Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

371–373 of 373 posts

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

#371
post #73
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The libertarian and anti-government sentiments aren't saying that we shouldn't be all in this together, but that we shouldn't be forced to be all in this together. That difference is what the entire argument is about. Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". That's a very profound difference, it's why having the government make an…

> Few people are saying saying "let's not do this" for some value of "this", they're saying "let's not force everyone to do this". There are four guys in a crippled spaceship. They have 7 hours of oxygen left if they continue to breathe normally. If they all make a concerted effort to breathe slowly they could extend the oxygen to 8 hours. The rescue ship arrives in 8 hours. They are all in it together. There's nothi…

Actually, I think this is a really great example, and how you view it says a lot about your philosophy. Let's call the libertarian astronaut Ayn. Ayn is rational, and she happens to really like breathing normally. There's no biological reason requiring her to do so, but breathing more slowly seems inconvenient to her. So she just keeps breathing normally. Since she assumes the other three astronauts to be rational, she expects them to moderate their breathing even further to account for her normal breathing.

At first, this is what happens. The other three astronauts breathe even more slowly to make up for Ayn's normal breathing, keeping them on pace for 8 hours of oxygen. But the other astronauts think this division isn't fair--there's no reason that Ayn should get more oxygen than the rest of them. They decide that they have a couple of options. First, they could all start breathing normally in the hopes that Ayn would start moderating her breathing in response. It would turn the spaceship into a contest of who blinks first, and if no one blinked soon enough, all of them would die. Second, they could kill Ayn, but they believe murder is immoral. They think Ayn's behavior is unfair, but killing is worse, so they don't do it.

Instead, the other three astronauts come up with another option. They vote on and accept the moderated breathing policy for everyone in the spaceship. Ayn refuses to participate in the vote. The other three astronauts unanimously elect one of them--we'll call him Big Brother--to regulate the use of oxygen. Big Brother keeps track of everyone's breathing and can slap people in the face if they don't breathe at the agreed-upon rate. The rules allow any three of the astronauts to vote out the oxygen regulator if he doesn't do a good job, or doesn't comply with the breathing regulations himself. Ayn might not like breathing slowly, but she likes getting slapped in the face less, so she moderates her breathing.

But now Ayn is upset. She argues forcefully that she's a bold risk-taker and that society should incentivize her risk-taking. She took a risk and breathed normally, taking what she wanted even though it created a possibility that the other astronauts would do so as well, which would kill them all. She points out that Big Brother has made some mistakes--he's miscalculated the breathing rate a couple of times and slapped people when they didn't deserve it. She argues for the deregulation of oxygen and the return of the free market. Who's right: Ayn or Big Brother? Neither is perfect, but I'll take Big Brother. The alternative is a game of chicken where the stakes are everyone's lives.

As for this example being contrived, let's change it slightly. Let's say 7 billion people are born onto a planet. This planet has limited drinkable water, breathable air, arable land, and combustible material. We can either let people use those resources however they please, risking the resources' eventual pollution, overuse, and depletion, or we can establish systems to regulate use so that they will be available to everyone for for the foreseeable future. If we don't regulate their use, we can get iPods at slightly cheaper prices, at least in the short term. The point is that people will take what they want and cut corners to make money, even if endangers the health of the human race. Yes, we're all in it together. Personally, I'll take the sustainability of the planet over cheaper iPods.

This doesn't mean that I think the government should regulate everything, that all regulation is good, or that our current system of regulation is optimal. But I think it's inarguable that some things need to be regulated, and that there is a role for government. Can government be inefficient, corrupt, or just plain wrong? Sure. It's fallible, just like any human creation (including private entities). But we need it.

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

#372
post #114
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…

The reason this poster spends so much energy setting up his naive socialist straw man to burn it with glee is because libertarianism offers no solutions. David Simon is not prescribing a solution, but at least he argues we must agree to one.

Blithely hoping voluntary donations by the greedy will eliminate the systemic Apartheid of class is the worst kind of snake oil medicine. He needs a straw man to burn to hide his elephant in the room.

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

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not cognitive dissonance to admit to insecurity and an interest in violence, dear child. Cognitive dissonance is believing that people are naturally non-violent while having your face punched in.

Telling me I don't exist does not, in fact, make me go away.

Post reply on HN