3 ms·

>>You can blame the government, I dont blame government, as it is not and should not be the governments role to do this. >Those things sound like they’re pre

by syshum 7y ago

>>You can blame the government, I dont blame government, as it is not and should not be the governments role to do this. >Those things sound like they’re precisely the kind of stuff that’s the domain of non-profits and the government. Non-Profits yes, government no Government sole and only job should be to preserve and protect the rights of citizens. Expanding government beyond this role has always lead to disaster and human suffering > you don’t want the institutions with profit motive to be the ones handling charitable works While true in some sense, HN's continual hostility to profit is absurd. Profit motive is what leads innovation, what makes things cheaper, and what allows charity to feed 100 people with a $100-200 donation... Profit Motive is what has brought the massive reduction in poverty world wide... It was not government, it was Free markets that did this

TulliusCicero 7y ago
Profit motive isn't bad. It just doesn't interface well with charity.
forgetfulusr 7y ago
I don't find the hostility to profit absurd. Profit motive also filled the world with crap we don't need. It also accelerated climate change. Through our fossil fuel companies' profit motive. I actually find HN lacking in hostility towards profit, but it seems it's because we selectively choose what to pick up on and remember.
harimau777 7y ago
Throughout the vast majority of human history the role of government has not been just to preserve and protect rights, but also to promote the public good. This is true both of national government and more informal governments such as those in churches and clubs. I think that humanity is a species that operates and survives as a society; therefore, I think its likely that there is a place for society promoting the common good. I agree with you that completely abandoning profit motive would be a very bad idea. However, any process can become harmful if it is allowed to run without limits or safeguards. During the time that poverty has been reduced worldwide we have had both profit motive and the government operating; therefore, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that profit motive would bring prosperity without also having government to constrain it.
- syshum 7y ago
  >>>such as those in churches and clubs. Churches and Clubs are generally voluntary organizations on chooses to join, and can leave. Thus can not be classified as a government I have no choice but to interact with the government and should I choose not to said government will put me in a cage and/or use violence against me to compel my activity, I am sure you next comment will be "well you vote so you consented..." which is equally absurd of a notion for voluntary interactivity >>>Throughout the vast majority of human history the role of government has not been just to preserve and protect rights I am aware of this history, and almost universally it has lead to suffering, tyranny, and oppression >>>However, any process can become harmful if it is allowed to run without limits or safeguards. It is often governments and the legal system to provide the avenue of these abuses. Limiting liability, and shielding corporations via layers of liability shields, caps and other regulations >>> During the time that poverty has been reduced worldwide we have had both profit motive and the government operating; yes, and poverty would be ALOT lower if government was not "helping"
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I agree that if someone wants to live outside of society then they should be allowed to do so. However, for those who are part of society, I feel that the purpose of society is to provide for the needs of its members. I think that your analysis of history may be too simplistic. Certainly governments have caused suffering, tyranny, and oppression, but so has profit motive. By the same token, both profit motive and government has done a lot of good for people. My overall objection is that you seem to be taking a very black and white approach. I agree that we shouldn't adopt a communist approach that rejects profit motive or an extreme collectivist approach that rejects individual rights. However, that doesn't mean that there is no role for society to provide for people's needs.

by syshum 7y ago

TulliusCicero 7y ago

Profit motive isn't bad. It just doesn't interface well with charity.

forgetfulusr 7y ago

I don't find the hostility to profit absurd. Profit motive also filled the world with crap we don't need. It also accelerated climate change. Through our fossil fuel companies' profit motive. I actually find HN lacking in hostility towards profit, but it seems it's because we selectively choose what to pick up on and remember.

harimau777 7y ago

Throughout the vast majority of human history the role of government has not been just to preserve and protect rights, but also to promote the public good. This is true both of national government and more informal governments such as those in churches and clubs. I think that humanity is a species that operates and survives as a society; therefore, I think its likely that there is a place for society promoting the common good. I agree with you that completely abandoning profit motive would be a very bad idea. However, any process can become harmful if it is allowed to run without limits or safeguards. During the time that poverty has been reduced worldwide we have had both profit motive and the government operating; therefore, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that profit motive would bring prosperity without also having government to constrain it.

syshum 7y ago
>>>such as those in churches and clubs. Churches and Clubs are generally voluntary organizations on chooses to join, and can leave. Thus can not be classified as a government I have no choice but to interact with the government and should I choose not to said government will put me in a cage and/or use violence against me to compel my activity, I am sure you next comment will be "well you vote so you consented..." which is equally absurd of a notion for voluntary interactivity >>>Throughout the vast majority of human history the role of government has not been just to preserve and protect rights I am aware of this history, and almost universally it has lead to suffering, tyranny, and oppression >>>However, any process can become harmful if it is allowed to run without limits or safeguards. It is often governments and the legal system to provide the avenue of these abuses. Limiting liability, and shielding corporations via layers of liability shields, caps and other regulations >>> During the time that poverty has been reduced worldwide we have had both profit motive and the government operating; yes, and poverty would be ALOT lower if government was not "helping"
- harimau777 7y ago
  I agree that if someone wants to live outside of society then they should be allowed to do so. However, for those who are part of society, I feel that the purpose of society is to provide for the needs of its members. I think that your analysis of history may be too simplistic. Certainly governments have caused suffering, tyranny, and oppression, but so has profit motive. By the same token, both profit motive and government has done a lot of good for people. My overall objection is that you seem to be taking a very black and white approach. I agree that we shouldn't adopt a communist approach that rejects profit motive or an extreme collectivist approach that rejects individual rights. However, that doesn't mean that there is no role for society to provide for people's needs.