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

David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 373 posts

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#191

Post by dmfdmf »

Like a lot of people, Simon seems sincere in his concerns about America and our future. Unfortunately, most people's sincerity isn't deep enough for them to question their fundamental moral premises. I won't argue the case for Capitalism here but to say that there are answers but most people do not want to hear them.

People are realizing that we as a society are faced with a horrible moral and political dilemma. The moral ideal is Socialism and yet where ever it is tried consistently it fails. Our moral evil is Capitalism and yet where ever it is tried it leads to material success but moral decay. So the dilemma of our age is a moral-practical dichotomy that no one seems to be able to resolve. It is understandable that people like Simon issue a call to double down on the moral ideal of Socialism, that's what morality is for, to tell us what we should do. But his "solution" is that maybe we can make it work this time if we don't impose Marx's dictum too consistently. Maybe this time "need" won't expand beyond all bound and "ability" won't vanish. This time.

This approach will fail too. To escape our dilemma we need to question our morality instead of imposing another Socialist failure in America. I hope we can avoid this fate but I am not optimistic. If you are sincerely interested in these issues then I urge you to read two books by Ayn Rand; Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#192

Post by praptak »

abalone wrote: post #61

Very good speech and an important national dialog to spark. I'd like to call attention to one thing though: "I don't believe that a state-run economy can be as viable as market capitalism in producing mass wealth." This demonstrates a basic confusion that we Americans have about ourselves, even most "lefties" and "libertarians": The false belief that we live in a free market economy. The truth is, the state plays a m…

"So you -- whoever you may be -- you have to learn responsibility, and be subjected to market discipline, it's good for your character, it's tough love, and so on, and so forth. But me, I need the nanny State, to protect me from market discipline, so that I'll be able to rant and rave about the marvels of the free market, while I'm getting properly subsidized and defended by everyone else, through the nanny State. And also, this has to be risk-free. So I'm perfectly willing to make profits, but I don't want to take risks. If anything goes wrong, you bail me out."

Noam Chomsky, "Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World": http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19960413.htm

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#193

Post by chongli »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #151
chongli wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's based on the idea of exponential growth. Exponential growth is not sustainable without exponential growing access to resources.

> Because it's based on the idea of exponential growth. Except it isn't. It's based on the expectation that the market will allocate resources based on factors like supply/demand. We focus on growth because it's a human tendency to always want more. Has nothing to do with capitalism.

No, you've got your definitions mixed up. You're talking about the free market. Capitalism is about capital; that is, investment with the goal of profit. The only way to sustain continued investment and subsequent profit is to have growth.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#194

Post by anoncowherd »

steveklabnik wrote: post #177
anoncowherd wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "rob"? What does it mean to "force someone to do something"? Have you got an inkling, perhaps? >> The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible. Why would it need to? It's not a…

I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does. > But if everyone adhered to it, the world would be a lovely place. If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless.

>> I specifically mean that libertarians don't view property rights as forceful, but the left does.

I don't know what kind of libertarianism you're referring to, exactly. But property is based on property rights, is it not? It makes no sense to think that you have no rights in the absence of a government. Think about it. If there's no government, would you not have the right to defend yourself or your property against an aggressor? -Of course you would. Governments have nothing to do with that.

>> If it's not a possibility that can happen in the actual world, then the statement is basically meaningless

The statement means what it means, even if only as a sentence.

But look, I already acknowledged that not everyone adheres to the NAP. That can't be helped now, and it probably can't be helped ever. But the number of people who aggress against others can sure be reduced through peaceful, sensible, consistent parenting, for example.

The fact that not every single goddamn human being out there is good is not a reason to dismiss libertarian/free-market/anarchist ideas. You'll have to do way better than that, but ultimately, you'll find that reason, logic, and evidence should / can not be dismissed at all.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#195

Post by 7Figures2Commas »

chroem wrote: post #87
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #18

It's astonishing that, in a nearly 3,000 word speech calling the United States a "horror show", the word debt is used not once.

If you're implying that we need to madly slash all government operations, I think that's pretty misguided. We're actually running a secondary surplus right now, given that the rate of inflation is higher than the extremely low interest rates on our national debt.

> If you're implying that we need to madly slash all government operations, I think that's pretty misguided.

I am always amused when folks take a simple statement ("It's astonishing that, in a nearly 3,000 word speech calling the United States a 'horror show', the word debt is used not once.") and read into it suggestions that are neither expressed nor implied.

> We're actually running a secondary surplus right now, given that the rate of inflation is higher than the extremely low interest rates on our national debt.

