7 ms·

[flagged]

by croon 5y ago

[flagged]

refurb 5y ago
You completely dodged addressing the main point - capitalist systems have made the most progress in terms of freedom and human rights.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  Exactly, and I would be remiss to leave out in an absurdly short period of time on the scale of human history. It's so far beyond coincidence it's laughable to contend that it might be.
- croon 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - croon 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        [flagged]
        croon 5y ago
        > Both of these are explicit examples of regulatory capture. > The FAA is heavily dependent on aircraft manufacturers to self certify. EU members met in Brussels to discuss the exact metrics VW was spoofing, but failed to implement a measurement strategy that would have easily detected this manipulation due to pressure from companies regarding the expense and time of tests. Furthering this line of thought, are you suggesting that these companies complaining about expense and time of tests would volunteer into a trade organization (and pay for it no less, which is how they exist), that of course would still require the same tests to be effective? Otherwise the end result would just be another certification that consumers would want before buying, but wouldn't mean anything unless they entail stringent tests. > You cannot substantiate this assertion. If the state did not have easily captured, monopolistic, and absolute authority over the certification and other confidence-instilling industries, then it's highly likely trustworthy, neutral third parties would exist and compete to assess and verify the safety and other metrics of various industry. In the restaurant industry, ServSafe and its competitors are a great example. Not to knock the service industry, but airplanes and cars are a bit more complicated to evaluate. > There's also tons of nongovernmental safety and quality certifications in plenty of other fields with the potential for catastrophic failure and loss of human life. I would be much more interested in examples here. > Please actually read some of the foundational literature. Pretty much everything you've said is explicitly addressed. So please address it using your already obtained knowledge instead of dodging.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        croon 5y ago
        > Sounds like a great opportunity to do some self directed research and critical thinking instead of exercising confirmation bias. This boils down to "I am right without any arguments, and if you can't see that then you should figure out how I'm right yourself". It's not a great look. > No thanks, I'm not willing to invest any more time in curing the ignorance of someone unwilling to seek truth for themselves and who only asks questions in bad faith Asking very specific questions is bad faith?
- lucian1900 5y ago
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    It's an objective historical fact. The overwhelming majority of ethical and moral progression in human history coincided with the extension of private property rights to more and more of the general population, and retracted when those rights were rescinded. This occurred both because of the recognition of humanity that goes along with granting these rights, and the technological progressions enabled by allowing opportunity and innovation to occur in larger swaths of the population rather than an aristocratic hyperminority.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      You're just describing class struggle and industry, not capitalism specifically. Capitalism was once revolutionary against feudalism, as the bourgeoisie replaced the nobility as the ruling class. But that hasn't been the case for centuries.
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        [flagged]
        lucian1900 5y ago
        You're conflating the ideology capitalism uses to justify and maintain itself with its actual material reality. It's not a surprise, considering this ideology (liberalism) is fundamentally idealist and not materialist. Have you actually read Marx or Engels? You'll find a holistic understanding of capitalism and its roots, its upsides and its downsides.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        [flagged]
defaultprimate 5y ago
[flagged]
- croon 5y ago
  > No, they did it because they viewed "others" as less than human, or less deserving of dignity and respect, no different than a beast of burden. Slavery predates capitalism by millennia, so viewing others this way clearly doesn't share a causative relationship with capitalism. To contend that capitalism caused slavery is absurd. It's the only economic system in history that resulted in the enduring abolition of slavery. Modern, alternative economic systems still devolve into utilizing slavery to this very day. Darwinism predates "Darwinism". Yours is not an argument. People traded before states existed. Rational actors didn't appear at the date when the model description of capitalism was defined. People kept slaves because they could (obviously). We can argue that they either did this for profit or for laughs. I know what I'd bet. > You should also read George Fitzhugh, the most prominent representative of anti abolitionist plantation owners. He was a staunch anti-capitalist specifically because the moral framework it is built on humanized black people and this sentiment was a primary driver in the abolitionist movement. Capitalists and abolitionists were extremely closely associated during the abolitionist movement. "We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism: the former proposes to abolish negro slavery, the latter all kinds of slavery - religion, government, marriage, families, property - nay, human nature itself. Yet the former contains the germ of the latter, and very soon ripens into it; Abolition is Socialism in its infancy." - George Fitzhugh > > Maximizing rights and freedoms on the macro scale means limiting some people's edge freedoms on the micro scale. > No it doesn't. It means preventing others from stepping on universal freedoms of others, which is exactly the philosophical foundations of private property. Meaning someone enforces your right to property from someone else having a different idea of freedoms. You're not contradicting me. We can only have rights and freedoms by collectively agreeing where those limits are, and enforcing them as a society. That's what laws and regulations do.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
dang 5y ago
Since your account has been using HN primarily (maybe even exclusively) for ideological battle, and we ban accounts that do that regardless of what they're battling for, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

