4 ms·

Community ownership only works if humans are identical robots. We disagree very often so how would you decide usage of land based on communities? Look at housi

Community ownership only works if humans are identical robots. We disagree very often so how would you decide usage of land based on communities? Look at housing societies in India; they enforce rules like no single women or no Muslims. It's convenient when you're in the majority but inconvenient when you're in the minority. How would you decide between so many different wants? I can not decide between say whether this land should be used for a mall or a factory. In fact, in the real world if I knew, I could earn good money by building whichever is better. Information is money. This system is also poor as people who value land less end up with excess land and people who do value land more end up with a lack of land. How do you measure this "value"? Money. > There's one just north of San Francisco, a lovely hostel and beer garden in Muir Woods. If you want to be a member there, you have to consistently contribute labor to maintaining it. This ignores specialization, i.e. I could be doing something that I'm good at (like programming) and the labor can be done by someone else (who doesn't have any better option) with the money I earn. EDIT: replaced LTV criticism with specialization argument

wpietri 10y ago
I'm just amazed at the number of people who are fundamentalist capitalists. Who have to see everything in dollar terms. Who can't even quietly consider other approaches that might work just fine in particular circumstances. Personally, I'm a practicing capitalist, and somebody who approves of using market mechanisms for a wide variety of things. But nothing is perfect, and people legitimately have different values. So I think it's worth understanding those other approaches. I have no idea why people find that so threatening.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > people who are fundamentalist capitalists Who? > Who can't even quietly consider other approaches that might work just fine in particular circumstances. I explained how it might not work. You are attacking me but not my reasoning. I am just criticizing communal ownership since it does not work. > I have no idea why people find that so threatening. Who?
  - wpietri 10y ago
    Did somebody let an owl in? You, of course. Although it's a perennial problem on HN, which is why I was speaking more generally. You haven't gotten to reasoning yet. I critiqued your style of argument: the outraged hot take, the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked. It was a spew of semi-random points, not a coherent argument. There's no point in discussing the details with you, because you aren't interested in learning anything. When called on your drama, you pretend to be purely rational. If you can't even admit your reaction or look at your own post honestly, why would I ever engage with the details of what you claim your point to be?
    - witty_username 10y ago
      > the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked I just said how collective ownership fails and how capitalism is a better solution. Is there something I said that I shouldn't have? > There's no point in discussing the details with you, because you aren't interested in learning anything. I am. Go critique my points. Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Send me research articles. Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed. > When called on your drama, you pretend to be purely rational. What drama? I was just a little bored and decided to poke a low hanging fruit (collective ownership). > If you can't even admit your reaction or look at your own post honestly, why would I ever engage with the details of what you claim your point to be? I'm pretty sure I wasn't angry or anything. Uncharitably, I was thinking "haha, commies are stupid", but I don't think I let that affect my comment. To me, it seems like you're the more angry one. Perhaps it is just an effect of you being text on a screen as opposed to a person I can see and talk to.
      - wpietri 10y ago
        > Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Like the three historical examples you ignored in the post you responded to? C'mon. Why would I waste more time? > haha, commies are stupid Yes, this is how you got to the "not even wrong" level of discourse and somehow thought it constituted reasoning. A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for. Communists weren't stupid. Communism didn't work, but people trying it had a reasonable intuition that it would work because they had a lot of experience with communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales. And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Because they also had a lot of experience with unregulated capitalism fucking them over. Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. People here get endlessly mad when it happens to handwave away startups or new tech. But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up. > Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed. It is not my job to force-feed you an education just because you saw fit to make a poorly considered reply to something I wrote. If you want to be taken seriously, it is your job to go get one. This is an entire field of literature.

wpietri 10y ago

I'm just amazed at the number of people who are fundamentalist capitalists. Who have to see everything in dollar terms. Who can't even quietly consider other approaches that might work just fine in particular circumstances. Personally, I'm a practicing capitalist, and somebody who approves of using market mechanisms for a wide variety of things. But nothing is perfect, and people legitimately have different values. So I think it's worth understanding those other approaches. I have no idea why people find that so threatening.

witty_username 10y ago
> people who are fundamentalist capitalists Who? > Who can't even quietly consider other approaches that might work just fine in particular circumstances. I explained how it might not work. You are attacking me but not my reasoning. I am just criticizing communal ownership since it does not work. > I have no idea why people find that so threatening. Who?
- wpietri 10y ago
  Did somebody let an owl in? You, of course. Although it's a perennial problem on HN, which is why I was speaking more generally. You haven't gotten to reasoning yet. I critiqued your style of argument: the outraged hot take, the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked. It was a spew of semi-random points, not a coherent argument. There's no point in discussing the details with you, because you aren't interested in learning anything. When called on your drama, you pretend to be purely rational. If you can't even admit your reaction or look at your own post honestly, why would I ever engage with the details of what you claim your point to be?
  - witty_username 10y ago
    > the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked I just said how collective ownership fails and how capitalism is a better solution. Is there something I said that I shouldn't have? > There's no point in discussing the details with you, because you aren't interested in learning anything. I am. Go critique my points. Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Send me research articles. Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed. > When called on your drama, you pretend to be purely rational. What drama? I was just a little bored and decided to poke a low hanging fruit (collective ownership). > If you can't even admit your reaction or look at your own post honestly, why would I ever engage with the details of what you claim your point to be? I'm pretty sure I wasn't angry or anything. Uncharitably, I was thinking "haha, commies are stupid", but I don't think I let that affect my comment. To me, it seems like you're the more angry one. Perhaps it is just an effect of you being text on a screen as opposed to a person I can see and talk to.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      > Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Like the three historical examples you ignored in the post you responded to? C'mon. Why would I waste more time? > haha, commies are stupid Yes, this is how you got to the "not even wrong" level of discourse and somehow thought it constituted reasoning. A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for. Communists weren't stupid. Communism didn't work, but people trying it had a reasonable intuition that it would work because they had a lot of experience with communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales. And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Because they also had a lot of experience with unregulated capitalism fucking them over. Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. People here get endlessly mad when it happens to handwave away startups or new tech. But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up. > Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed. It is not my job to force-feed you an education just because you saw fit to make a poorly considered reply to something I wrote. If you want to be taken seriously, it is your job to go get one. This is an entire field of literature.