4 ms·

The bigger government gets, the less freedoms the people have. It is critically important not to ask government to solve problems (government is bad at solving

The bigger government gets, the less freedoms the people have. It is critically important not to ask government to solve problems (government is bad at solving most problems), and to seek ways to shrink government.

okayishdefaults 2y ago
How do you know when it's small enough?
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  HN User Silexia will tell you of course.
  - silexia 2y ago
    Glad to assist!
- redeeman 2y ago
  when it fears what I and my neighbors will do to it. When it personally thinks about its accountability to the people around it, on firstname basis, any time it even considers spending money.
MarcelOlsz 2y ago
[flagged]
- steve_adams_86 2y ago
  I agree and disagree. Some things make sense to centralize. Some things maybe less. I’m glad Canada is talking about centralizing how trade is managed, for example. I think it’ll be good for us in the long run. Yet I don’t think food security is best accomplished through centralized farming practices. Distribution of these systems may be slightly less efficient, but I think that’s a price worth paying in the longer term. Especially as we need to worry more about climate change which can have localized impacts. It’s a complex matter. We shouldn’t hesitate to centralize when it makes sense. But we should be careful, too. Centralization comes with drawbacks, no matter what. They won’t always be easy to anticipate.
  - MarcelOlsz 2y ago
    It is an incredibly easy matter. Most people I know don't care for grinding because it doesn't earn more happiness. The few that do, are privileged software engineers making 300k+ so it makes sense for them to grind it out and be set for life and even they can quickly acknowledge that again, it doesn't bring more happiness. Most people I know are far more motivated to do things for common good, whether its limited to their friends circle or community and have no incentive to grind for a boss. There is no logical or humane reason to keep working as much as we do. You want to be competitive join a sports league or something. If you want to question why would anyone do what I suggested you can just go to github.com and see millions of altruists doing it for free. A clear example of humanity trying to break free held down by a vast swathe of wretches of would-be millionaires and current billionaires. It is impossible for me to entertain anything related to conserving any part of the status quo while I still have to work 40+ hours a week. It is a complete shit show and we've made no progress in the past 250 years except a couple apps and other bullshit "technology" with meaningful tech being an absolute drop in an infinite ocean of shit. How embarrassing for all of us.
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      How does centralizing and nationalizing innately lead to less of a grind? I wasn’t thinking about that aspect when I wrote my comment. Life seems like work to me. I think I live in a country that’s fortunate enough to get to believe otherwise, but when we factor in all of the externalities of our goods and services, there’s a tremendous amount of work and environmental debt (future labour) occurring. If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
      - MarcelOlsz 2y ago
        If this system subsumes successful iterations it becomes more efficient. I would prefer a system that spreads out and flattens the profit curve. If you want to be a big genius and have a house 5x bigger than any in your community then you should actually work for it. Join the toilet paper co-op or whatever the fuck and iterate. I would like to see "risk" entirely eliminated. You either work your job, or you apply for a grant. Risk is a stupid thing. There are plenty of insanely smart people who will not rock the boat because they do not want to undertake risk and so we lose out on their productivity. We've created a thunderdome where only the most callous and pathological survive and win, anyone else gets crushed. >If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually. We are living inside of the externality of a small group of peoples pathologies.
- speakfreely 2y ago
  I'm giving you an upvote because I am 51% sure that was just good trolling.
  - MarcelOlsz 2y ago
    I was half joking and making a reference to his silly small government comment but I do absolutely believe in nationalizing the tits out of everything. My dream is to walk into a grocery store and everything is the best it can be, with identical labelling, no marketing, and all the information I want about it. "SALT". "WATER". Any positive iteration should lead to reward and absorption by my fictional state. I've probably read too much sci fi.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Why would anything there be ‘the best it can be’ in that scenario?
      - homarp 2y ago
        can linux kernel code be 'the best it can be'?
        lazide 2y ago
        because people are allowed to fix their own issues, and also allowed to put their name on their work in the public eye. neither, generally, would be possible in the scenario you describe.
        homarp 2y ago
        please note that I am not OP. How about 'generic' drugs? are they the best 'manufactured' they can be?
        lazide 2y ago
        Generally? No. But will meet regulatory minimums insofar as active ingredients, purity, etc. They don’t have a monopoly like the OP described, however. If they did? Yikes… Notably, that kind of economy is roughly how the USSR ran, and no one praised it when it died.
lovich 2y ago
> (government is bad at solving most problems) I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems. > and to seek ways to shrink government. Id rather seek ways to maximize liberty, and while they frequently can mean limiting the government, the act of shrinking the government is not _necessary_, and even works against my goals if the government is the one keeping my liberty maximized
- jdasdf 2y ago
  >I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems. The only person mentioning corporations was you.
  - StefanBatory 2y ago
    There is no alternative. Governement, or corporations. Choose one.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      There in fact are many forms of community organization which are neither government nor corporation.
      - Joker_vD 2y ago
        Those forms cannot really compete with the neighbouring (or even overseas) nation-states. Look no further than the history of the North America and Australia after the Europeans discovered those continents.
        lupusreal 2y ago
        I'm not suggesting that we have charity run aircraft carriers, nor a corporate Navy either for that matter. There are nonetheless many functions of government which can be performed by community organizations, particularly at the local level, where the problems are the most tractable and where people are most likely to perceive a sense of responsibility and get involved. I'll give a concrete example: I don't think the government needs to be in the business of organizing youth football. Many sports get by just fine with sports teams organized, funded and run by volunteers. Youth baseball is usually this way; organized by dads and perhaps partially funded by local pizza shops (too corporate? Essentially harmless.) Football though is organized through school districts, funded by property owners paying their taxes. This isn't necessary.
jimbob45 2y ago
What you’re saying is broadly true but my understanding is that the Thai government is dysfunctional in an Emperor Nero sort of way.
- speakfreely 2y ago
  Are you referring to Air Marshal Fufu? The wiki article does not disappoint.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JTbane 2y ago
Disagree, some programs that people call "big government" (such as Social Security, SNAP, etc) are a net good

