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

We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

erikmcclure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 421 posts

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#381

Post by johnnyworker »

nolongerthere wrote: post #370
tptacek wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bazelel Smotrich is a fringe right-wing character, reviled by a significant fraction of Israelis and even more so by Jewish people in the US. Along with Itamar Ben-Gvir, he found his way into Netanyahu's cabinet after Netanyahu lost support from a significant chunk of conservative Israelis in the wake of legal scandals, which included a recently-repudiated attempt to disempower Israeli courts in an effort that was in…

I appreciate your context but not really sure what it adds. I know who all the players are and I know how many left-leaning Americans and secular Jews feel about religious people, I think you are presenting a very one sided view of things, but that's not really relevant. I was interested in what johnnyworker was really trying to say, as it's not really coherent at the moment.

[flagged]

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#382

Post by tptacek »

johnnyworker wrote: post #381
nolongerthere wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your context but not really sure what it adds. I know who all the players are and I know how many left-leaning Americans and secular Jews feel about religious people, I think you are presenting a very one sided view of things, but that's not really relevant. I was interested in what johnnyworker was really trying to say, as it's not really coherent at the moment.

[flagged]

You don't have to engage with people here, but if you do, you owe them (and everyone else here) more civility than this.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#383

Post by maxbond »

WalterBright wrote: post #379
maxbond wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My values include empathy, generosity, and kindness. Selfishness is most often incompatible with those values.

Does that mean you get good feelings from being unselfish?

No, not really. Following my values usually feels neutral. Sometimes it feels absolutely terrible.

What I'm trying to tell you is that this is an intrinsic goal, not an instrumental goal. If you were to ask me, "why do you have values?" or "why do you follow your values?" I wouldn't even know how to answer, it would be like asking a fish why it swims.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#384

Post by defrost »

panick21_ wrote: post #337
defrost wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. To be sure this does not stipulate that all actors be selfish, merely that no penalty should inhibit selfishness.

> A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up. The classical liberal tradition always had a strong association and interest in English Common Law and never…

> That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up.

I suggest you quickly take that up with the wikipedia page and several texts then.

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

Evolution of core beliefs

    Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest.
attributed to: Dickerson, M. O.; Flanagan, Thomas; O'Neill, Brenda (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0176500429.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#385

Post by panick21_ »

defrost wrote: post #384
panick21_ wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest. That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up. The classical liberal tradition always had a strong association and interest in English Common Law and never…

> That is completely false, you are simply attacking the straw men that 100 years of oversimplified critics of classical liberalism have set up. I suggest you quickly take that up with the wikipedia page and several texts then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Evolution of core beliefs Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals…

Nothing in the quote proves your actual argument.

What you said is:

> A core classic liberal belief, arguably the core belief, is that nothing should stand in the way of individuals being able to secure their own economic self-interest.

You literally said 'nothing'.

It is of course true that they believed that self-interested individuals seeking voluntary trade to improve their self interest within a legal framework would be beneficial for society.

Note how Adam Smith never says 'its amazing to steal as much money as possible because following your self interest is good for society'.

I suggest you read Adam Smiths actual work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#386

Post by moring »

littlestymaar wrote: post #310
moring wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Build housing would be a great start! Markets don't care about low-profit cheap small apartments, so there's no supply and the demand isn't being met, so it's the mission of the state to step up and compensate this market failure. Let's start here. What are the steps needed to get the state to do this? Is the money for it taken from other places, or by increasing the deficit, or by raising taxes? How do you convinc…

These are secondary concerns: you need to agree to the end goal before you can even reach them, and the biggest problem is that many, if not most, affluent people don't want to solve the problem in the first place for either ideological and/or financial reasons, which in the American plutocracy means this will never happen. If you agree to the end goal, you can pick whatever answer you like to your financing question…

> (...) and the biggest problem is that many, if not most, affluent people don't want to solve the problem in the first place for either ideological and/or financial reasons, which in the American plutocracy means this will never happen.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in this discussion, because to me it seems like we're jumping from "this is really simple" to "it can't be done" and back. Which is it -- is it simple, or is it so complex that it's impossible?

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#387

Post by moring »

Draiken wrote: post #311
moring wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would need to introduce an equilibrium encouraging money system and prevent the extraction of land rents. Those things are never going to happen, because they are too obvious of a solution. If these two action items are "never going to happen", as you say, then they are not (part of) a solution. Like the author of the article, you have just started mapping the problem. > If you wanted the same answer in short:…

This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this therefore it's too complex to solve. It's all about incentives. Our society is incentivized to make a few people rich, not to solve these sorts of problems. If we wanted to solve them, we would. But that's not profitable, so it's not "worth" it. Humans never had the technological capabilities we have today, which could solve most, if n…

> This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this therefore it's too complex to solve.

I wasn't arguing that the problem is too complex to solve, and in fact I don't see any evidence that it is.

Instead, I am arguing that the replies in this thread who claim that the problem is "simple", "not rocket science" etc. underestimate the problem's complexity, and challenged them to present a solution if they think it is simple.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#388

Post by moring »

jampekka wrote: post #319
moring wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homelessness is a society-wide self-inflected wound: it could be stopped in a few years, but that would be landlord gentry's biggest nightmare. I think you are making the same mistake as the author of the article. Can you describe the steps necessary to solve homelessness, without resorting to "steps" that simply describe a condition that won't be fulfilled, such as "people have to..." or "the government has to..."…

> Or, in other words, let's assume that I want to solve homelessness. What do I have to do for that? In Finland at least this was (mostly) solved by, you know, giving homeless people homes. Ones owned by municipalities. Decided by elected representatives. Who were elected by voters who care about more than their own ass on this quarter. This is really not rocket science or fusion power stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org…

I was assuming that the original topic was about the US, so my apologies if we were just talking about different countries here. So to be more precise: Is the problem a simple one in the US? If so, what is the solution?

Or, in case you were referring to Finland's solution being a solution "template" for the US, what are the steps to implement that solution in the US?

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#389

Post by moring »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #380
travisjungroth wrote: post #98

If your solution would work except for some reason, then you don’t actually have a solution . A drill that works in space except for all that vacuum and radiation isn’t actually a space drill. It’s a space drill for some alternate reality, meaning the one you’re not actually in. You haven’t solved the problem. You’re not as good of a problem solver as you think you are, sorry. Stop acting like you’ve solved it. You h…

I think it’s worthwhile to be able to say “we could solve the problem if it weren’t for X” so we can talk about why “X” is the way it is. That is, the job of philosophers is not to solve problems, but to articulate a way of looking at problems which may lead to solutions.

> I think it’s worthwhile to be able to say “we could solve the problem if it weren’t for X” so we can talk about why “X” is the way it is.

Fully agree. But we shouldn't confuse “we could solve the problem if it weren’t for X” with a solution. It is a starting point to understand the problem better, and a first step on the journey towards a solution.

Re: We Could Fix Everything, We Just Don't

#390

Post by croes »

eru wrote: post #373
croes wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said useless? Just not as useful as it used to be.

> Who said useless? You did? > Yes, but then we get useless microwaves and in the end dangerous microwaves.

Good point, meant to write less useful. Seems my brain merged less useful to useless.
Post reply on HN