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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 373 posts

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

#361

Post by saraid216 »

anoncowherd wrote: post #360
saraid216 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still with the emotional arguments. Which part of "don't force me" was unclear?

Still with the mental gymnastics. Which part of "taxation is extortion" was not clear?

The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extortion to include taxation. Common sense does not make people think "extortion" when they hear "taxation".

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

#362

Post by 21echoes »

anoncowherd wrote: post #336
21echoes wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. to be a true libertarian, you can't believe in property rights.

>> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. Nope. Our "rights" are an idea , but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights. In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone…

> "intuitive morality"

> It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it.

there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem.

to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.

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

#363

Post by jerf »

bane wrote: post #318
jerf wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, "that there's all dem inequality" is not really my point, though I'll take full responsibility for the failure to communicate. My point is more like, the government that keeps promising to save us already has tons of power. Tons of it. It's got the direct control of a fifth of the economy, massive power over the rest, etc etc, which is what I was trying to say. My point is that if giving the government more…

> My point is that if giving the government more power was going to solve all of our problems, it should have by now. Nobody's responding to you because, most likely, if you're going to have silly notions like this, then what's the point? You've already chosen a side, presenting rational for that decision based on arguments that nobody is making. Binary thinking does not make for even the slightest bit interesting of…

Well, I'd respond in kind. People have the deeply in-built assumption that we can simply solve all our problems by giving all the power to the thing that fits in the "tribal leader" slot in our instincts.

But we've given our "tribal leader" (government) more power than any single entity has ever had in history, and our problems are getting worse, not better. If you prefer a less binary argument, if giving more power to the government is going to improve the problem of inequality, inequality already ought to be getting better, not worse. If inequality is getting worse, and we've been giving more and more power to our government for decades, it seems irrational to conclude that the only way to "fix" inequality is to keep giving the government more power.

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

#364

Post by bilbo0s »

sologoub wrote: post #354
bilbo0s wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, for the record, I did ask very politely. Unfortunately, I ended up getting hit for that... So let's evaluate, I asked politely, verbally, then got physically assaulted. Also, did I ever mentioned race or ethnicity? No! All I referenced was that this was a poorer part of Los Angeles than I live in, close in reference to the "20 blocks down" that the speech referenced. This has absolutely nothing to do with r…

???

I didn't mention minorities either???

At any rate... your side of the story is known... but not the other side. That is my entire point. The government can't be the solution to EVERY problem. Especially when it is so expensive. It's an easy thing for you to go to a different movie theater. It is a difficult thing for government to incur a $40K obligation to make you comfortable... all on your word.

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

#365

Post by anoncowherd »

saraid216 wrote: post #361
anoncowherd wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still with the mental gymnastics. Which part of "taxation is extortion" was not clear?

The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extortion to include taxation. Common sense does not make people think "extortion" when they hear "taxation".

>> The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extortion to include taxation

Actually, the definition of "extortion" is not controversial, and needs no twisting to fit taxation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extort

to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

When a mafia threatens people with violence to make them pay "protection money", it's clearly extortion and clearly immoral.. but when governments threaten people with violence to make them pay taxes, that's.. perfectly fine?

>> Common sense does not make people think "extortion" when they hear "taxation".

Actually, it's brainwashing that prevents people from connecting these dots.

Wake up.

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

#366

Post by Ygg2 »

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…

Ok - debt is not a problem if you can repay it (i.e. the growth can compensate for debt). There.

Debt isn't the problem. If you however close yourself in your house for the fear of someone mentioning debt don't be surprised you lose your job and can't repay it.

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

#367

Post by anoncowherd »

21echoes wrote: post #362
anoncowherd wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. Nope. Our "rights" are an idea , but one that's aligned with our "intuitive morality". Force only comes into question when someone is violating your property rights. If no one ever does, then no one will ever have to forcibly defend his property rights. In other words, if someone grabs your iPhone…

> "intuitive morality" > It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it. there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem. to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.

>> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem

You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let it sink in. Do I have to repeat myself? "Property is force" is a nice little distraction, and I've been through this with someone else before. Really, property is not "use of force" even though defending it may require some.

But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies? Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.

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

#368

Post by anoncowherd »

saraid216 wrote: post #353
anoncowherd wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Therein lies the problem though, even if we accept the NAP, we can never agree on what is force or violence and what is the initiation of force No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Complaining that the definitions of everyday words are unclear is just a bullshit distraction. If that were the case, we simply could not communicate at all. >> Actually I value pragmatism and social uti…

> Insecure much? Feeling violent? YES. Absolutely yes. BECAUSE I AM HUMAN, motherfucker. Will hitting you in the face repeatedly persuade you that people are naturally violent ? Probably not, but at least it MAKE ME FEEL BETTER. I know this is true, because I've done it . It feels great . Come on. See if you can explain to me how my natural pacifistic soul is not inclined to slam your skull against a brick wall. If y…

Wow :D

I've seen quite a few outbursts brought on by cognitive dissonance, but yours definitely takes the cake. Maybe you'll eventually wake the fuck up in some kind of gulag near Seattle.

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

#369

Post by saraid216 »

anoncowherd wrote: post #365
saraid216 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extortion to include taxation. Common sense does not make people think "extortion" when they hear "taxation".

>> The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extortion to include taxation Actually, the definition of "extortion" is not controversial, and needs no twisting to fit taxation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extort to wrest or wring (money,…

> Actually, it's brainwashing that forces people into making up connections between these dots.

> Wake up.

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

#370

Post by 21echoes »

anoncowherd wrote: post #367
21echoes wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "intuitive morality" > It's all very simple when you allow yourself to see it. there's your problem. you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem. to take something out of the public domain and not allow any other people to make use of the object is force, plain and simple.

>> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let it sink in. Do I have to repeat myself? "Property is force" is a nice little distraction, and I've been through this with someone else before. Really, property is not "use of force" even though defendi…

> But even if you do view property rights as a "use of force", so what? -What do you think that implies?

that a philosophy that is founded on "there are only two rules: property rights are The One True Right, and initiation of force is The One True Wrong" is impossible to take seriously.

> Well, this will probably just get lost in our comment histories, so I won't expend any more effort on this.

nice way to try to take the higher ground while forfeiting. it's okay-- I know thinking is often hard for libertarians.

Post reply on HN