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

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

#211

Post by kefka » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:03 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #144

sanderjd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point (as I read it) isn't that the Constitution as written is sacrosanct, but that it is extremely useful to have a document whose rules are 1) executed as closely as possible in the present, and 2) changeable in the future. Otherwise there are no rules, and people are just making things up as they go. I tend to agree that this is the situation we currently find ourselves in, but I think a lot of the blame for i…

That is indeed exactly what I meant. That said, I think the difficulty found in the amendment process is an indicator that the founders intended the government to move far more slowly than it does, which leads one to believe they wanted less laws than more. Just an opinion there, but it is (I think) a fairly well supported one.

There are 'less laws'. It just so happens one of those laws is "FDA has final say on drug stuffs"...

And then they decide on the real laws. After all, congress already gave them approval.

Yep. Real transparency.

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

#212

Post by steveklabnik » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:03 PM UTC

anoncowherd wrote: post #206

steveklabnik wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'

>> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and let you make a claim first. >> This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. Which argument? "Think about it" doesn't constitute one, so it seems you wanted to quote something oth…

I did make a claim. The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless. You re-asserted a particular definition, and said 'think about it.' I don't find that to be particularly convincing.

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

#213

Post by crassus » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:03 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #114

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…

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…

This mirrors the argument in Albert Jay Nock's book "Our Enemy: The State" (1935). He argues that expanding government crowds out non-governmental social activity, giving the example of hurricane response. In his time he already saw the shift in the public mind from treating a disaster as a problem for the entire community to something that the government should handle.

If Nock is correct, there is a darker thesis that follows. Over the generations, dependent thinking becomes ingrained. It becomes impossible to think otherwise, as the examples we have of civil society solving problems fade into the past. In short, we become domesticated humans.

It was also the thesis of Marx that for socialism to succeed, a new Socialist Man would have to be raised, that human nature would have to be changed. This began in America with the reign of FDR, which coincided with the birth of the third American Republic - the Bureaucratic Superstate.

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

#214

Post by grahamburger » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:03 PM UTC

mooreds wrote: post #46

sseveran wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you stop chasing profits then there is no incentive to produce a quality product. The US public schools are a great example of that.

But are profits the best way to measure a "quality product" when it comes to something like education? I would argue not, or at least that externalized costs need to be internalized somehow (regulation or taxation are the typical means). That is to say, if we have for profit public schools, I'd want their profits to be tied to the long term effects of results of their students, not to yearly test scores.

Are you suggesting that I can't determine for myself if a particular school is providing a good long term education for my child? Or that I shouldn't be able to choose to take them to a different school?

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

#215

Post by steveklabnik » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:04 PM UTC

anoncowherd wrote: post #209

steveklabnik wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' > Think about it. I have thought about it, and so have many others. This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'

By the way, voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists are one and the same.

To me, I agree, but I've heard some of them draw a distinction I don't fully understand and I try to be respectful of identifying people in the way they choose to be identified.

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

#216

Post by rayiner » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:05 PM UTC

avar wrote: post #28

majika wrote: post #6

This is a remarkably sensible speech. The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenil…

The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…

The minute you institute property rights, you're forcing everyone to recognize and play along with certain rules. Classic libertarians have no opposition to government intervention when it comes to violently preventing poor people from taking their property. They deem it perfectly legitimate to coerce someone with economic threats but not physical ones. Its wonderfully self-serving for an educated class that tends not to have much in the way of physical strength to force everyone to abide by these rules that devalue physical strength.

To me, the only thing that needs to be said in this debate is that people, given the freedom to structure their society as they wish, have gravitated toward social democracy all over the West. They want everyone to be in it together not just when it comes to certain rights like property that libertarians like to pretend are handed down by God, but also when it comes to taking care of the poor, sick, and disabled and ensuring social mobility through education.

In my view, its immoral to create government to force everyone to follow certain rules, then deny people the right to decide for themselves what those rules should be. But that's the whole premise behind libertarian limited government.

