6 ms·

HN is toast. Its being overrun by statists/socialists.

stephen_g 10y ago
I think one would have to be extremely far right to view the predominate view of HN as 'socialist'... But as for statist, it depends on how you define the word, but in an economic sense at least, the more I talk to libertarians, the more I associate that word with 'realist'. There are lots of nice ideals in voluntarism and total free-market economics, but I'm less and less convinced that they could work at any significant scale in the real world...
- meanduck 10y ago
  If free-market cannot solve this nothing will. No actor (including Govt) has mental capicity to understand everything in this world. Free-market solves everthing best with most stability.
  - stephen_g 10y ago
    That's a statement of faith though (or ideology if you prefer), not a statement of fact. And I think it's built on shaky ground (such as requiring economic systems to tend towards equilibrium, which while perhaps a useful simplifying assumption a few hundred years ago, these days it's looking more like economic systems are actually better modelled as complex dynamic systems that don't necessarily happen in equilibrium). I think empirically history shows that lack of regulation can be as bad as too much regulation. The reality is more of a balance, and black-and-white faith in the free market solving everything looks more and more to me at least as a dangerous delusion.
    - meanduck 10y ago
      > I think empirically history shows that lack of regulation can be as bad as too much regulation. You cannot stop every bad things in the world. Otherwise you will end up creating more unstability and, as a result, worse things. Libertarianism/Free-Market does not claim to iradicate all the bad things humans do to each other. It just that it will give you best fighting/winning chance. > The reality is more of a balance, and black-and-white faith in the free market solving everything looks more and more to me at least as a dangerous delusion. You got it opposite. Its the libertarians believe that world is too complex to be understood by one entity and better left to multiple entities (aka market). Libertarians wont go around claiming they understand the intention of every employers and ban them for asking certain questions. Free-Market is smallest abstraction. Free-market can reduce to Statism if there is a demand. But Statism wont reduce to free-market.
  - unscaled 10y ago
    Does the free market really solves everything best? Did it solve Pi for very large number of decimal digits? Fermat's Last Theorem? Do you consult the free market when you want to decide what to do tomorrow? This maximalist position is crazy. Our experience shows that there are some things which are most efficiently solved by the (mostly) free market, but nobody managed to conclusively prove that the free market (and which type of free market is that anyway?) solves everything. That's the point where Libertarianism shifts from an ideology to a religion.
    - lend000 10y ago
      Similarly, be careful not to generalize this to all libertarians... Most libertarians have varying stances that all develop from the non-aggression principle ("in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else.") I have never heard a compelling argument against the NAP, because it can be interpreted so broadly. Even some of the pro-no-asking-questions people on this thread are using the NAP, if unwittingly, to justify their positions.
      - meanduck 10y ago
        > in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else. Thats not NAP if rights is anything but right to be not physically assulted. NAP is basically: do no (physical) harm. You not only allowed to be aggressive in other ways (such as economically) but its relied upon to tackle overly powerful entities (like megacorps).
        lend000 10y ago
        I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP; and I fall on the other end of the scale where indirect damage through social/economic/environmental channels can be considered to infringe on liberty. Slander laws, noise ordinances, and non-localized environmental pollution all fall into this category and are eligible to be addressed through regulations which actually improve liberty. However, not being allowed to ask questions does not fall in this category in my opinion.
- lend000 10y ago
  There is a wide range of libertarian perspectives, just like you find on the left (socialist and beyond to moderate). I consider myself and my arguments on this thread to be with a moderate-leaning interpretation of the libertarian-associated non-aggression principle. I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle, but Democrats don't usually recognize it or try to apply it as a logical, almost quantifiable rule (quantifiable in the sense of maximizing units of freedom) against policy positions. HN appears to lean left of moderate liberals, though. The hive-mind can be a major turn-off at times...
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    "I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle" Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however.
    - lend000 10y ago
      > Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however. First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on, which can be used as a pillar of debate. It's the closest you can come to a 'scientific method' in political discussion, as opposed to the Democrats'/Republicans' strategy of just picking and choosing what 'sounds fair, sounds right.'
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        >First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Literally in the first paragraph: "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle >Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on That's hilarious. Not only is the definition of "property" completely open to interpretation, so is the word "aggression", the word "initiated" and the word "threaten". This principle is clearly meant to be as vague as possible so people can attach their own meaning to it. It resembles religion.
mindcrime 10y ago
Yes it is. :-(
EliRivers 10y ago
Indeed. Those filthy commies will be completely unable to provide and discuss anything that "good hackers would find interesting". Only God's only people, the Objectivists, can do that.
- meanduck 10y ago
  Im perfectly ok if HN bans all political news.

