5 ms·

you seem to believe that everyone should be equal economically regardless of merit. Interesting implication. It says a fair bit about you, actually. That, like

you seem to believe that everyone should be equal economically regardless of merit. Interesting implication. It says a fair bit about you, actually. That, like most people on this site, you place every person whose thoughts you read into one of a small number of mental "boxes." I, for instance, am apparently a "Looter" from Ayn Rand's novels. Not everyone is a character from a morality play. Please try to remember this. Not everyone is an uncritical defender or mindless opponent of this or that fashionable doctrine. the guy who works hard to build a successful dairy firm How about the guy who works others hard to build a successful dairy firm? And his grand-children? What should they receive? This is the real issue regarding the aristocrats of any nation. According to some, the USSR began to perish (through widespread cynicism of its own foundational myths) when it finally built a fresh aristocracy of inherited privilege - the Brezhnevian "nomenclature."

theoj 15y ago
"That, like most people on this site, you place every person whose thoughts you read into one of a small number of mental "boxes." I, for instance, am apparently a "Looter" from Ayn Rand's novels." Notice how you placed all the people on HN in a single mental box. In the interest of fairness, can you tell me more about your outlook and why you believe privatization is theft?
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  My personality and political views won't fit into a HN comment box. And I dearly hope that yours wouldn't either.
  - theoj 15y ago
    Well then, why don't we just stick to your statement that privatization is theft. Bonus points if you can show me how your arguments do not fall in any existing ideology.
    - asciilifeform 15y ago
      Try this example. It is 2015, the US Federal Government is approaching true bankruptcy. The decision is made to denationalize the Yellowstone National Park. It is sold to Exxon Corp. for $300 million. They will prospect for oil there. You, one of 300 million eligible shareholders, are sent a stock certificate worth $1. You sell it for $0.50 to buy a stale loaf of bread from a local gang (your family has nothing else to eat.) Did this story feature a theft? Which traditional political ideology does it support?
      - astine 15y ago
        "Did this story feature a theft?" No. If the government had the right to sell the damn park and had done so transparently, then that was not a theft no matter how you spin your scenario. In fact, as a person whose family is ostensibly in such bad straits that they would undersell promising stock in Exxon-Mobile by 50% for food I'm probably not all that interested in whether Yellowstone national park remains open.
        pbz 15y ago
        The problem with how you look at it is that you consider transparency a possibility. It's not incompetence, it's corruption. If you believe such a deal would go through without a lot of money directly or indirectly exchanging hands behind the scenes then you're blindly idealistic.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > Did this story feature a theft? It featured govt incompetence at a grand scale. No, not selling Yellowstone (or buying Yellowstone), but going bankrupt. On the assumption that you think that Exxon did something wrong in your scenario, there are two cases - Exxon paid a "fair price" or it didn't. In the "fair price" scenario, the problem is not Exxon. In fact, they're the good guys - presumably the US govt is better off making the sale, and no, Exxon has no obligation to subsidize govt incompetence. In the "unfair price" scenario, Exxon can't buy a govt that isn't for sale.
  - kds 15y ago
    How nicely said - I was literally struggling exactly with this, both as space limitation (something beyond me) and best possible achievable clarity as thoughts<->words choices (something depending only on me).

theoj 15y ago

"That, like most people on this site, you place every person whose thoughts you read into one of a small number of mental "boxes." I, for instance, am apparently a "Looter" from Ayn Rand's novels." Notice how you placed all the people on HN in a single mental box. In the interest of fairness, can you tell me more about your outlook and why you believe privatization is theft?

asciilifeform 15y ago
My personality and political views won't fit into a HN comment box. And I dearly hope that yours wouldn't either.
- theoj 15y ago
  Well then, why don't we just stick to your statement that privatization is theft. Bonus points if you can show me how your arguments do not fall in any existing ideology.
  - asciilifeform 15y ago
    Try this example. It is 2015, the US Federal Government is approaching true bankruptcy. The decision is made to denationalize the Yellowstone National Park. It is sold to Exxon Corp. for $300 million. They will prospect for oil there. You, one of 300 million eligible shareholders, are sent a stock certificate worth $1. You sell it for $0.50 to buy a stale loaf of bread from a local gang (your family has nothing else to eat.) Did this story feature a theft? Which traditional political ideology does it support?
    - astine 15y ago
      "Did this story feature a theft?" No. If the government had the right to sell the damn park and had done so transparently, then that was not a theft no matter how you spin your scenario. In fact, as a person whose family is ostensibly in such bad straits that they would undersell promising stock in Exxon-Mobile by 50% for food I'm probably not all that interested in whether Yellowstone national park remains open.
      - pbz 15y ago
        The problem with how you look at it is that you consider transparency a possibility. It's not incompetence, it's corruption. If you believe such a deal would go through without a lot of money directly or indirectly exchanging hands behind the scenes then you're blindly idealistic.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Did this story feature a theft? It featured govt incompetence at a grand scale. No, not selling Yellowstone (or buying Yellowstone), but going bankrupt. On the assumption that you think that Exxon did something wrong in your scenario, there are two cases - Exxon paid a "fair price" or it didn't. In the "fair price" scenario, the problem is not Exxon. In fact, they're the good guys - presumably the US govt is better off making the sale, and no, Exxon has no obligation to subsidize govt incompetence. In the "unfair price" scenario, Exxon can't buy a govt that isn't for sale.
- kds 15y ago
  How nicely said - I was literally struggling exactly with this, both as space limitation (something beyond me) and best possible achievable clarity as thoughts<->words choices (something depending only on me).