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

Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#101

Post by ZoFreX »

cabalamat wrote: post #90
ZoFreX wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. ADA compliant bathrooms and wheelchair ramps? Not part of a reasonable MVP[1]. What if every website "had to" be readable in Braille and multiple tongues on day one, before one had the revenue to pay for that sort of thing? I could NOT disagree with this more strongly. It is simply NOT acceptable to discriminate against people or exclude them, and it would NOT be acceptable to create a website that isn't readabl…

>>ADA compliant bathrooms and wheelchair ramps? Not part of a reasonable MVP >I could NOT disagree with this more strongly. It is simply NOT acceptable to discriminate against people or exclude them If that was the law, then Edinburgh Hacklab[1] wouldn't be able to exist, at least on its present premises. This would not help any wheelchair users, but it would harm non-wheelchair users. if a law helps no-one and harms…

Pretty sure the laws in the UK don't apply retroactively, but just state that new builds have to be accessible, which is hard to argue against.

> if a law helps no-one and harms plenty, it's a bad law

True, but you're picking a single example unfairly. You could make this claim about any building and accessibility - "if we have to make it accessible or get rid of it, we'll get rid of it, then no one is helped". You're missing that the law provides an overwhelming incentive for buildings to be accessible (after all, not everyone is going to pick the "fine we won't build it then" option). Without this law, far fewer buildings would be accessible, which definitely would harm wheelchair users.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#102

Post by nateabele »

forensic wrote: post #98
nateabele wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand. In this debate, it's only possible to take one of two positions: put another way, either you believe people should be controlled, or you believe people should be free. I have a fundamental disagreement with the premise of 'positive' vs. 'negative' liberty, because it conflates separate, unrelated issues (as a corollary, I also reject the notion that anything someone else has to provide f…

Equal justice under the law is one component of positive liberty. The gilded age saw the rise of Marxism and labour unions precisely because the super-rich domination of the world was so depraved, complete, and horrible. A recognition of positive liberty is very very basic to understanding the human condition. Without access to food, water, shelter for every child, no concept of liberty is possible. The positive/nega…

Yeeeahhh... you didn't watch the video, did you?

Also, false. The founding fathers were pretty explicit about what our inalienable rights were. Food, clothing, and shelter do not number among them.

Again, you have you realize that, philosophically, the assertion you're making is that the government has the right and duty to take from one group of people, and give to another. Once you make that okay, well... here we are now.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#103

Post by dinkumthinkum »

ekianjo wrote: post #100
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you need the codes. The world is not just you. If your building starts blazing, it's not going to just stop. Those people called firemen have to go and stop it, put themselves at greater risk by saving your rickety building before it destroys the buildings of others that did bother to follow codes. Now the firemen have to go, the ER gets full, etc all because you didn't think much of the regulations. Now, we the…

I dont agree with your point. You fail to understand several things. I believe that when you have a building you need to be insured on your property, right ? Then, the lack of proper fire safety devices in your building should raise the risk on your property, and therefore raise significantly the cost of your building insurance. Should your building burn in flames and spread around, damaging a few other buildings aro…

Not to be mean but I don't think you have any idea whst you're talking about. Lawsuit is your answer? Really? So you damage my priority, now I have to get a lawyer to sue you. You file bankruptcy or kill yourself, I'm now left holding the bag.

Insurance? Really, insurance? If you don't like building codes, who says you're going to get insurance?

What if you start getting behind on your bills? Now I'm left holding the bag again.

Your argument is a strawman. No one says governments have always existed and civilization could nor have existed without them. That's stupid, why say that? It's a fact that things were much more dangerous and more likely to be fatal before regulations that enforce minimum safety standards. So yeah, civilization would exist, it would just be more dangerous. What a silly argument.

Also, if what you said was true about this magical insurance compliance then there wouldn't be any buildings in active use that don't conform to minimum safety because we have this free market with perfect actors that pay their bills or some such nonesense.

Now, the second thing, how is your magic lawsuit/insurance fix going to bring back the dead? Or do they have to stay dead due to your rickety building because that's one thing the magic free market can't do.

Come on this is hard to take seriously, and yet I'm accused of not understanding the issues.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#104

Post by kragen »

nateabele wrote: post #59
kragen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other day I went past the República Cromañon on the bus. The street in front of it has finally been reopened. It's been closed ever since 196 music fans were burned to death because its operators thought the fire regulations were "safety theater", and chained shut the emergency exits. You can compare the death tolls from similar earthquakes in places that have effective earthquake building codes (like Chile) and…

A century ago, people also lit Christmas trees with candles (electric Christmas lights were not widely available until 1903). Here's the thing about 'relevant facts': you could each have a mountain of them (the same mountain, even): and still reach diametrically opposing conclusions, precisely because this is a philosophical debate. As with most political debates, this one can easily be reduced to two schools of thou…

I think individual human beings have inherent moral value, but "society" and the state do not. Contrary to your assertions, this does not entail that there should be no enforced fire codes. Enforced fire codes have proven to be a relatively inexpensive and highly effective way to preserve large numbers of individual human beings from horrible deaths. Even when they illuminate their Christmas trees with candles.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#105

Post by HarryHirsch »

ekianjo wrote: post #99
HarryHirsch wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This putting-up-signs thing has happened in a way, and we know how this turns out. In some rural areas there are places where the fire brigade is not paid for through local taxes, homeowners have to contract individually with the fire services to come. When a homeowner has a fire put but failed to pay the firemen the fire brigade does come out, makes sure that the inhabitants are safe, and then lets the house burn do…

Well if they did not pay for the fire brigade, what do they expect ?? It's like wanted the cake without paying the bill. I do not see anything shocking in your story. If I do not pay for a service, for an insurance, I am not supposed to get the benefit from it. It's perfectly natural.

