4 ms·

> nothing would be stopping someone with a bigger gun coming in and stealing whatever groceries they want That's why we need government - to prevent violence a

> nothing would be stopping someone with a bigger gun coming in and stealing whatever groceries they want That's why we need government - to prevent violence and stealing. Free market can work only in non-violence environment. However, government tries to do much more than that. And this I consider as a problem, namely excessive regulation.

oldcynic 9y ago
Even Hayek, so beloved of Thatcher and Reagan, sought to regulate and price externalities due to failures of the free market: “Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism.” (From Road to Serfdom)
tarken 9y ago
want a free market? move to Antarctica. you can be as free as you want. Here in society we'll keep building and cooperating. competition is for predators and chumps.
- dang 9y ago
  It's an abuse of HN to use it primarily for ideological battle. We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 9y ago
Would you please stop using HN for ideological battle? That is emphatically not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- hal9000xp 9y ago
  What I worry about HN is that you didn't tell this to `nukeop` on his comment. If you told this to `both sides`, I wouldn't have a doubt.
  - dang 9y ago
    We tell this to "both sides" all the time, as you can check by looking at the comment history. If there was another egregious comment in the thread that we didn't chide, the likeliest reason is that we didn't see it. We can't come close to reading all the comments. Edit: nukeop's comment was a bad one because shallow and snide, so I'd say it was correctly downvoted. But I wouldn't say it rose to the same level of off-topicness and guidelines violation as your comments in this thread did. We're really trying to avoid generic ideological tangents here.

oldcynic 9y ago

Even Hayek, so beloved of Thatcher and Reagan, sought to regulate and price externalities due to failures of the free market: “Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism.” (From Road to Serfdom)

tarken 9y ago

want a free market? move to Antarctica. you can be as free as you want. Here in society we'll keep building and cooperating. competition is for predators and chumps.

dang 9y ago
It's an abuse of HN to use it primarily for ideological battle. We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 9y ago

Would you please stop using HN for ideological battle? That is emphatically not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

hal9000xp 9y ago
What I worry about HN is that you didn't tell this to `nukeop` on his comment. If you told this to `both sides`, I wouldn't have a doubt.
- dang 9y ago
  We tell this to "both sides" all the time, as you can check by looking at the comment history. If there was another egregious comment in the thread that we didn't chide, the likeliest reason is that we didn't see it. We can't come close to reading all the comments. Edit: nukeop's comment was a bad one because shallow and snide, so I'd say it was correctly downvoted. But I wouldn't say it rose to the same level of off-topicness and guidelines violation as your comments in this thread did. We're really trying to avoid generic ideological tangents here.