[flagged]

by croon 5y ago

[flagged]

You completely dodged addressing the main point - capitalist systems have made the most progress in terms of freedom and human rights.

defaultprimate 5y ago
Exactly, and I would be remiss to leave out in an absurdly short period of time on the scale of human history. It's so far beyond coincidence it's laughable to contend that it might be.
croon 5y ago
[flagged]
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - croon 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - croon 5y ago
        > Both of these are explicit examples of regulatory capture. > The FAA is heavily dependent on aircraft manufacturers to self certify. EU members met in Brussels to discuss the exact metrics VW was spoofing, but failed to implement a measurement strategy that would have easily detected this manipulation due to pressure from companies regarding the expense and time of tests. Furthering this line of thought, are you suggesting that these companies complaining about expense and time of tests would volunteer into a trade organization (and pay for it no less, which is how they exist), that of course would still require the same tests to be effective? Otherwise the end result would just be another certification that consumers would want before buying, but wouldn't mean anything unless they entail stringent tests. > You cannot substantiate this assertion. If the state did not have easily captured, monopolistic, and absolute authority over the certification and other confidence-instilling industries, then it's highly likely trustworthy, neutral third parties would exist and compete to assess and verify the safety and other metrics of various industry. In the restaurant industry, ServSafe and its competitors are a great example. Not to knock the service industry, but airplanes and cars are a bit more complicated to evaluate. > There's also tons of nongovernmental safety and quality certifications in plenty of other fields with the potential for catastrophic failure and loss of human life. I would be much more interested in examples here. > Please actually read some of the foundational literature. Pretty much everything you've said is explicitly addressed. So please address it using your already obtained knowledge instead of dodging.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        croon 5y ago
        > Sounds like a great opportunity to do some self directed research and critical thinking instead of exercising confirmation bias. This boils down to "I am right without any arguments, and if you can't see that then you should figure out how I'm right yourself". It's not a great look. > No thanks, I'm not willing to invest any more time in curing the ignorance of someone unwilling to seek truth for themselves and who only asks questions in bad faith Asking very specific questions is bad faith?
lucian1900 5y ago
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  It's an objective historical fact. The overwhelming majority of ethical and moral progression in human history coincided with the extension of private property rights to more and more of the general population, and retracted when those rights were rescinded. This occurred both because of the recognition of humanity that goes along with granting these rights, and the technological progressions enabled by allowing opportunity and innovation to occur in larger swaths of the population rather than an aristocratic hyperminority.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    You're just describing class struggle and industry, not capitalism specifically. Capitalism was once revolutionary against feudalism, as the bourgeoisie replaced the nobility as the ruling class. But that hasn't been the case for centuries.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - lucian1900 5y ago
        You're conflating the ideology capitalism uses to justify and maintain itself with its actual material reality. It's not a surprise, considering this ideology (liberalism) is fundamentally idealist and not materialist. Have you actually read Marx or Engels? You'll find a holistic understanding of capitalism and its roots, its upsides and its downsides.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        [flagged]

defaultprimate 5y ago

[flagged]

croon 5y ago
> No, they did it because they viewed "others" as less than human, or less deserving of dignity and respect, no different than a beast of burden. Slavery predates capitalism by millennia, so viewing others this way clearly doesn't share a causative relationship with capitalism. To contend that capitalism caused slavery is absurd. It's the only economic system in history that resulted in the enduring abolition of slavery. Modern, alternative economic systems still devolve into utilizing slavery to this very day. Darwinism predates "Darwinism". Yours is not an argument. People traded before states existed. Rational actors didn't appear at the date when the model description of capitalism was defined. People kept slaves because they could (obviously). We can argue that they either did this for profit or for laughs. I know what I'd bet. > You should also read George Fitzhugh, the most prominent representative of anti abolitionist plantation owners. He was a staunch anti-capitalist specifically because the moral framework it is built on humanized black people and this sentiment was a primary driver in the abolitionist movement. Capitalists and abolitionists were extremely closely associated during the abolitionist movement. "We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism: the former proposes to abolish negro slavery, the latter all kinds of slavery - religion, government, marriage, families, property - nay, human nature itself. Yet the former contains the germ of the latter, and very soon ripens into it; Abolition is Socialism in its infancy." - George Fitzhugh > > Maximizing rights and freedoms on the macro scale means limiting some people's edge freedoms on the micro scale. > No it doesn't. It means preventing others from stepping on universal freedoms of others, which is exactly the philosophical foundations of private property. Meaning someone enforces your right to property from someone else having a different idea of freedoms. You're not contradicting me. We can only have rights and freedoms by collectively agreeing where those limits are, and enforcing them as a society. That's what laws and regulations do.
- defaultprimate 5y ago

dang 5y ago

Since your account has been using HN primarily (maybe even exclusively) for ideological battle, and we ban accounts that do that regardless of what they're battling for, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.