3 ms·

I guess the problem is this: from an engineer's point of view if one were to design an efficient (but as John says, not ruthlessly efficient) system that tends

I guess the problem is this: from an engineer's point of view if one were to design an efficient (but as John says, not ruthlessly efficient) system that tends to the needs of society from scratch and design into that system a means for funding it would we end up with a system that looks like todays modern democracies, ignoring which side of the Atlantic we're talking about for the moment. I think this simple maxim says a lot; all things being equal a smaller government is better than a larger one. This is a perplexing thing for me because as far as I can tell the parties that talk like this are on the right of the spectrum and I've viewed myself as left-leaning but I'm beginning to think that each new label is just another excuse to see somebody as an Other and causes conflict. John wonders who to vote for. Even with my limited acquaintance with US politics it seems like Ron Paul is thumping the tubs that John is, maybe he should look towards the radical libertarian corner? I dunno, I don't either of the guys personally. :) The vast entirety of geopolitical arc of history has given us the systems we live under today. John talks about inertia, it's like trying to even find the right lever in the dark in a storm to try and turn the biggest supertanker a fraction of a radian. I know that a lot people on HackerNews think that governments take our money from us buy force if necessary but I ask you, how on earth do you get people to put aside their innate greed and and honestly and proportionately bear their burden? You could say that royalty and aristocracy created the mess that we're grappling with now but none of the issues John raises have any simple fixes. If I were to go out on a limb and be a hippy idealist for a moment: I'd say strangling the war on drugs or at least radically altering it and demilitarizing the planet would be the first obvious branches of government to target for judicious pruning. Not exactly HackerNews fodder but one feels a certain tension in the air these days that needs to be vented.

logicalmind 16y ago
Yes, but here is the rub. Once upon a time only the aristocrats could afford to be educated. Then it was deemed by democratic government that education should be afforded to all. The people voted for that, knowing full well that it would cost everyone some of their hard-earned money (taxes). Generations have gone by and many people take the things that are "common goods" for granted. Unless John Carmack's family is from an aristocratic lineage and his family is wealthy enough to have given him privately funded everything, then he is also "standing on the shoulders of giants" who have paved his way. For him to now become essentially an aristocrat and now say that each people should fend for themselves is difficult to comprehend. At least Newton was humble enough to realize how he got to where he got.
- igravious 16y ago
  I am in complete agreement with you. The lucky majority have hot water on tap, we have access to thousands of songs instantaneously (people forget how miraculous this is), we have many creature comforts that would put us out of reach of most royalty going back not even two hundred years. One of the most uplifting Ted Talks* I ever watched was this economist who argued that in one hundred years time poor Africa would still be poor but that their standard of living would surpass anybody alive today. (I find it hard to imagine it now but he had lots of statistics and graphs I tell ya!) * http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_how_and_when.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_h...

logicalmind 16y ago

Yes, but here is the rub. Once upon a time only the aristocrats could afford to be educated. Then it was deemed by democratic government that education should be afforded to all. The people voted for that, knowing full well that it would cost everyone some of their hard-earned money (taxes). Generations have gone by and many people take the things that are "common goods" for granted. Unless John Carmack's family is from an aristocratic lineage and his family is wealthy enough to have given him privately funded everything, then he is also "standing on the shoulders of giants" who have paved his way. For him to now become essentially an aristocrat and now say that each people should fend for themselves is difficult to comprehend. At least Newton was humble enough to realize how he got to where he got.

igravious 16y ago
I am in complete agreement with you. The lucky majority have hot water on tap, we have access to thousands of songs instantaneously (people forget how miraculous this is), we have many creature comforts that would put us out of reach of most royalty going back not even two hundred years. One of the most uplifting Ted Talks* I ever watched was this economist who argued that in one hundred years time poor Africa would still be poor but that their standard of living would surpass anybody alive today. (I find it hard to imagine it now but he had lots of statistics and graphs I tell ya!) * http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_how_and_when.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_h...