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

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#581

Post by perl4ever »

WalterBright wrote: post #383
perl4ever wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we don't "have" trees. Owning a tree is dependent on a highly abstract concept of ownership, enforced by an organized state that monopolizes the use of force. Saying a transaction is without force or fraud is only begging the question. If it is legal, and someone thinks it is illegitimate, then it logically involves both fraud and force from their perspective. It was fraud to write the rules down, and it is force…

It's a little too easy to dismiss arguments by trying to redirect it into a debate about what words mean. You and I both know what the terms mean.

From https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/john-locke-justificat...

'"He that is nourished by the Acorns he pickt up under an Oak, or the Apples he gathered from the Trees in the Wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No Body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, When did they begin to be his? When he digested? Or when he eat? Or when he boiled? Or when he brought them home? Or when he pickt them up?"

Locke answered these questions by selecting the last of these options. The acorns became the private property of the owner when he picked them up, for it was in the gathering that labor was first expended. "That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than Nature, the common Mother of all, had done, and so they became his private right."'

I'm not endorsing or dismissing this, but notice how it conflicts with ownership of the tree.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#582

Post by oldsecondhand »

chii wrote: post #316
pdonis wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wait until you understand. But you might never understand; that is part of Hayek's point. Which means you can never just "tear it down". Your #2 is really the essential point.

But this isn't a falsify-able conjecture - if you claim that this thing could never be understood, but nevertheless essential and helpful for you, you're asking people to just put in faith. This borders on the idea of religion, rather than scientific, rational thought.

> but nevertheless essential and helpful for you, you're asking people to just put in faith

Accepting that it's essential and helpful is also blind faith.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#583

Post by vineyardmike »

imgabe wrote: post #445
vineyardmike wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t think that forcing other people to get vaccinated further reduces the risk to me (which is already very low). It objectively does... the hospital capacity risk, the risk of variants spreading among the unvaxed, or the breakthrough cases. > At least, it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to offset the costs of removing freedom. That is an opinion not all agree with. > Dying from Covid is more or less option…

According to the Mayo Clinic[1] 72.2% of the US population already have at least one dose. Presumably the people with one dose will continue to get the second one. Among the people who aren't vaccinated, some of them will have already had it and have a natural immunity. Some of them will get the vaccine eventually even without a mandate. So, there's some number Only a small percentage of cases require hospitalization…

> So, there's some number In Wyoming, 80%. I just picked two states at either end, you see similar pattern for other states. The highly politicized nature of the vaccine also means that some people that should get the vaccine, and normally would, are holding out. This is disservice to everyone. I have extended family members where people have died because an immune-compromised person didnt get the vax because their care-taker was too focused on the politics to help them get it, only to later bring covid into the household.

The issue is not 27% of the US, its 50% of that state. Some localities are more at risk, or at a lower herd immunity potential.

> Only a small percentage of cases require hospitalization. Are we at an extreme risk of hospital overload now?

Yes. [1].

> current vaccine still provides protection against them

still provides protection against them, but less protection.

> So what are we really gaining by forcing more people to get vaccinated?

1. Less hosts for virus, so less room to mutate, or slower mutations. 2. Less hospital beds used by covid patients. See earlier point. 3. Less people sick, and less death. 27% of america is millions of people.

> with the vaccine, if you get it, it's not really all that serious.

We don't know the long-term side affects of the virus if you get it while vaccinated. We know that a statistically significant cohort of un-vaxxed people get "long covid" where they have long-term side affects. We don't have data on breakthroughs yet getting long covid.

> increasing division and creating further animosity

Most people who mandate masks and vaccines are trying to save lives, however misguided or unnecessary you and others think the chosen implementation of that goal is. I've seen (here in HN) people say that getting covid is "basicallly optional" and therefore if hospitals are at capacity we should just turn away covid patients because its their own fault. I think the division and animosity is borne by those that don't seem to care about others very much, tbh, and therefore maybe health policy isn't "divisiveness" as much as a disregard for other's lives.

I appreciate the numbers-game aspect of saying the risk of death is down to x% of 27% of america, (and shrinking). Its the right approach to proving that the costs are being amortized across less lives saved, because one day (today, tomorrow, whatever) we do have to say that we've saved all the lives we can bear and we have to move on. I don't have a target number, and neither do politicians - maybe the CDC or others should state an actual goal to use to base policy decisions off of.

That said, based on the {unknown long covid risk, hospitals still being at capacity, mutation risk, regionalized risk} i personally still support covid policies to continue to be in affect, despite the (truly minor) inconvenience. I don't really care about the animosity of people who think we should let our fellow neighbors die in the street.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#584

Post by raxxorrax »

norswap wrote: post #531
raxxorrax wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think monogamous relationships have something to do with them being sacred and more with partners that have incentives and expectations for their emotional involvement. I believe open relationships are the opposite of maturity and lack commitment and of admittance to yourself and your own needs. But I have no experience here, it just seems silly to me that if two people are unhappy to pull even more people in…

I knew this was going to turn into a debate on polyamori lol. I'm not going to answer your comments, but it suffices to say you probably don't suffer from your open-mindedness :) (Agreement or disagreement on open relationships being immaterial to open-mindedness. The open-minded attitude is to consider what might make a stance true. Instead, to preserve your priors on open relationships, you're forced to assume a bu…

You described conservatism as moving on and breaking things, that seems to be turned on its head. I would think it is more about gradual changes instead.

Open relationships is a fun topic to discuss, especially on the internet.

For many such relationships are out of the question, perhaps due to insecurities and not being aware of their self-worth or for other reasons. Personally I don't think I want to be engaged romantically with more than one person at a time. Why? Because I do would get jealous and I likewise want to commit myself to someone. For myself and my partner. I also don't really feel a desire to romantically engage others.

