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'

#201

Post by steveklabnik » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:49 PM UTC

anoncowherd wrote: post #194

steveklabnik wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 again…

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.'

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

#202

Post by jjoonathan » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:50 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #183

hbags wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, inflation is most damaging to people whose spending is close to their salary. To simplify the math, I will use 'easy numbers', obviously the magnitudes are off, but you should plug your own numbers to verify that this is still true: if a poor family is spending 90% of their income on day to day expenses, and a rich family is spending 20%, and there is 10% inflation, then the poor family will then be spending 99%,…

You can exploit the fact that the utility of money has an asymptote (steep rise, in real systems) near the threshold of survivability to justify welfare policies too.

Libertarians whine about arbitrary confiscation of wealth by the government, but they have no problem when competition drives the price of labor down to (or below!) the price of survivability, even though from the point of view of the poor person both justifications for taking their money are equally arbitrary. The government promises to use the money to help people (translation: to fill rich peoples' pockets). The market promises to use the money to increase efficiency (translation: to fill rich peoples' pockets). The question is which party is better at delivering on their promise. You have noticed that the government isn't great at delivering on their part of the bargain. I would like to add that the market isn't stellar at this either. I believe the market tends to be worse (i.e. that "trickle down" is less realistic than "bubble up"), but I must admit that this belief is the product of my political beliefs rather than the other way around.

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

#203

Post by robomartin » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #197

robomartin wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? Without money/economy you have, I don't know, Afganistan? Like it or not prosperity isn't driven by government programs. It is driven by private sector economic activity. Unless we are talking Start Trek utopia this is how the world turns today and will continue to do so for quite some time.

My conclusion is supported by fact, data and experience beyond what could be covered in a twenty line HN post. Government, as currently devolved in the US, is very much the problem. The solution is less of it. Radically less. Everywhere.

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

#204

Post by saraid216 » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:56 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.

> an indicator that the founders intended

This is exactly the mistake I'm trying to point out. "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. "Why do we eat bananas?" "Because the founders intended it." "Why aren't you eating a banana?" "Because the founders didn't intend for me to eat bananas."

> they wanted less laws than more

This works for you because you want less laws than more.

I think that the amendment process is difficult because there are a fuckton of Americans and because the founders didn't trust the states. (Which is also why they had a House of Representatives.) They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them.

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

#205

Post by hrkristian » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:57 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…

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 amount of gathered knowledge in doing so, much of it coming from state-sponsored work. That would be a tremendous effort on my part, but it pales to the effort of the society as a whole in making my future available to me. In such a light I have a hard time seeing how wealth distribution currently is "fair".

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

#206

Post by anoncowherd » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:58 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #201

anoncowherd wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 again…

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 other than what you were supposedly addressing. That's kind of weird.

>> There have been many criticisms of the NAP by anarchists. The actual, original strain of anarchists: 'left anarchism.'

Sure. It's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But is it worthwhile? Moral rules are not absolutes, but that's alright. The point is to get close enough, and there are often several sensible ways to view ideas, such as "property" for example.

But bickering about the exact definitions of words your opponent happens to use is just a bullshit distraction, intentional or not. I've wasted way too much time on that road already. We both use and understand the English language just fine. There are no obstacles to our communication besides the ones intentionally put up.

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

#207

Post by nostromo » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:59 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…

US Federal, State, and Local spending is nearly 40% of the US economy. (See: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2014USpn)

This number seems to shock my conservative and liberal friends alike.

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

#208

Post by yetanotherphd » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 7:59 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #178

sologoub wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not intending to insult your intelligence. I simply disagree with your sentiment. Having the benefit of knowing exactly what life is like in less fortunate society than US, it's a matter of perspective. Compare the state of law and law enforcement in US, say to Russia, and you will see that by this standard things aren't that bad here. No doubt they can be better, but at least I have some recourse under the law h…

But your attitude is just the point. There are many issues with your stories, and many points at which they may go different ways. To give a single example, if I understand correctly, people disrespected you at a movie theater for asking them to quiet down. If I may... did you ask them to quiet down in a respectful fashion? Don't answer. Just think about your own behavior towards them and TRY to evaluate it in an hon…

In other words:

* If a minority assaults you, you must be to blame, and don't even try to argue otherwise.

* Don't learn from your own experience, learn from respected academics.

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

#209

Post by anoncowherd » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:00 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #201

anoncowherd wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 again…

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.

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

#210

Post by g8oz » Sun, Dec 08, 2013, 8:02 PM UTC

mortyseinfeld wrote: post #176

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…

I see a lot of libertarian and anti-government sentiments expressed on HN. And I see a lot of leftists on HN that are surprised that this is the case. Why is that? The question - and only question - should be what David Simon asks: are we all in this together or are we not? Because all of 310+ million are not in this together. We, as individuals, all have our own dreams, ambitions, interests, and goals. I see a lot o…

>>Because all of 310+ million are not in this together. We, as individuals, all have our own dreams, ambitions, interests, and goals.

And as a society you have roads, schools, hospitals, public safety, public health etc. Acknowledging common interests in public goods and following through on the implications of that acknowledgment is not the road to Stalinism that you seem to think it is. Life is not an XOR gate.