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'

#261

Post by saraid216 » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:10 PM UTC

anoncowherd wrote: post #240

saraid216 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With these definitions, what's your problem with the NAP? Those aren't definitions. Is it force for someone to own a gun? Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun? Is it force for someone to draw a gun? Is it force for someone to fire a warning shot? Is it force for someone to point a gun? Is it initiation for someone to attack a third party? Is it initiation for someone to attack a friend? Is…

As I mentioned already, it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions? >> Is it force for someone to own a gun? Is it force for you to own shoes? >> Is it force for someone to reveal that they're carrying a gun? Is it force for someone to reveal they're not wearing a bra? No, it's not. C…

> it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end

You're missing the fact that I'm accepting the NAP for the purposes of this discussion. The question isn't whether or not the NAP is valid; it's what the fuck I actually do in real life.

> But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions?

I offered you a chance to define your terms. A definition is a boundary in meaning where, inside, the term is applied, and outside, the term is not applied. By asking these questions, you learn what the definition is.

You can do a similar series of questions for defining, say, a banana. You might do that by pointing to a series of objects and asking, "Is this a banana?" That's all I'm doing: I'm pointing at a series of situations and asking, "Is this force? Is this initiation?"

> Coercion requires an intent, a choice, and an action.

Like this. This is important. Nothing in the Non-Aggression Principle points this out.

Which categories of intents, choices, and actions may be combined to constitute coercion, which constitutes force? As our understanding of neuroscience develops, how might we gain nuance into understanding what constitutes coercion?

I know the complexity of reality is scary, but unfortunately, I am doomed to live in reality, which is sorta complex and infinitely various.

> Questions related to property and force.

Yeah, I clearly failed to frame the latter three sets as well as I did the first.

This is a question about the definition of violence. For instance, let's say you're carrying a glass sculpture that you like. While arguing with you, I knock it from your hand and it shatters. That obviously constitutes initiation, but does that constitute force? I didn't hurt you, nor did I coerce you, but that nevertheless seems like aggression.

With questions like "If you own" or "If you covet", my intent was to give you a clear place where you could have a fairly simple "no", but still actually have room to say "yes" if that's what you believed.

>> Is it force to develop your property's uses?

> What do you even mean?

This is a reference to Locke's definition of property. If someone cultivates the land and produces value from it, then they own it. If you gain ownership, and then someone else cultivates and produces value, is that force?

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

#262

Post by penguindev » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:10 PM UTC

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #181

beachstartup wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to meet the "sensible people" uh, okay. it would be better if you simply just stated your case and/or evidence because that is what HN is for.

> it would be better if you simply just stated your case and/or evidence because that is what HN is for. I think you have it backwards. The OP suggested that "sensible people" (all of them, apparently!) don't believe that debt ("in and of itself", whatever that means) is "a serious problem." That is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I'll indulge you: 1. Navy Admiral…

You might also want to add in Ray Dalio. See 'how the economic machine works' and his research pdf.

It's a more nuanced view than the 'we're all going to die' and 'debt doesn't matter' viewpoints*. That said, there clearly are huge risks with having such unproductive debt.

Just don't expect things to ever change. There were debt jubilees in the bible.

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

#263

Post by michaelochurch » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:10 PM UTC

yetanotherphd wrote: post #159

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…

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…

Silicon Valley started in the 1950s when there was a lot of government involvement. It didn't become the private sector's innovation center until the 1980s or so, and even then, government played a massive but unaccredited role. Defense contractors rarely innovate-- at least, not intentionally-- but the competition against them for top talent requires startups to compete on interesting work, autonomy, et cetera, which makes better startups. Silicon Valley's era of innovation (ca. 1957-2001) existed in a time (now sadly ended) during which labor had unprecedented leverage. To support Simon's thesis, you don't get innovation if labor or capital has all the cards; you need a balance between the two.

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

#264

Post by TYPE_FASTER » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:10 PM UTC

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…

Some of the state sites were launched successfully.

It would appear the Federal site project was poorly managed.

This is not a failure of ideology, and it's definitely not limited to the public sector.

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

#265

Post by gnaffle » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:15 PM UTC

dobbsbob wrote: post #230

gnaffle wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? When was the last film or book banned in a Nordic country?

2011 a serbian film. They only reversed 300 film bans in 2003. It is illegal to 'insult' religion there so if you're a critical cartoonist or author expect to go to court and defend your art from censors. The last book censored was Flemming Rose’s book “The tyranny of silence" and in 2009 they censored a stand up comedian for what was silly satire.

