6 ms·

Egalitarianism always collapses on itself. The incentive structure that is created when you take resources from producers to award to non-producers (who are oft

Egalitarianism always collapses on itself. The incentive structure that is created when you take resources from producers to award to non-producers (who are often indolent actors) is horrible. Many many experiments have been conducted and all failed miserably leading to the suffering and death of millions. I mean, Soviet farmers usually opted to kill their livestock as opposed to having government take it and redistribute it equitably. We don't need to go through that again. These notions should be nipped at the bud.

solipsism 10y ago
Nonsense. There are social programs that have been incredibly successful. And pointing to the USSR is a shameful strawman.
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  Are you arguing against basic human nature? For the vast majority of people, if they don't have to work in order to earn, most people will choose not to work. So then who supports these folks? The people who put in actual graft. But the question is, for how long? Is this sustainable. This is a mindset and it must be fought against vehemently. You want to help people? Advocate for the following: - hard work as opposed to indolence - savings culture as opposed to consumption of capital goods - innovation/engagement as opposed to being dullards - celebrating and rewarding achievement based on genuine merit as opposed to cuddling our young ones - skill acquisition by reading books as opposed to watching TV and partying You want a utopia but none of the sacrifice required to attain it. That's not going to work.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > For the vast majority of people, if they don't have to work in order to earn, most people will choose not to work. So then who supports these folks? Those people are already being supported with fantastically expensive bureaucratic benefit systems. Sometimes those systems also act as a disincentive to return to work, trapping people on benefits, by making it impossible for them to get education or work experience or part time work. Once you have these massive bureaucracies they sustain themselves by land-grabbing more work. Here's one example from the UK. A man claiming benefits gets temporary work on a zero hour contract. He needs to sign off benefits, so he calls (because that how you do things now) the helpline. "Is this position going to last longer than 5 weeks?" He has no idea. But they will only take a yes or no answer. He is unable to convey that he has no idea whether the job will last for more than 5 weeks or not. For people who don't know the system it's tempting to just say "it doesn't matter, just take her suggestion and move on to the next question", but sadly the penalty for getting a question wrong (even if you've used their suggested answer) is that you have your benefits suspended or sanctioned. > celebrating and rewarding achievement based on genuine merit as opposed to cuddling our young ones You should reward effort, not necessarily achievement. Note that this is different to "cuddling our young ones". This is apparently especially important for smart children.
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      >You should reward effort, not necessarily achievement. Note that this is different to "cuddling our young ones". It is to a degree a question of semantics seeing as though we're mostly on the same page on most issues. However, I'll still indulge you; sustained effort often leads to achievement. I find achievement to be the best metric to measure effort, otherwise how do you know there's real effort if a given problem is not ultimately solved? >Here's one example from the UK. A man claiming benefits gets temporary work on a zero hour contract. He needs to sign off benefits, so he calls (because that how you do things now) the helpline. I personally know of a man in the UK who has an arrangement with his employer to receive payments in cash only. This thereby allows him to still claim unemployment benefits from the government. The employer benefits by not paying PAYE taxes and the employee benefits by earning from two income streams putting him fiscally at par with people who have much higher qualifications than he does. You can see the sort of rot and inefficiencies that occur when systems such as these are adopted.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        > It is to a degree a question of semantics seeing as though we're mostly on the same page on most issues. However, I'll still indulge you; sustained effort often leads to achievement. I find achievement to be the best metric to measure effort, otherwise how do you know there's real effort if a given problem is not ultimately solved? HN is full of smart people who through their school life were rewarded for their achievement, not effort, and who got a rude awakening when they went to college and discovered that they were not the smartest in the room, and that the work was hard, and that they were ill-prepared for that hard work. > I personally know of a man in the UK who has an arrangement with his employer to receive payments in cash only. This thereby allows him to still claim unemployment benefits from the government. The employer benefits by not paying PAYE taxes and the employee benefits by earning from two income streams putting him fiscally at par with people who have much higher qualifications than he does. But that's the point. HMRC have a bunch of people employed to detect that abuse; DWP people have a bunch of people employed to detect that; local councils have a bunch of people employed to detect that. We can eliminate fraud, and the expensive fraud detection systems, by telling people it's allowed and expected that they work in addition to their UBI.
