3 ms·

There's an assumption there that more money to government = make things better but there are plenty of examples where the government makes things worse. Some p

There's an assumption there that more money to government = make things better but there are plenty of examples where the government makes things worse. Some people believe that giving less = actually make things better because it will limit the bad things a government can do.

411111111111111 6y ago
Some people believe that the earth is flat as well.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Is there a venn diagram of Randians and flat-earthers somewhere? on edit: changed libertarians to Randians.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    damn, I've evidently offended some flat-earthers out there.
- mettamage 6y ago
  411111111111111: substantiate what you're trying to say. For a reminder, read the community guidelines. The way I read this is as an attack on the parent. You might not agree with the parent, but that doesn't mean you write a comment that reads like an unsubstantiated attack. The reason it reads as an attack to me is because HN's core persona seems to be a science-minded person (perhaps debatable, it's how I see it). Likening someone in any way shape or form to flat earth believer ridicules their argument, without you adding anything of substance as it goes directly against the core persona of a person on HN. Implicitly, it seems that you're calling the parent stupid. I don't know if that was your intention or if you thought about it differently, but this is one of the reasons why one should substantiate their comments. This seems to be less the case when someone is being nice, but when someone is being controversial, then substantiating your comment is the only way in which you can guide a reader's interpretation (I'm saying this from quite a bit of experience). FWIW I flagged your comment. I'd recommend you to read the HN community guidelines [1]. In particular you violated (IMO): Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
cortesoft 6y ago
I can accept that belief and argument. If you believe that, I understand. I was just arguing against the idea of 'you just pay more taxes if you want to' being a solution.
landryraccoon 6y ago
More money or less money isn't the issue. I would have no problem with way paying much more to the government if it's for services that are beneficial, and I think we're paying too much for services that are not. When it comes to healthcare, the vast weight of the evidence supports strong government intervention in healthcare. When examples of profit driven healthcare exist, the vast weight of the evidence would lead you to conclude that it is less efficient and more expensive, delivering worse outcomes for higher cost.

411111111111111 6y ago

Some people believe that the earth is flat as well.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
Is there a venn diagram of Randians and flat-earthers somewhere? on edit: changed libertarians to Randians.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  damn, I've evidently offended some flat-earthers out there.
mettamage 6y ago
411111111111111: substantiate what you're trying to say. For a reminder, read the community guidelines. The way I read this is as an attack on the parent. You might not agree with the parent, but that doesn't mean you write a comment that reads like an unsubstantiated attack. The reason it reads as an attack to me is because HN's core persona seems to be a science-minded person (perhaps debatable, it's how I see it). Likening someone in any way shape or form to flat earth believer ridicules their argument, without you adding anything of substance as it goes directly against the core persona of a person on HN. Implicitly, it seems that you're calling the parent stupid. I don't know if that was your intention or if you thought about it differently, but this is one of the reasons why one should substantiate their comments. This seems to be less the case when someone is being nice, but when someone is being controversial, then substantiating your comment is the only way in which you can guide a reader's interpretation (I'm saying this from quite a bit of experience). FWIW I flagged your comment. I'd recommend you to read the HN community guidelines [1]. In particular you violated (IMO): Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cortesoft 6y ago

I can accept that belief and argument. If you believe that, I understand. I was just arguing against the idea of 'you just pay more taxes if you want to' being a solution.

landryraccoon 6y ago

More money or less money isn't the issue. I would have no problem with way paying much more to the government if it's for services that are beneficial, and I think we're paying too much for services that are not. When it comes to healthcare, the vast weight of the evidence supports strong government intervention in healthcare. When examples of profit driven healthcare exist, the vast weight of the evidence would lead you to conclude that it is less efficient and more expensive, delivering worse outcomes for higher cost.