Why should you be forced to pay for me to receive these ben…

> I borrow a book, read it and enjoy it. What benefit does this create for anyone besides me? That actually made me feel sorry for you. Are you really this much of an island, or do you just enjoy trolling? Is there no possible benefit for me that you might have learned something, or that perhaps you might now be able to tell me something I didn't know before? Is there no benefit to me that perhaps because someone in…

Is there no possible benefit for me that you might have learned something, or that perhaps you might now be able to tell me something I didn't know before?

You are moving the goalposts. I asserted there is no "massive positive externality", not that there is no possible external externality.

I do concede that maybe people who spend time in the library are more interesting conversationalists. I just don't consider this benefit to be "massive". Do you?