231–240 of 279 posts
This guy might be on to something, but I have an even better idea, and it required 0 scientific research to synthesize. We should all do whatever the fuck we want, until we die.
> We should all do whatever the fuck we want, until we die. Yeah but we’re not allowed to. Most employers will demands you show up for 40 hours a week and then frown at you or, at least, never promote you if you don’t stay for a lot more.
This guy might be on to something, but I have an even better idea, and it required 0 scientific research to synthesize. We should all do whatever the fuck we want, until we die.
Build a man a fire, you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, you keep him warm for the rest of his life. To wit: there is a strong correlation between what constitutes doing whatever the fuck you want, and how soon you'll die.
The things I want are all things that make my life better and safer.
Some people want bad things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have the option to raise that money. You're searching for the ability to live without constraint. So long as scarcity exists, this is fundamentally impossible.
>>>So long as scarcity exists, [living without constraint] is fundamentally impossible. Absolutely agree. >>>They have the option to raise that money. Absolutely disagree. They are working 2 and 3 jobs, my friend. They do not have the money to raise that money. >>>You're searching for the ability to live without constraint. Please explain where I indicated this, I did not mean to.
> Yeah but we’re not allowed to. Most employers will demands you show up for 40 hours a week and then frown at you or, at least, never promote you if you don’t stay for a lot more.
The whole point here is that we aren't limited to what our employer "allows" us to do. We choose to follow the directions of any particular employer because it typically rewards us with money, which we can use to survive.
You are making the argument that people in the US don't have options. Of course they have options. The costs may be high to exercise those options, but that doesn't mean they don't have them.
And of course, the larger point:
> We should all do whatever the fuck we want, until we die.
Applies equally to employers as it does to everyone else.
In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. The cost of living hasn't meaningfully increased, we've just continually redefined luxuries as necessities. My grandparents are perfectly typical working-class people. They gre…
>In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. I'm not convinced this is true: there are also intense coordination costs and learning costs. Two programmers working 20 hours a week, for example, are way less productive tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I must disagree. Two people working 20 hours a week are refreshed, not burned out, have time for educationally side projects, etc. I am in my early 60s and for my whole life I limited my work hours to 32 hours per week, even working for large companies. I had lots of time for educational side projects, exercise, extra time with family and friends, and mediation. My only regret was not perhaps cutting this to l…
>Sorry, I must disagree. Two people working 20 hours a week are refreshed, not burned out, have time for educationally side projects, etc. Take a look at Brooks' The Mythical Man Month for data that demonstrates the opposite, at least in programming; I haven't followed the field closely, but education and industrial organization researchers have done similar work in other professions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, monopolies come from the government explicitly banning or regulating away competition. Yes, it's true that you can't get the nice properties of a free market without some conditions being met. Specifically, you need the government to be the arbiter of physical force between people. Otherwise, you have gang warfare (anarchism).
You might be interested in this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly All economic discussions of free markets that I have ever heard have implicitly or explicitly stated that one of the necessary oversights of government is to break up or regulate natural monopoly-prone industries.
It's just that it's a false concept that doesn't actually exist.
Take electricity, for example.
First, there are many large companies that could raise the necessary capital to build power plants and electric transmission lines.
Second, people can always get together and form a non-profit power company if the normal market isn't providing stable, competitive prices. (By "people" I mean, say, the people of an entire US state.)
Third, having deregulated electricity systems would open up the field to innovation, such that we'd probably all have small nuclear reactors at our houses, or wireless power transmission, or something.
So, in conclusion, a "natural monopoly" is not a true monopoly. It's a false concept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm honestly curious about this since, even as a student, I'm living on more than that per day. Could you tell me more?
Start with these to get the idea: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com http://tinyhouseblog.com/ http://mypatriotsupply.com Shop at the Dollar Store, Goodwill, Aldi, etc. Look for foreclosed, abandoned, and other dirt cheap real estate; search Zillow.com for sub-$1000 properties (not a typo). Plant a garden. Move. No excuses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus, you and ctdonath sound like 20-something morons. Get a fucking life with several mortgages and children. Or, better yet - go live the idolized life of the genius software development hermit you both appear to think yourself to be. What a wonderful life that will be. I am so sick of these douchebag HNers that all think of themselves to be the next rails revolution and have no fucking clue as to what it actually…
> "Get ... several mortgages and children." > "live a normal life in Silicon Valley with kids" It seems to me this is exactly the point being made. You can live on a lot less money than whatever you currently consider "normal", but not necessarily in your current location or at your current level of consumption. Whatever it costs you to live comfortably in SV with kids, it probably costs me half that to live comforta…
That's a horrible comparison. The difference in potential salaries, potential connections, business opportunities and so on would put make Denver the expensive one IMO (costs half as much as SV to have none of those advantages? wtf!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proper role of the government is to protect citizens from the initiation of force, and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire was certainly that. I'm not advocating anarchism.
If you believe this, do you also believe in minimising government enforcement of private property rights? I ask, because this argument about the "proper role" of government tends to start growing all kinds of exceptions that expand the role of government the moment someone starts taking it to its logical conclusion and argues for removing protections of exclusive access and use of land in particular, as a means of ma…
I think government should enforce all private property rights, although perhaps at an indirect level (e.g. you still have to lock your door, but the government ultimately will punish people who break in).
However, the question of what is a property right and what is not is germane.
argues for removing protections of exclusive access and use of land in particular
If two people can do something simultaneouly without one initiating force against the other, then property rights don't apply. Sometimes it falls to the legal system (e.g. convention) to stipulate the precise boundaries.
For example, if a utility company wants to run power lines below my land, then unless that prevents me from doing something underground that I'm already doing, I think they have the right to do so, as long as the lines can be installed without causing me significant inconvenience (and with proper forewarning).
So, basically, you establish property rights by actually using the property in a certain fashion.
have substantial exceptions to private property rights for the purpose of increasing liberty for society as a whole
I think that's a false example. Society is just composed of individual people. If you take away one person's rights, it may increase somebody else's access to something (e.g., say, birth control), but it does not increase _liberty_.
(e.g. granting access to natural resources to society as a whole)
I don't really see how natural resources _wouldn't_ be available to society as a whole.