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

The world is socialist

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 162 posts

Re: The world is socialist

#141

Post by pron »

pearkes wrote: post #15

Ayn Rand's philosophy is widely criticized for being contradictory. This seems pretty accurate to me. But I don't think modern readers of Atlas Shrugged , The Fountainhead , Anthem , et al., are listening to her as a preacher, to apply her ideas to the entirety of their lives, but rather as inspiration for their own philosophy. That is, after all, one reason to read literature that challenges your opinions. That's wh…

I love that quote. So pure; so childish. Ayn Rand was, at heart, a little girl (and who of us isn't at heart a small child?). Of course Rand is inspiring, just like "Jack and the Beanstalk". Inspiring children is easy. I just hope that as her readers mature, they come to realize that Dr Seuss's work, has more sophistication and truth to it than Rand's writing, while being no less inspiring.

Re: The world is socialist

#142

Post by pandaman »

pron wrote: post #138
pandaman wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that the "Godwin's law fail" rule was derived to deal with exactly the type of argument you are making? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries_and_...

Ugh. I would propose to apply the recursive Godwin's law on any invocation of Godwin's law if only Godwin's law weren't more trite and, worst of all — boring — than the comparisons Godwin's law tries to outlaw, and so, by induction would be any recursive Godwin's law. And when have Hitler comparisons, if you think I made one, ever been more apt? ;) EDIT (if I need to spell it out): It was claimed that an offhand dism…

It seems I need to spell it out too: The Godwin's law is not about Hitler in particular. It's about making a (non-)argument based on some superficial and irrelevant observations. Thus, as you aptly noticed, it's inherently recursive as it's dismissing arguments based on no less superficial and irrelevant observations i.e. mentioning Hitler or Nazis.

Re: The world is socialist

#143

Post by thelastuser »

thomasz wrote: post #135
thelastuser wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

1. Because the majority does not possess the means of survival by subsistence and are forced to cooperate with proprietors. 2. "Property" cannot exist without en force ment. If you own land and I don't, chances are that I can find another poor bastard who will help me to take it from you.

I just want to note first that it is not clear that all land is currently owned. Natural owners (homesteaders) have been displaced many times by state violence and the threat of state violence keeps people from homesteading available space. I had sidestepped this earlier because, even if all land has legitimate private owners, that does not preclude voluntary cooperation.

1. Your body is your property, and you have the right to contract (i.e. agree with another person to use your property in a particular way, for instance as a condition of transfer of property). So the filthy rich person who owns a country--which by the way I don't think is possible, since he probably just planted a flag and yelled that he owns it, which does not make a homestead... but for the sake of argument let's say he does own the country--this guy excludes thousands of people who only have the standing room on which they were born. Do tell me how this guy will eat. I will bet that, through the magic of self interest, the landowner will be happy to contract with the impoverished majority, say, for farming. Now if you're thinking ahead, you already see that the poor folk, if their private property rights are respected, can save their income and trade and sell among themselves, maybe even buy some of that land from the country owner. The historic problem is not that ownership of land existed, but that it was never treated as a private property, or that the individual right to self-ownership and contract were not universally respected.

2. So people can be crooks? I don't disagree.

Re: The world is socialist

#144

Post by mpyne »

wissler wrote: post #103
staccatomeasure wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't your original idea something that democratic procedures violate people? Is difference that in an HOA you agree to the procedures, instead of being born into them?

This is actually a very deep question. To oversimplify, yes, the difference is that you've consented to the rules. Imagine you and your friends decide to order a pizza and agree to vote on the toppings. That's fine. But it's not fine for a friend to force you to pay for the pizza when you didn't agree to do so.

Is it OK for you, a neighbor, and your friend to agree on the toppings of the pizza and then for your neighbor and yourself to "vote in" different toppings for every succeeding pizza?

Your friend consented to the first pizza, but he didn't consent to any pizza after, except insofar as you can say that his remaining a member of the pizza-owners' association represents actual consent.

Re: The world is socialist

#145

Post by true_religion »

dreamfactory wrote: post #78
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…

When somebody gets TB, regardless of their lifestyle, is it in your best interests that they get a full course of treatment in an isolation ward in hospital, or that they wander the streets coughing blood all over the place and incubate a new drug-resistant strain? Is it in your best interests that tap water is maintained by competing for-profit companies (see Victorian Britain and cholera), and is it better for you…

> is it in your best interests that they get a full course of treatment in an isolation ward in hospital, or that they wander the streets coughing blood all over the place and incubate a new drug-resistant strain?

That's a false dichotomy. An example of a 3rd option is to put them in an isolation ward, and allow them to simply die if they can't pay for treatment.

When it comes to medical care, the question of how to allocate resources on quality of life improvements is never so simply and black and white.

Re: The world is socialist

#146

Post by mpyne »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #93
czr80 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medical care is not unequivocally a private good.

True, but epidemic prevention is an extremely small problem (and a very cheap one to address), at least in the US. Virtually no one across the political spectrum (including most libertarians) opposes it. Near as I can tell, the OP wasn't talking about it either.

But the same morals and 'ethical guideposts' apply throughout, do they not?

By way logic does a libertarian say that e.g. government coercing people to obey quarantines is acceptable, but that the government coercing people to pay for cheap public preventive care (before expensive specialist treatments become necessary) is not?

Re: The world is socialist

#147

Post by whatsmypass »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #73
scarmig wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, her principle is basically "it's always bad to accept government handouts, unless you're an Objectivist, in which case it's fine so long as you complain very loudly while receiving them." I wish I were kidding.

I don't agree with her on the specific point, but I actually agree with her more broadly. If your everyday life doesn't match up with your ideals, you don't have to martyr yourself to be a good person. Hypocrisy is a normal state of affairs. For example, it's okay for me to complain about sweatshops but still buy running shoes that are made in them. It's okay for me to send my kids to a private school because the pub…

>For example, it's okay for me to complain about sweatshops but still buy running shoes that are made in them.

I don't think that's actually true, even though I do the same.

I think it cheapens my character. I believe even if I'm vocal about my feelings about sweatshop labor, that doesn't really matter when I still support it financially.

It really just means that I'm not as good of a person as I'd like to be.

Re: The world is socialist

#148

Post by dnskw »

thomasz wrote: post #136
dnskw wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could they not exchange goods with other co-ops?

Well, yes. But that could only provide for a tiny amount of goods - at least if theco-op doesn't want to live in a primitivist hell.

There could be coops around the world that trade with each other to get everything they need?

Re: The world is socialist

#149

Post by dnskw »

icebraining wrote: post #139
dnskw wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism and capitalism can be occurring at the same time in the same city. If one company was worker controlled and one company was hierarchically controlled then it would be fine. As long as nobody is forcing somebody into a different system both could work together.

Socialism is more than the worker's ownership of the means of production. http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.ht...

Depends on whose definition of socialism you are using.

Re: The world is socialist

#150

Post by wissler »

mpyne wrote: post #144
wissler wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually a very deep question. To oversimplify, yes, the difference is that you've consented to the rules. Imagine you and your friends decide to order a pizza and agree to vote on the toppings. That's fine. But it's not fine for a friend to force you to pay for the pizza when you didn't agree to do so.

Is it OK for you, a neighbor, and your friend to agree on the toppings of the pizza and then for your neighbor and yourself to "vote in" different toppings for every succeeding pizza? Your friend consented to the first pizza, but he didn't consent to any pizza after, except insofar as you can say that his remaining a member of the pizza-owners' association represents actual consent.

I don't see the point of your question. What you consent to is what you consent to. You can consent to just one pizza or you can consent to a succession, it's up to you.
Post reply on HN