  - tlb 10y ago
    Can you define "graft", as you use it here? The common definition is "the obtaining of money or advantage through the dishonest use of power and influence" [0], but that doesn't seem like what you mean. [0] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/graft http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/graft
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      Sorry, I'm a speaker of the Queen's English: British Slang. work; labor. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/graft http://www.dictionary.com/browse/graft
      - jholman 10y ago
        That's not the Queen's English, HRH speaks RP.
        _andromeda_ 10y ago
        It was tongue in cheek my friend. Thanks for nugget of knowledge though; I didn't know about received pronunciation. Edit: Tangentially, I happen to speak 3 languages and English is not my native language.
  - thenomad 10y ago
    Why on earth would I or anyone advocate for either of the extremes you're proposing here? Acquiring skills is valuable (not just by reading books - there are lots of ways to acquire skills; yes, including watching TV) but relaxing is also valuable. Partying is valuable. And it's fun, too. Likewise, rewarding achievement is a good idea, but so is comforting your son if he's upset that he performed badly at something he tried hard at. And I'm assuming we're all reasonably familiar with the idea that neither 100% hard work (120+ hour weeks, 52 weeks of the year) nor 100% indolence are great ideas?
- tomcam 10y ago
  Why is the USSR a strawman?
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    Exactly! I see it as basically the same thing. Redistribution of resources from producers to non-producers. You have to look at it from a very fundamental vantage point.
    - solipsism 10y ago
      s/fundamental/simplistic/ Fixed that for ya
  - lancewiggs 10y ago
    Because it was a dictatorship, and Communism, not Socialism. Socialism is as practiced in Scandinavia, UK, France, the rest of the EU really, NZ, Australia and so on and on. Socialism has become a dirty demonised word in the USA and that gets in the way of the equality of opportunity benefits a decent society provides.
labster 10y ago
s/Egalitarianism/Authoritarianism/
- WalterBright 10y ago
  No communist societies have ever been able to feed themselves - from the Pilgrims, to the USSR, to Jamestown, to the kibbutzen, to North Korea. Voluntary or coercive, the results are the same.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    There have been a lot of communistic societies over the years so I would be cautious about declaring them all unable to feed themselves. Having said this the only exception I can think of are the Doukobors [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobor
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    If this is Walter Bright creator of D, I must say I'm in awe. Nonetheless, I agree with you 100%. It doesn't matter what form it takes. Majority of my millennial peers refuse to even accept that socialism leads to the inevitable outcome that is communism and that it is an evil that would deprive all of us of our individual liberties to a point where all human decency will be lost.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      The great thing about a free market country is people can form workers' collectives if they want to. The only thing is they can neither force anyone to join nor prevent anyone from leaving. Many such have been formed over the years in the US, and they've all collapsed.
      - 10y ago
tmnvix 10y ago
> The incentive structure that is created when you take resources from producers to award to non-producers. I'm sorry, but this is idealogical nonsense. The classic 'non-producer' is the rentier. Quite the opposite of what you seem to be implying (i.e. that the needy are the 'non-producers').
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  It really isn't a question of the rentier class vs proletariat. Capitalism solved that problem a long time ago. Surely, capitalism has lifted billions from poverty. Anyone can make it if they apply effort. Anyone. There is no discrimination against hard work, smart work. A non-producer simply means, someone who is not providing a good or service of value to a willing buyer.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >It really isn't a question of the rentier class vs proletariat. Capitalism solved that problem a long time ago. How exactly did Capitalism solve that problem? We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive.
    - _andromeda_ 10y ago
      >We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive. It is true that there are divisions, but anyone can now participate in the acquisition of wealth and resources. You can save and reinvest until you attain your goals in life but most people are engaged in the consumption of capital goods such that even if they wanted to set up a small business, it gets to be increasingly difficult. I also don't look at it in the sense that people HAVE to work to earn a living, I see it as people GET to work to earn a living. Your entire outlook on work is flawed and needs to be reevaluated. Work is good. Work allows us to eat, get shelter, clothing and move civilisation forward while at it.

solipsism 10y ago

Nonsense. There are social programs that have been incredibly successful. And pointing to the USSR is a shameful strawman.

