The world is socialist • Hacker News Board

Re: The world is socialist

#41

Post by staccatomeasure » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:00 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #11

> All these people who are so great aren't really that much greater than the average schmuck on the subway. There really isn't that much range in the smartness or fitness of human beings. Whelp, you've lost me. The difference in productivity and smartness---as measured by the consistent ability to impact the world---of people is enormous (the additional importance of luck notwithstanding). I'm not sure why you though…

Productivity and smartness are measured by the consistent ability to impact the world? And there is data linking "productivity", "smartness", and "consistent impact on the world"? Does Will Hunting abandoning math to go see about a girl make him an idiot?

Re: The world is socialist

#42

Post by ororlrlrlylyly » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:01 PM UTC

johnnyg wrote: post #14

1. Can we agree that both full socialism and full rand style capitalism end in tears? 2. Token rebuttals. a. Someone lives irresponsibly, I live responsibly. The sick that comes for us all devastates them early and I'm told "since we all get sick, they got sick much earlier due to all the crack and booze, they can't pay because they were grasshoppering it up while you worked, so now you pay". This is an extreme examp…

I assume that by "full socialism," you're referring to Stalinism, something that's actually rejected by most socialists, and any serious socialist.

To answer your question, no, we can't.

Re: The world is socialist

#43

Post by icebraining » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

drewblaisdell wrote: post #31

aetherson wrote: post #22

We all get hungry, but we buy food from farmers on the market. We all need shelter, but we're buy our rent our homes. We all need clothing, but we clothing manufacturers are for profit. There are a variety of good arguments for socialized health care, but "we all get sick" is not among them. This article is banal in the extreme, and I'm not sure why it's on the front page.

> There are a variety of good arguments for socialized health care, but "we all get sick" is not among them. I disagree. The more specific "we all can get very sick, and being very sick is very expensive" is a very good argument for pooling our resources to make sure that we all get help when we need it.

Playing Devil's advocate, there are other ways of pooling resources, such as insurance or mutual-aid societies, the latter of which were mostly crowded out by state provided healthcare. There was a recent Econtalk podcast which touched on these issues: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/07/michael_lind_on.htm...

Re: The world is socialist

#44

Post by GuiA » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #11

> All these people who are so great aren't really that much greater than the average schmuck on the subway. There really isn't that much range in the smartness or fitness of human beings. Whelp, you've lost me. The difference in productivity and smartness---as measured by the consistent ability to impact the world---of people is enormous (the additional importance of luck notwithstanding). I'm not sure why you though…

I've taught programming to kids from very poor classes of society who grokked it and excelled at it. But, guess what– a lot of them will be stuck working at McDonald's because they can't go to college, or because even if they could go to public universities their family didn't understand why they should spend 4+ years not bringing in any money when they could work at McDonald's right away.

I've also taught/privately tutored CS students from some of the US's best universities. The range in intellectual capacity between the two groups is shockingly consistent. I've had students who attended Stanford who would have been put to shame by some of my "first of the family to finish high school but can't go to college" students.

If Bill Gates hadn't been born to lawyers and bankers, data says he would likely be part of the "average schmucks on the subway".

Successful people consistently underestimate how lucky they are.

Re: The world is socialist

#45

Post by staccatomeasure » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #39

Socialism is forced cooperation, as opposed to voluntary cooperation.

There's no such thing as voluntary cooperation when all of the land is already owned.

Re: The world is socialist

#46

Post by dantheman » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

taylodl wrote: post #19

John Galt never made it past adolescence. He ultimately used his talents to make the world suffer, all along possessing the wherewithal to make the world a better place. But HE didn't think THEY deserved it. I shudder to think people wanted a John Galt admirer for U.S. Vice President (and were supporting him for that very reason).

I believe your misremembering the story - they aren't withdrawing from the world to punish evil doers, it clearly states they are withdrawing to stop enabling the evil doers. It's like an intervention on society. And it's a story.

Re: The world is socialist

#47

Post by thelastuser » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:05 PM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #10

marris wrote: post #8

"Disease is socialist" but most cures come out of commercial drug companies cure them. Weird. I think the reader has a healthy aversion to Rand, but there is certainly a difference between great acts and mediocre ones.

And many cures come from publicly funded research universities. And even those commercial drug companies benefit greatly from government subsidies, patents issued by the government, roads built by the government, and a population educated in public universities. It's disingenuous to pretend those "commercial" drug companies forged their own universe and created these products benevolently.

I suppose that would be disingenuous... if anyone were to suggest it.

You have no idea, of those government provisions you listed, what the actual costs are. You won't be able to get the most efficient allocation of resources, because it's not a market allocation (people freely paying), but a political allocation.

Oh, and I don't care if a drug company is benevolent. Just that they are free to offer me the goods at a price that isn't rigged (as by regulation of competitors, for example).

Re: The world is socialist

#48

Post by guard-of-terra » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

kungfooguru wrote: post #38

guard-of-terra wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt the point was attacking capitalism. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive in a society.

They are. Socialism is an economy where production is owned and run by the workers for the benefit of the working class, which would be the ruling class at that time. Simply having a welfare state or some nationalized industries is not socialism. The source of power and ownership of production is still in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Mises as serious? Hah. But yes, he and the others are attacked less but only becaus…

"Socialism is an economy where production is owned and run by the workers for the benefit of the working class"

Isn't that communism?

Re: The world is socialist

#49

Post by KaiserPro » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:08 PM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #20

glesica wrote: post #6

If you want to go back to the point where we decided to be socialist and try to undo it, you're going to have to kill most of the people on the planet who depend on the current system for sustenance. And like it or not, that probably includes you. It certainly includes most of the idiots running around preaching Ayn Rand these days. This is my favorite part. So many people who claim, or seem to have taken inspiration…

"So many people who claim, or seem to have taken inspiration from Rand would, in fact, be "bad guys" in Atlas Shrugged." Case in point: Rand hated Libertarians.[1] Some typical examples from the article: - She called Libertarianism "a mockery of philosophy and ideology" - She accused Libertarians of "slinging slogans and trying to ride on two bandwagons" Later, she accuses them of entertaining "amateur political noti…

Rand hated everyone apart from tall, arrogant & selfish men.

Re: The world is socialist

#50

Post by scarmig » Sun, Aug 04, 2013, 6:08 PM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #32

trimbo wrote: post #26

I think I must be the only person ever who read Atlas Shrugged and thought it was a very entertaining book, but didn't either love it or hate it because of the politics. Is there anyone else out there who just loves the book like I do without applying the politics in real life?

As the book is so poorly written, those who enjoy it as literature are indeed in a small club.

As a writer, Rand gets better as she gets shorter. I'd say she never gets to the point where she could be called a good writer, but she does sometimes reach for and achieve passable.