Did that cartoonist ever get to court? And how was "The tyranny of silence" censored?

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

#266

Post by penguindev » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

His comments about health insurance were quite interesting.

"And ... you know when you say, OK, we're going to do what we're doing for your law firm but we're going to do it for 300 million Americans and we're going to make it affordable for everybody that way. And yes, it means that you're going to be paying for the other guys in the society, the same way you pay for the other guys in the law firm … Their eyes glaze. You know they don't want to hear it. It's too much. Too much to contemplate the idea that the whole country might be actually connected."

I never thought about it that way. That said, I still think obamacare has some serious problems, and is basically corporate welfare and sick care. If you want to make people healthy, stop subsidizing unhealthy carbohydrates and GMO toxic shit, and perhaps gasp think about stabilizing population.

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

#267

Post by Nursie » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:24 PM UTC

crassus wrote: post #213

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…

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 th…

>> He argues that expanding government crowds out non-governmental social activity,

And yet if you look to the past you see that when government does nothing people die in the streets because charity in no way covers what government can now. Particularly for those on the fringes of society, those considered immoral or sinners in some way.

Private social activity absolutely does not do all we need it to.

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

#268

Post by bmelton » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:28 PM UTC

gnaffle wrote: post #259

bmelton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted you, but I think I disagree largely with the sentiment you expressed. As one of those wacky libertarians, I'd like to defend (what I think is) the default liberty-oriented position. Disclaimer, the following is a series of value judgements, and not necessarily steeped in fact. The argument isn't necessarily one based on 'more' vs. 'less' government, but 'Constitutionally prescribed' government size. The Con…

> As pertaining to capitalism, our stance is that true capitalism hasn't ever really been tried In some sense, when I hear this argument, I'm reminded by the claim of some Marxists, that you shouldn't conclude that communism doesn't work just becuase it failed in so many countries, after all they didn't implement the communist ideal properly! As you say, I think neither extreme will ever work well as long as we human…

> that you shouldn't conclude that communism doesn't work[...]

I haven't concluded that, and as I think I conceded in the original post (or at least somewhere anyway), I'm not entirely convinced that we've discovered what the true path forward is. Regardless, I agree that there hasn't been a fair application of communism, where both its recipients and its administrators were all held to equal benefit.

> couldn't you say that it's just true capitalism working its way as "intended"?

Well, no, and for two reasons. Either the money shouldn't matter, and no amount of money poured into democracy shouldn't have any bearing on legislation, or the results of said legislation shouldn't contradict the tenets of the Constitution, and would be subject to the same degree of public scrutiny that all laws do.

The former is obviously not true because politicians are corruptible, which is a situation that is potentially not fixable. The latter is obviously not true because it isn't primarily legislation that money buys, but regulation. The regulations imposed by the hundreds of federal agencies aren't done in public, they're simply bought, paid for, and then enacted without public input or scrutiny, to the advantage of those that paid for them.

In short, I think what you implied is that the problem with communism is its unfair application. I would agree with that, and further assert that unfair application, or put more bluntly, corruption, is the only big problem with capitalism as well.

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

#269

Post by e40 » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:29 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #254

e40 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most honest comments in the entire thread. The problem is, both sides don't want to admit this. The conservatives because it makes them out to be assholes (and they'd never win another election again). The liberals because they think they'll lose the argument if they say they want income redistribution--everyone will jump on them and call them (unfairly) socialists or communists (yes, I know they're differ…

No, in fact his comment and now yours are some of the only ones that dishonest about what the conservative position really is. It's a lot easier to paint people who disagree with you as fiends than it is to understand their point of view, which was the grandparent's entire point, which you and the parent have willfully missed.

So, what's your hypothesis? Instead of bitching, why don't you contribute?

Second, you seem to like his (our) position on liberals. Pot meet kettle.

Lastly, I came to this conclusion after many years of talking with conservatives (and watching them in action on TV programs) and reading their own words.

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

#270

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #252

CamperBob2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the example is that it doesn't illustrate the tragedy of the commons. Self-interest alone will lead the astronauts to do the right thing, because they're rational actors who are fully aware of their situation, and who are not in competition with each other. There's no incentive for the "libertarian" astronaut to consume more oxygen than the others. In your example, only stupid astronauts (or, I suppo…

>It's better to structure your economic views to encourage and expect rational behavior among fully-aware actors, even if this ideal is rarely approached in practice. Why?

Because otherwise you end up allowing naive, irrational, and dishonest actors to determine how your system functions for everyone. It's like airport security.