_andromeda_ 10y ago
Are you arguing against basic human nature? For the vast majority of people, if they don't have to work in order to earn, most people will choose not to work. So then who supports these folks? The people who put in actual graft. But the question is, for how long? Is this sustainable. This is a mindset and it must be fought against vehemently. You want to help people? Advocate for the following: - hard work as opposed to indolence - savings culture as opposed to consumption of capital goods - innovation/engagement as opposed to being dullards - celebrating and rewarding achievement based on genuine merit as opposed to cuddling our young ones - skill acquisition by reading books as opposed to watching TV and partying You want a utopia but none of the sacrifice required to attain it. That's not going to work.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > For the vast majority of people, if they don't have to work in order to earn, most people will choose not to work. So then who supports these folks? Those people are already being supported with fantastically expensive bureaucratic benefit systems. Sometimes those systems also act as a disincentive to return to work, trapping people on benefits, by making it impossible for them to get education or work experience or part time work. Once you have these massive bureaucracies they sustain themselves by land-grabbing more work. Here's one example from the UK. A man claiming benefits gets temporary work on a zero hour contract. He needs to sign off benefits, so he calls (because that how you do things now) the helpline. "Is this position going to last longer than 5 weeks?" He has no idea. But they will only take a yes or no answer. He is unable to convey that he has no idea whether the job will last for more than 5 weeks or not. For people who don't know the system it's tempting to just say "it doesn't matter, just take her suggestion and move on to the next question", but sadly the penalty for getting a question wrong (even if you've used their suggested answer) is that you have your benefits suspended or sanctioned. > celebrating and rewarding achievement based on genuine merit as opposed to cuddling our young ones You should reward effort, not necessarily achievement. Note that this is different to "cuddling our young ones". This is apparently especially important for smart children.
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    >You should reward effort, not necessarily achievement. Note that this is different to "cuddling our young ones". It is to a degree a question of semantics seeing as though we're mostly on the same page on most issues. However, I'll still indulge you; sustained effort often leads to achievement. I find achievement to be the best metric to measure effort, otherwise how do you know there's real effort if a given problem is not ultimately solved? >Here's one example from the UK. A man claiming benefits gets temporary work on a zero hour contract. He needs to sign off benefits, so he calls (because that how you do things now) the helpline. I personally know of a man in the UK who has an arrangement with his employer to receive payments in cash only. This thereby allows him to still claim unemployment benefits from the government. The employer benefits by not paying PAYE taxes and the employee benefits by earning from two income streams putting him fiscally at par with people who have much higher qualifications than he does. You can see the sort of rot and inefficiencies that occur when systems such as these are adopted.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      > It is to a degree a question of semantics seeing as though we're mostly on the same page on most issues. However, I'll still indulge you; sustained effort often leads to achievement. I find achievement to be the best metric to measure effort, otherwise how do you know there's real effort if a given problem is not ultimately solved? HN is full of smart people who through their school life were rewarded for their achievement, not effort, and who got a rude awakening when they went to college and discovered that they were not the smartest in the room, and that the work was hard, and that they were ill-prepared for that hard work. > I personally know of a man in the UK who has an arrangement with his employer to receive payments in cash only. This thereby allows him to still claim unemployment benefits from the government. The employer benefits by not paying PAYE taxes and the employee benefits by earning from two income streams putting him fiscally at par with people who have much higher qualifications than he does. But that's the point. HMRC have a bunch of people employed to detect that abuse; DWP people have a bunch of people employed to detect that; local councils have a bunch of people employed to detect that. We can eliminate fraud, and the expensive fraud detection systems, by telling people it's allowed and expected that they work in addition to their UBI.
- tlb 10y ago
  Can you define "graft", as you use it here? The common definition is "the obtaining of money or advantage through the dishonest use of power and influence" [0], but that doesn't seem like what you mean. [0] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/graft http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/graft
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    Sorry, I'm a speaker of the Queen's English: British Slang. work; labor. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/graft http://www.dictionary.com/browse/graft
    - jholman 10y ago
      That's not the Queen's English, HRH speaks RP.
      - _andromeda_ 10y ago
        It was tongue in cheek my friend. Thanks for nugget of knowledge though; I didn't know about received pronunciation. Edit: Tangentially, I happen to speak 3 languages and English is not my native language.
- thenomad 10y ago
  Why on earth would I or anyone advocate for either of the extremes you're proposing here? Acquiring skills is valuable (not just by reading books - there are lots of ways to acquire skills; yes, including watching TV) but relaxing is also valuable. Partying is valuable. And it's fun, too. Likewise, rewarding achievement is a good idea, but so is comforting your son if he's upset that he performed badly at something he tried hard at. And I'm assuming we're all reasonably familiar with the idea that neither 100% hard work (120+ hour weeks, 52 weeks of the year) nor 100% indolence are great ideas?
tomcam 10y ago
Why is the USSR a strawman?
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  Exactly! I see it as basically the same thing. Redistribution of resources from producers to non-producers. You have to look at it from a very fundamental vantage point.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    s/fundamental/simplistic/ Fixed that for ya
- lancewiggs 10y ago
  Because it was a dictatorship, and Communism, not Socialism. Socialism is as practiced in Scandinavia, UK, France, the rest of the EU really, NZ, Australia and so on and on. Socialism has become a dirty demonised word in the USA and that gets in the way of the equality of opportunity benefits a decent society provides.