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

#217

Post by nostromo » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:06 PM UTC

hbags wrote: post #173

dnautics wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

22.6% of the US economy under state control is responsible for ~100% of the inequity. Inflation has a compounding effect of screwing the poor and transferring that wealth to the rich. It shouldn't be surprising that in 1970 Nixon unpegged the dollar and let inflation float and since 1973 the income inequality in this country has gradually become unhinged. we keep giving more power to fewer people under the rubric of…

Inflation is most damaging to those who save but do not invest. The poor are near 100% consumption, so it has essentially no effect on them. A person whose average cash balance is $100 is not vulnerable to inflation.

Inflation is a way to silently lower wages without pissing off workers.

See more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-an...

Key quote: "Rising prices allows companies to increase profit margins quietly, by not raising wages"

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

#218

Post by anoncowherd » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:06 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #212

anoncowherd wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and let you make a claim first. >> This argument is pretty old and tired, and goes way beyond this thread. Which argument? "Think about it" doesn't constitute one, so it seems you wanted to quote something oth…

I did make a claim. The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless. You re-asserted a particular definition, and said 'think about it.' I don't find that to be particularly convincing.

>> The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless

And I pointed out that you don't really need any specific definitions for "force" or "initiation" (and that bickering about the definitions for everyday words is a bullshit distraction).

But suppose "force" meant "violence or coercion", and "to initiate" meant "to start" (there's no real confusion about that, at least). With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP?

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

#219

Post by saraid216 » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:06 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #126

saraid216 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. The Constitution isn't the Bible. It cannot, and should not, prescribe morality, which is what should drive law-making; nor should any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, be sacrosanct. The Constitution, and its derivates the US Code and state constitutions, are authoritative only to the point that they usefully represent their constit…

> Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. I disagree. Right or wrong, it is the document against which we supposedly make all laws. I'm not suggesting that we appeal to it as it is , rather, appeal to its defined measures for ensuring that it is kept current. Put simply, in football, they have a rule book. That rule book is what we consult on matters of the rules. Sometimes they g…

> The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld.

That's not what pluralism is. The key is in ensuring that minority opinions are heard and reasonably considered, not "upheld".

> They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals.

And yet, that's not actually what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution actually says that people have equal rights. That's why, when they tried to write an amendment to ban gay marriage, they didn't have to include any deletions, because it would have contradicted nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

This is the example you chose; it's not helping your case. :P

Edited to add:

> suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive

That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying that "because Constitution" is not the right reason to write law. Gays shouldn't have rights because the Constitution says they should; it doesn't. Gays should have rights because we say they should, and if the Constitution doesn't, then maybe it fucking should.

> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error.

Your error is that you think moral opinion is static.

If the majority is wrong, then we (1) act to protect the minority and (2) convince the majority that they are wrong. Not sure if you noticed, but the last several years have been full of "LOOK! GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVIL! ISNT THAT GREAT!". This is part of the process.

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

#220

Post by yetanotherphd » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:09 PM UTC

hrkristian wrote: post #205

yetanotherphd wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually this was the one statement that was correct in the entire article. I don't deny that the government plays an important role in funding science and tech, which in turn is essential for silicon valley. But it is still completely wrong to characterize Silicon Valley as "state-sponsored investment". Take Google. The original algorithm was developed at Stanford, but it didn't involve any fancy math that required…

Your parent made the point that without the government Google and others may not have launched in the first place. This modern world has already invented the cheesegrater, what remains to be invented really is -for most part- too complex to be conceived from thin air with a stroke of inspiration. I would have to study for a decade to have a chance at success in quantum physics, and I'd be relying on an enormous amoun…

I think silicon valley is much closer to the cheesegrater than to quantum physics. Just because the industry is characterized as high tech, doesn't mean that the actual content requires a huge amount of scientific or mathematical knowledge.

As a philosophical point, I agree that the fact that all of society is needed in order to produce our wealth, is a good argument for redistribution. But imagine that somehow this wasn't the case. I think the redistribution would still be justified on the grounds that the imposition on people's rights (paying taxes) is very small compared with the benefits. In fact, forcing people paying taxes is the least restrictive way for the government to implement any policy.