There are always justifications for reckless behavior ("Yes, I'm spending a lot of money, but I'm paying 0% interest for 18 months thanks to my new credit card's introductory offer!"), but given that interest rates can't get much lower, an exercise you might find valuable is to calculate the cost of servicing the national debt as interest rates rise. For reference, although the CBO isn't great at predicting the future, they expect the interest rate on the 10y to be at 5.2% in 2023 and that annual interest payments on the debt will be $823 billion.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#196

Post by return0 »

> Right now capital has effectively purchased the government

Which is the reason people no longer trust any government, which is why libertarianism seems the way forward, and any thoughts like these sound like 'reactionary' voices from the past. It seems to me that the linear progression towards absolute personal freedom which started with the Enlightenment is only going to go forward, which will realize many of the fears expressed in the article. The newer generations seem to be very comfortable with the idea of the oncoming law of the jungle, and seem very comfortable with their nationally neutral, atomic, unassociated social network identities. I doubt there will be a shift towards socialist ideals any time soon. The empowerment of the poor is already considered a technical problem to be solved by the startup ecosystem.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#197

Post by wrongc0ntinent »

robomartin wrote: post #171
jerf wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2012 US GDP was 15.68 trillion. The 2012 Federal government expenditures were 3.54 trillion. Right off the top, the Federal government accounts for 22.6% of the economic activity in the country. Depending on how you measure, you can quibble with this exact choice of numbers, but no matter how you fiddle you're not getting out of the Federal government being a huge part of the economy directly. State and local gov…

I agree with your views regarding less government being a good thing. Just in case some take pride in the number you provided I want to take a moment to put it into some context. > The 2012 Federal government expenditures were 3.54 trillion. Right off the top, the Federal government accounts for 22.6% We thankfully have a canonical example that exposes just how bad government can be: Obamacare. Government is the only…

Your argument only addresses money/economy. Your conclusion is not warranted.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#198

Post by AndrewKemendo »

thenomad wrote: post #152
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question - and only question - should be what David Simon asks: are we all in this together or are we not? I think this question is frankly naïve. Humans have functional limitations on how much we can care about other people, aka Dunbar's number. This is not something you can improve (maybe by .0001%) or create policy around, it's a hard limit. The fact that, at least in the United States, virtually everyone live…

That's not what Dunbar's Number means. Dunbar's Number is "a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships." Having a social relationship with someone != caring about their fate.

Having a social relationship with someone != caring about their fate.

I think you aren't understanding the mechanism of the theory - which goes beyond the original paper. It has less to do with being able to "be social" (a broader function) than it does with being able to empathize with someone. Empathy is directly related to size and activity within the neocortex.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5497.long

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#199

Post by anoncowherd »

21echoes wrote: post #190
anoncowherd wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The NAP is pretty useless, because it doesn't define what 'force' or 'initiation' means. Do you also need a definition for, say "rape", "kill", "steal", "rob"? What does it mean to "force someone to do something"? Have you got an inkling, perhaps? >> The NAP doesn't really provide a means from getting from where we are today to a world 'without force,' as if that was even possible. Why would it need to? It's not a…

the NAP is in effect. it's just me and you in the forest, and there's one apple tree. you "own" the apple tree. I am starving, and I "steal" an apple from your tree. who initiated the aggression?

There's no need to quibble about "lifeboat scenarios". You can come up with countless scenarios where there needs to be an "exception" to the NAP, but that's pointless, and a waste of time. It changes nothing about NAP itself, or its basis.

You'll break a rule when you have to, and that's it. It's very simple. If you're in the desert, dying of thirst and someone comes along and starts trying to force you to pay a ridiculous price for some water, then of course you'll do whatever you can to get some. But no sane, independent, objective "court" would punish you for that.

For a clearer picture, start coming up with scenarios where you could adhere to the NAP with zero effort at all.

Re: David Simon: 'There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show'

#200

Post by dobbsbob »

anoncowherd wrote: post #115
touzen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Sweden private for profit schools and schools run by the municipalities compete with each other. All of them are funded by the tax payers and they get a certain amount of money for every student. The system is a disaster, with a lot of for profit schools slashing costs to maximize profits regardless of what the consequences are for the students. And that's just one of the many failures of the system. Basically, th…

>> In Sweden private for profit schools and schools run by the municipalities compete with each other. All of them are funded by the tax payers and they get a certain amount of money for every student. How the hell can a school be "private" , while being funded by taxpayers?

They call these "PPP" public private partnerships. What happens is cronies of the ruling party are given money to avoid risk and get to run the business extracting all profits for themselves. The taxpayer is told hey this would cost 10x as much if we ran it.
Post reply on HN