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

The world is socialist

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 162 posts

Re: The world is socialist

#81

Post by ls6 »

As I have spent (too) many years living in such a system, let me explain what I've observed in practice.

First of all there would be, in principle, differences per culture but it will level down when troubles strike -- then it is universally everyone for himself. The only difference being how big the trouble must be for this to trigger.

Generic problems observed in practice:

- ownership by everyone means in practice ownership by no one as proven every single day by comparing the same business run by a state or a city or privately -- it is always worse and more expensive

- maybe it is strictly separate subject but in socialism somehow people are expected to be equal; since this is obviously a wrong assumption people will be forced to be equal which is never pleasant for the "better" onces (whatever that means); economically it will include taking from richer and giving to poorer (again, regardless whether these differences would be labeled fair or not and whether the reacher earned it by working hard or the poorer was just lazy)

So, unless your culture isn't aready "trained" in putting the good of the group above individual and, believe me, US population is not, socialsim will not work for you on a long run.

P.S. I wouldn't write this if this article wasn't so painfully stupid -- I'm not calling the author stupid, only this idealistic view. Socialism is NOT about dishing the same stuff to everyone like a storm or a disease. It is a much more complex system that is incompatible with human beings. Maybe permanently, maybe just not right now. It is not wrong, it is not bad on its own. It just doesn't work today for most of us. In addition any stystem that attaches an adjective to the word "justice" -- as in "social justice" -- needs a very, very careful investigation. At least.

Re: The world is socialist

#82

Post by jeffdavis »

The article conflates social institutions with government (and possibly conflates the various levels of government) which is a common theme among many political ideas.

On the "Right", people often conclude that, because their religion is good, it should be enforced by the federal government. In reality, people can (generally) practice their religion freely through their church so long as the government policies aren't too overbearing.

On the "Left", people often conclude that, because charitable giving and safety nets and community projects are good, those things should be enforced and run by the federal government. In reality, there are many social institutions and mechanisms by which those things might happen (families and communities do many of these things already, and local governments can do many more), and the federal government is only one option and may only be suitable in specific circumstances.

Re: The world is socialist

#83

Post by calibraxis »

wissler wrote: post #36

The heart of the matter is this question: should the community violate the consent of the individual or not? Coming at it from the utilitarian point of view (for sake of argument -- I am not a utilitarian[1]), does it really need to be argued that every humane person should naturally wish to respect individual consent to the fullest extent possible? The only remaining question should be to determine to what extent th…

We should beware definitions of "socialism" which come from those who hate it, as well as those seeking power by claiming to champion it.

(Much like "democracy", which actually isn't about voting in your managers every few years then going home.)

A main part of historical socialism is control over production by the producers themselves. Not by "bosses", whose commands producers must obey.

Collectivism vs individualism is a false dichotomy. We can easily imagine that a healthier society cooperates to increase the freedom of its individuals.

Simply talk with mainstream anarchists (anarcho-syndicalists and so on). They typically call themselves socialists, organize collective action like strikes and radical unions, etc. Certainly, anarchists aren't known for supporting the state. :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)

Re: The world is socialist

#84

Post by czr80 »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #62

This essay is attacking a straw man, not Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was not an anarchist and did not oppose government entirely: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand... I'm a having a little trouble believing the author actually read Atlas Shrugged - in it, one of the productive characters (Ragnar, if I remember right) explicitly lists many legitimate functions of government. One of them is maintainin…

Medical care is not unequivocally a private good.

Re: The world is socialist

#85

Post by heurist »

jessriedel wrote: post #11

> All these people who are so great aren't really that much greater than the average schmuck on the subway. There really isn't that much range in the smartness or fitness of human beings. Whelp, you've lost me. The difference in productivity and smartness---as measured by the consistent ability to impact the world---of people is enormous (the additional importance of luck notwithstanding). I'm not sure why you though…

I think the author is saying that there isn't much difference on a relative scale. For example, humans typically weigh between 100 and 300 lbs and have a certain range of strength (say, deadlifting between 50 and 1000 lbs). Compare that to an elephant or a mouse and you can see that humans represent a very small range of weight and strength, even if it seems like lifting more than 1000 lbs is impossible in the same way lifting 10 lbs would seem impossible to a mouse. Similarly, we see intelligence on a subjective scale where the smartest humans seem brilliant. But we have nothing to compare them to. If another species (or artificial intelligence or alien) that was vastly more intelligent than us came along and compared human-level intelligence to its own then even geniuses would seem simple and stupid. There would be effectively no difference between the smartest humans and dumbest humans.

Re: The world is socialist

#86

Post by pandaman »

staccatomeasure wrote: post #76
pandaman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see every other liberal blogger going on and on against the whole host of lying books (e.g. astrology, esoteric etc). And please don't tell me they are not influential. Much more people know their astrological sign and how bad is to hurt one's Karma than people who know who is John Galt.

When you say liberal you are referring to a political leaning. Rand's growing influence is on politics. If people started electing astrological evangelist preachers to government positions and it resulted in policies that they disagreed with, then people would spend a lot more time combatting the phony astrology that the movement is based on. That focus wouldn't make astrology any truer.

Thanks, this is the point I am trying to make. If you are opposing an ideology then have balls to attack the ideology straight on. I don't see people often attacking Marxism on the basis that Karl Marx was hiding from child support obligations and that Lenin had syphilis. Yet it's par for the course to dismiss whatever ideology Rand is representing just by attacking her character.

Re: The world is socialist

#87

Post by dreamfactory »

ef4 wrote: post #18

When you attack capitalism by attacking Ayn Rand, you are attacking a terrible straw man. You'll notice that people rarely start by attacking the works of von Mises or Hayek or Rothbard, because those guys were actual serious academics who knew what they were talking about. Much easier to poke holes in the eccentric philosophy of one novelist.

Apart from supporting Fascism, didn't von Mises miss the rather fundamental question of economy of scale and resultant monopoly domination?

Re: The world is socialist

#90

Post by staccatomeasure »

thelastuser wrote: post #79
staccatomeasure wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when that HOA needs to make a new rule? From what you described it sounds like any person on the losing end of an argument is being violated, and an HOA that has to deal with anything but some basic set of agreed upon rules will not satisfy the non-violation requirements.

I cannot speak for the parent, but disagreements can be resolved by independent, third-party arbitration (which may have also been agreed upon by the HOA). This is not to be confused with a territorial monopoly on final arbitration, viz. a government court.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m43fenS4rJ1rqfhi2o1_250.gi...
Post reply on HN