This attitude doesn't conform to observed practice. Every time this happens people from that community come out, saying the firemen should have stepped up even though that party did not pay. There seems to be a feeling that we are our brother's keeper.

(There's also the other problem that when someone's house burns down, such a person will likely become a ward of the state, and that can't be allowed to happen. That's why in some countries it's mandatory to carry fire insurance.)

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#106

Post by forensic »

nateabele wrote: post #102
forensic wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equal justice under the law is one component of positive liberty. The gilded age saw the rise of Marxism and labour unions precisely because the super-rich domination of the world was so depraved, complete, and horrible. A recognition of positive liberty is very very basic to understanding the human condition. Without access to food, water, shelter for every child, no concept of liberty is possible. The positive/nega…

Yeeeahhh... you didn't watch the video, did you? Also, false. The founding fathers were pretty explicit about what our inalienable rights were. Food, clothing, and shelter do not number among them. Again, you have you realize that, philosophically, the assertion you're making is that the government has the right and duty to take from one group of people, and give to another. Once you make that okay, well... here we a…

You really don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

I don't give a shit about the founding fathers. I am philosophically asserting that positive liberty is a legitimate philosophical concept, a worthwhile concept, and in fact I believe that the widespread adoption of the value of "positive liberty" will be the next ideological step forward for humanity.

The bridge between our species right now and our species in a Star Trek future is our recognition of positive liberty as a human right.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#107

Post by nateabele »

forensic wrote: post #106
nateabele wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeeeahhh... you didn't watch the video, did you? Also, false. The founding fathers were pretty explicit about what our inalienable rights were. Food, clothing, and shelter do not number among them. Again, you have you realize that, philosophically, the assertion you're making is that the government has the right and duty to take from one group of people, and give to another. Once you make that okay, well... here we a…

You really don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I don't give a shit about the founding fathers. I am philosophically asserting that positive liberty is a legitimate philosophical concept, a worthwhile concept, and in fact I believe that the widespread adoption of the value of "positive liberty" will be the next ideological step forward for humanity. The bridge between our species right now and our species in a S…

> You really don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Hahahahaha. Oohhh, but I do, because I've debated your kind more times than I care to count. It's you who doesn't have the wit to see we're talking past each other, again, due to differing philosophical premises. The difference is, at least on an intellectual level, I understand the premises underpinning your philosophy (provably erroneous though they may be), whereas you're not even capable of understanding mine.

> I don't give a shit about the founding fathers.

Welp, if you live in the US, you might consider finding a new country of residence, as they're the guys who set down the rules for this one.

> I am philosophically asserting that positive liberty is a legitimate philosophical concept

Are you familiar with the term 'cognitive dissonance'? As soon as you assert that the government's responsibility is to provide for the 'greater good', you lose all practical constraints on its power, and end up in a society like the one we have now, with eminent domain [1], civil asset forfeiture [2], the war on drugs, the war on terror, indefinite detention, etc., etc.

> The bridge between our species right now and our species in a Star Trek future is our recognition of positive liberty as a human right.

Riiiighhht... because governments are known to do such a great job at tasks that don't involve breaking things and killing people. Hell, even space travel (a product of the Cold War, let's not forget) is now being primarily taken up by the private sector.

"This post brought to you by Statism: ideas so good, they have to be mandatory." [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU [3] https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-InolyZZdONU/UACaMEHsPmI/A...

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#108

Post by forensic »

nateabele wrote: post #107
forensic wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I don't give a shit about the founding fathers. I am philosophically asserting that positive liberty is a legitimate philosophical concept, a worthwhile concept, and in fact I believe that the widespread adoption of the value of "positive liberty" will be the next ideological step forward for humanity. The bridge between our species right now and our species in a S…

> You really don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Hahahahaha. Oohhh, but I do, because I've debated your kind more times than I care to count. It's you who doesn't have the wit to see we're talking past each other, again, due to differing philosophical premises. The difference is, at least on an intellectual level, I understand the premises underpinning your philosophy (provably erroneous though they may be), wh…

Do you have trouble understanding that other people have different opinions than you?

I'm fully aware that I'm a statist. You think I don't know this?

To say that statism is philosophically indefensible is complete bullshit. Tons of philosophers have defended it and it's very much alive and well. Statism remains the most popular form of government in the world. Statism has produced the greatest governments in history.

In conclusion, I think it's quite sad that you don't even realize people like me exist. You seem to think that my existence as a calm, confident, well-informed statist is somehow impossible.

You really don't seem to be listening to me. How many times do I have to say that I find the arguments in favour of statism and positive liberty to be convincing and valid?

Honestly, classical liberalism has been tried and it is bullshit. It was a good idea in its time but we have surpassed it. There are better forms of government.

Also, I don't give a shit about the founding fathers and I'm under no obligation to. They were smart back in their day but now they are old and dusty and should go die. Humanity must progress.

Post reply on HN