Life as a Service • Hacker News Board

Re: Life as a Service

#101

Post by Zak » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 1:54 PM UTC

Jare wrote: post #76

Zak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle, I agree with you, but most of the things you list are relatively cheap. In the United States (I know Jacques isn't American), the majority of the Federal budget is devoted to the military, interest on the national debt, various forms of free/subsidized insurance for the old and poor, and various forms of income support for the poor. The public goods other than national defense you list are very cheap in…

> The US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, so there's a good chance it's possible to have effective national defense for an order of magnitude less than we currently pay But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And…

at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do

All true, but I think these things are true of China, with 1/5 the spending or the UK with 1/10. It is probably possible to provide an effective defense, including the ability to effectively attack an overseas enemy spending a much smaller amount than the US actually does.

Re: Life as a Service

#102

Post by eckyptang » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 1:57 PM UTC

acuozzo wrote: post #100

eckyptang wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering morality is founded on a fear of someone doing to you what you did to them, then yes. This is a fairly basic interpretation of the golden rule but it stands up to the majority of counterpoints.

> Considering morality is founded on a fear of someone doing to you what you did to them, then yes. Well, at least we know you're at stage #1 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

Ah that broken model which assumes that moral reasoning has a relation to moral action, which it clearly doesn't for the majority of the population of this rock...

Re: Life as a Service

#103

Post by po » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 1:57 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #71

po wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some places, fire protection is apparently up for debate. This family had their house burn down because they failed to pay the $75 tax. It's only fair after all: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-b... I think it's even been given the unfortunate name 'pay to spray'. Fire prevention is just as much up for debate amongst people of a certain ideological bent as healthcare. It's the next logic…

Flip it around tho', they were asking firefighters to quite literally risk their lives for them, when they weren't even community-spirited enough to contribute towards the common good. Unless you have the plague, a doctor doesn't take nearly the same personal risk as a firefighter.

Sure, that's true and I think people who don't pay the taxes that support the firemen should be ashamed of themselves and forced to pay. Similarly, I think firemen should be trained well and paid for the risk they are taking on.

That being said, humans are not very good at reasoning about risk. Fire is a life-destroying event disproportionate to the perceived risk. It can wipe a family out and has secondary impacts to the community in general. I think we should accept that. We don't have to periodically let someone's home burn to the ground to serve as a lesson to others.

Re: Life as a Service

#104

Post by jmcqk6 » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 2:04 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #96

confluence wrote: post #84

I've made up my own law of selfish libertarianism - if you'll indulge me: > It's only a liability or an entitlement until you yourself need it - then it's a fucking right. For example being a young white male born into a middle class western family affords you the ability to state "all I need is contract law - everything else is just impinging on my rights and forcing me to take on obligations I don't appear to benef…

Rights should be based on the veil of ignorance principle - the weak should be protected and the strong should pay for they are one car crash away from welfare. Your moral values seems to hold that individuals have few rights, and that collectively we should operate from the principle of infinite risk aversion (i.e., the Rawlsian veil of ignorance). Great - we all agree that if these are your values, Libertarianism i…

Somalia is, or at least was, a land without a government. If libertarians or randians are correct, it should be a land flowing with milk and honey. Of course, this is not the case. At least, that is how the argument goes.

I'm a former libertarian of the anarcho-capatilist-rand flavor, and I think there are much better arguments against that stance than somalia.

Re: Life as a Service

#105

Post by poppysan » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 2:06 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #71

po wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some places, fire protection is apparently up for debate. This family had their house burn down because they failed to pay the $75 tax. It's only fair after all: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-b... I think it's even been given the unfortunate name 'pay to spray'. Fire prevention is just as much up for debate amongst people of a certain ideological bent as healthcare. It's the next logic…

Flip it around tho', they were asking firefighters to quite literally risk their lives for them, when they weren't even community-spirited enough to contribute towards the common good. Unless you have the plague, a doctor doesn't take nearly the same personal risk as a firefighter.

firefighters have many mundane tasks as well. Doctors are exosed to viuses that could be widespread if they fail to do their job properly. Id argue that they are exposed to dangers they can bring home to the kids, which in my opinion make it just as, if not more dangerous.

Re: Life as a Service

#106

Post by potatolicious » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 2:12 PM UTC

Given how often libertarianism comes up around and here and some of the attitudes that are repeated demonstrated, it's pretty clear that a large segment of HN's population has never been in a disadvantaged situation in life, either in economics, geography, or race.

Re: Life as a Service

#107

Post by pav3l » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 2:32 PM UTC

Paul_S wrote: post #38

Shop around for a country to live in. I wish countries were more accommodating about this. In my dream world like minded people live in the same country. Just think of how great it would be if you didn't have to compromise because everyone in the country were on the same side of (for example) the liberal/conservative divide.

Wouldn't that significantly increase "the variance" and segregation of different political ideologies across the world, thus promoting more international tension?

Re: Life as a Service

#108

Post by fghh45sdfhr3 » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 2:36 PM UTC

Holland right? Is that the place he is talking about? I wonder how he feels about Switzerland, or say Canada?

Re: Life as a Service

#109

Post by enraged_camel » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 2:37 PM UTC

Jare wrote: post #76

Zak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle, I agree with you, but most of the things you list are relatively cheap. In the United States (I know Jacques isn't American), the majority of the Federal budget is devoted to the military, interest on the national debt, various forms of free/subsidized insurance for the old and poor, and various forms of income support for the poor. The public goods other than national defense you list are very cheap in…

> The US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, so there's a good chance it's possible to have effective national defense for an order of magnitude less than we currently pay But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And…

>>But national defense (or really, defense of any kind) is about more than just the ability to successfully repeal an attack; at certain scale, it's about ensuring that nobody even tries to lift a finger against you. And then there's the 'implied offensive' angle where others fear what you might do.

We don't need a huge military to have that effect. We already have nukes.

Re: Life as a Service

#110

Post by king_jester » Tue, Sep 25, 2012, 2:38 PM UTC

mibbitier wrote: post #46

wwwtyro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aren't these two things pretty essential for civilisation? Isn't that also true of food?

Not really the same IMHO. Giving people access to healthcare and fire protection doesn't create any bad incentives. You can't 'use' healthcare for monetary gain. Giving people food, money etc, gives people incentives to not bother working. Also I would say that a national health service ensures that the public is 'healthy'. Which affects us all, as diseases are transmitted etc. Just as the fire services ensures fires…

> Giving people food, money etc, gives people incentives to not bother working.

I find this kind of attitude totally bizarre. People do not stop having output just because they have food security. The notion that giving away food is bad because of work is a very capitalistic idea that actually serves to perpetuate hunger and starvation.