But those that advertise open relationships it often comes with some patterns. For once that is mentioning the required emotional maturity and attributing it to participants. That is interesting because I perceive this as fishing for confirmation for personal choices. But perhaps my skepticism has the same motivation. But where do you think you need maturity? I assume it means to accept compromises? Where is that needed in such a relationship?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#585

Post by [deleted] »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #474
willob33 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s effectively describing Trump’s leaked plan to let covid ravage blue urban areas before the election, but here framing it as a liberal plot as a narrative device Maybe he’s a Republican astroturfer Someone just learned the root language of real human economics taught to us as abstractions through story and pie chart.

People laughing about people believing in conspiracy theories spreading conspiracy theories. No useful comments come to mind, can only watch in awe.

[deleted]

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#586

Post by willob33 »

Veelox wrote: post #558
willob33 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s effectively describing Trump’s leaked plan to let covid ravage blue urban areas before the election, but here framing it as a liberal plot as a narrative device Maybe he’s a Republican astroturfer Someone just learned the root language of real human economics taught to us as abstractions through story and pie chart.

>Trump's leaked plan Can I get a source?

Kushner’s covid team but he worked for Trump.

Our biology won’t let us do anything but game ways to beat each other

https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-covid-19-plan-maybe-...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#587

Post by willob33 »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #474
willob33 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s effectively describing Trump’s leaked plan to let covid ravage blue urban areas before the election, but here framing it as a liberal plot as a narrative device Maybe he’s a Republican astroturfer Someone just learned the root language of real human economics taught to us as abstractions through story and pie chart.

People laughing about people believing in conspiracy theories spreading conspiracy theories. No useful comments come to mind, can only watch in awe.

Agreed; I see no use in this comment.

First world culture is a literal train wreck of needless industrial behavior imperiling lives we won’t be around to help.

Let us wax poetic about the selfishness of our jokes.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#588

Post by themodelplumber »

andrewflnr wrote: post #381
themodelplumber wrote: post #371

Nice job author :-) > You secretly guess that the group is sustained by a minority of true believers who make up critical mass for a larger group of people you, but you never talk about this and neither does anyone else. When you have kids, you feel weird about explaining your thoughts about all this to them, but you don’t parrot back what the religion says when you’re talking about the meaning of life either. Bahaha…

> I've been in cult leadership Um, wow. Do you want to talk about that, or have you written about it elsewhere? No shade if you don't, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested.

I would share more but for now it goes very deep, I was raised in a religious fundamentalist family and trained to be in leadership from childhood.

There are soooo many stories and lessons that I'm probably going to have to start putting them in one place so I can link people. Wish I had time to go into it more here.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#589

Post by DSMan195276 »

nickpp wrote: post #468
DSMan195276 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe the free market is like Darwinism for economic organisms: unintuitive and little understood by the regular folk, however working just fine nevertheless and able to solve and explain any issue without needing the intervention of an intelligent designer/regulator. I feel like that's a bit of a charitable description considering the whole monopoly problem (and various other regulations in place to make the s…

Monopolies (including the so-called "natural monopolies") are not a problem for the free market, but rather opportunities - bounded only by human ingenuity, imagination and capacity to innovate. In reality most monopolies we encountered were actually created or sustained by governments, through their dear friends patents and regulations which raise the barrier of entry and compliance costs, create unintended second-o…

"Guy's you're just not doing it right" or "there would be more competition if we would just remove those pesky regulations on the meat packing industry". It's very convenient that the answer is always just "remove regulations" as though most of them weren't put in place to solve existing problems that otherwise weren't getting solved by the market itself.

I'll give you a different suggestion - what you're saying may work fine on a small scale, but not on a scale where consumers can no longer realistically have any idea how something was produced. Consumers can't select against things they don't know about or don't understand.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#590

Post by golden_feather »

DarylZero wrote: post #504
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes I realize it is not literal, but the structure of that part of the text as you progress from two people in love come up with a plan to always stay together ends up a just so story about how marriage was created. Does it work as a list of incentives for how marriage came to be a successful institution? Well since it structures it as an origin story of marriage that you realize is an origin story of marriage at the…

It's not supposed to explain the _origin_ of marriage, it's supposed to explain the _incentive structure_ of marriage. It's phrased as an origin story purely for narrative purpose.

Still, the incentive structure of marriage until basically yesterday was "hey, I am publicly announcing this woman is mine and I will brutally kill anybody who tries to seduce or rape her, because that would put me at risk of spending lot of resources on an offspring that's not mine. You can't say you have not been warned. Also, my family of origin and her family of origin now have a shared interest (namely, making this family prosper so that their grankids can flourish) and it's better for everyone if they go along, so let's throw a huge party and keep good vibes" Like, we know that. We don't need wild conjectures about what is the incentive structure of marriage, people have been pretty upfront about it for centuries. And if you really have to chase wild conjectures rather than empirical evidence, the least you can do is not to start from laughably culturally specific assumptions: the idea that a social institution serves to maximize individual happiness, when for most of history (and in most of the world still today) that notion would have been bizarre if not frowned upon, can only lead to wrong conclusions. Again, people across cultures and centuries have been pretty upfront about the fact that the point of marriage was not to help any of the spouses be happy but just to keep society working in an orderly manner, or to help spouses adhere to some transcendent morality. The only thing you can get out of this story is a huge warning about the implicit modus operandi of rationalism: the dangerous idea that you can deduct reality, from first principles summarily chosen from what seems common sense in XXI century America, and that the result of building a huge tower of these frail bases can somehow be substantial.
Post reply on HN