labster 10y ago

s/Egalitarianism/Authoritarianism/

WalterBright 10y ago
No communist societies have ever been able to feed themselves - from the Pilgrims, to the USSR, to Jamestown, to the kibbutzen, to North Korea. Voluntary or coercive, the results are the same.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  There have been a lot of communistic societies over the years so I would be cautious about declaring them all unable to feed themselves. Having said this the only exception I can think of are the Doukobors [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobor
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- _andromeda_ 10y ago
  If this is Walter Bright creator of D, I must say I'm in awe. Nonetheless, I agree with you 100%. It doesn't matter what form it takes. Majority of my millennial peers refuse to even accept that socialism leads to the inevitable outcome that is communism and that it is an evil that would deprive all of us of our individual liberties to a point where all human decency will be lost.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The great thing about a free market country is people can form workers' collectives if they want to. The only thing is they can neither force anyone to join nor prevent anyone from leaving. Many such have been formed over the years in the US, and they've all collapsed.
    - 10y ago

tmnvix 10y ago

> The incentive structure that is created when you take resources from producers to award to non-producers. I'm sorry, but this is idealogical nonsense. The classic 'non-producer' is the rentier. Quite the opposite of what you seem to be implying (i.e. that the needy are the 'non-producers').

_andromeda_ 10y ago
It really isn't a question of the rentier class vs proletariat. Capitalism solved that problem a long time ago. Surely, capitalism has lifted billions from poverty. Anyone can make it if they apply effort. Anyone. There is no discrimination against hard work, smart work. A non-producer simply means, someone who is not providing a good or service of value to a willing buyer.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >It really isn't a question of the rentier class vs proletariat. Capitalism solved that problem a long time ago. How exactly did Capitalism solve that problem? We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive.
  - _andromeda_ 10y ago
    >We still have stark class divisions between people who make the majority of their money from capital ownership and people who have to work to survive. It is true that there are divisions, but anyone can now participate in the acquisition of wealth and resources. You can save and reinvest until you attain your goals in life but most people are engaged in the consumption of capital goods such that even if they wanted to set up a small business, it gets to be increasingly difficult. I also don't look at it in the sense that people HAVE to work to earn a living, I see it as people GET to work to earn a living. Your entire outlook on work is flawed and needs to be reevaluated. Work is good. Work allows us to eat, get shelter, clothing and move civilisation forward while at it.