I think one would have to be extremely far right to view the predominate view of HN as 'socialist'... But as for statist, it depends on how you define the word, but in an economic sense at least, the more I talk to libertarians, the more I associate that word with 'realist'. There are lots of nice ideals in voluntarism and total free-market economics, but I'm less and less convinced that they could work at any significant scale in the real world...

meanduck 10y ago
If free-market cannot solve this nothing will. No actor (including Govt) has mental capicity to understand everything in this world. Free-market solves everthing best with most stability.
- stephen_g 10y ago
  That's a statement of faith though (or ideology if you prefer), not a statement of fact. And I think it's built on shaky ground (such as requiring economic systems to tend towards equilibrium, which while perhaps a useful simplifying assumption a few hundred years ago, these days it's looking more like economic systems are actually better modelled as complex dynamic systems that don't necessarily happen in equilibrium). I think empirically history shows that lack of regulation can be as bad as too much regulation. The reality is more of a balance, and black-and-white faith in the free market solving everything looks more and more to me at least as a dangerous delusion.
  - meanduck 10y ago
    > I think empirically history shows that lack of regulation can be as bad as too much regulation. You cannot stop every bad things in the world. Otherwise you will end up creating more unstability and, as a result, worse things. Libertarianism/Free-Market does not claim to iradicate all the bad things humans do to each other. It just that it will give you best fighting/winning chance. > The reality is more of a balance, and black-and-white faith in the free market solving everything looks more and more to me at least as a dangerous delusion. You got it opposite. Its the libertarians believe that world is too complex to be understood by one entity and better left to multiple entities (aka market). Libertarians wont go around claiming they understand the intention of every employers and ban them for asking certain questions. Free-Market is smallest abstraction. Free-market can reduce to Statism if there is a demand. But Statism wont reduce to free-market.
- unscaled 10y ago
  Does the free market really solves everything best? Did it solve Pi for very large number of decimal digits? Fermat's Last Theorem? Do you consult the free market when you want to decide what to do tomorrow? This maximalist position is crazy. Our experience shows that there are some things which are most efficiently solved by the (mostly) free market, but nobody managed to conclusively prove that the free market (and which type of free market is that anyway?) solves everything. That's the point where Libertarianism shifts from an ideology to a religion.
  - lend000 10y ago
    Similarly, be careful not to generalize this to all libertarians... Most libertarians have varying stances that all develop from the non-aggression principle ("in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else.") I have never heard a compelling argument against the NAP, because it can be interpreted so broadly. Even some of the pro-no-asking-questions people on this thread are using the NAP, if unwittingly, to justify their positions.
    - meanduck 10y ago
      > in a free society, you have the freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of anybody else. Thats not NAP if rights is anything but right to be not physically assulted. NAP is basically: do no (physical) harm. You not only allowed to be aggressive in other ways (such as economically) but its relied upon to tackle overly powerful entities (like megacorps).
      - lend000 10y ago
        I think 'physical assault' is a very simplistic view of the NAP; and I fall on the other end of the scale where indirect damage through social/economic/environmental channels can be considered to infringe on liberty. Slander laws, noise ordinances, and non-localized environmental pollution all fall into this category and are eligible to be addressed through regulations which actually improve liberty. However, not being allowed to ask questions does not fall in this category in my opinion.
lend000 10y ago
There is a wide range of libertarian perspectives, just like you find on the left (socialist and beyond to moderate). I consider myself and my arguments on this thread to be with a moderate-leaning interpretation of the libertarian-associated non-aggression principle. I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle, but Democrats don't usually recognize it or try to apply it as a logical, almost quantifiable rule (quantifiable in the sense of maximizing units of freedom) against policy positions. HN appears to lean left of moderate liberals, though. The hive-mind can be a major turn-off at times...
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  "I think everyone here agrees with the non-aggression principle" Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however.
  - lend000 10y ago
    > Most people won't agree on a definition of "property" or "aggression" rendering the point moot, however. First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on, which can be used as a pillar of debate. It's the closest you can come to a 'scientific method' in political discussion, as opposed to the Democrats'/Republicans' strategy of just picking and choosing what 'sounds fair, sounds right.'
    - crdoconnor 10y ago
      >First of all, the only relevant definition in the NAP is "aggression." Literally in the first paragraph: "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle >Regardless, I think it's incredibly useful to have a fundamental basis that people agree on That's hilarious. Not only is the definition of "property" completely open to interpretation, so is the word "aggression", the word "initiated" and the word "threaten". This principle is clearly meant to be as vague as possible so people can attach their own meaning to it. It resembles religion.

mindcrime 10y ago

Yes it is. :-(

EliRivers 10y ago

Indeed. Those filthy commies will be completely unable to provide and discuss anything that "good hackers would find interesting". Only God's only people, the Objectivists, can do that.

meanduck 10y ago
Im perfectly ok if HN bans all political news.