okayishdefaults 2y ago

How do you know when it's small enough?

bilbo0s 2y ago
HN User Silexia will tell you of course.
- silexia 2y ago
  Glad to assist!
redeeman 2y ago
when it fears what I and my neighbors will do to it. When it personally thinks about its accountability to the people around it, on firstname basis, any time it even considers spending money.

MarcelOlsz 2y ago

[flagged]

steve_adams_86 2y ago
I agree and disagree. Some things make sense to centralize. Some things maybe less. I’m glad Canada is talking about centralizing how trade is managed, for example. I think it’ll be good for us in the long run. Yet I don’t think food security is best accomplished through centralized farming practices. Distribution of these systems may be slightly less efficient, but I think that’s a price worth paying in the longer term. Especially as we need to worry more about climate change which can have localized impacts. It’s a complex matter. We shouldn’t hesitate to centralize when it makes sense. But we should be careful, too. Centralization comes with drawbacks, no matter what. They won’t always be easy to anticipate.
- MarcelOlsz 2y ago
  It is an incredibly easy matter. Most people I know don't care for grinding because it doesn't earn more happiness. The few that do, are privileged software engineers making 300k+ so it makes sense for them to grind it out and be set for life and even they can quickly acknowledge that again, it doesn't bring more happiness. Most people I know are far more motivated to do things for common good, whether its limited to their friends circle or community and have no incentive to grind for a boss. There is no logical or humane reason to keep working as much as we do. You want to be competitive join a sports league or something. If you want to question why would anyone do what I suggested you can just go to github.com and see millions of altruists doing it for free. A clear example of humanity trying to break free held down by a vast swathe of wretches of would-be millionaires and current billionaires. It is impossible for me to entertain anything related to conserving any part of the status quo while I still have to work 40+ hours a week. It is a complete shit show and we've made no progress in the past 250 years except a couple apps and other bullshit "technology" with meaningful tech being an absolute drop in an infinite ocean of shit. How embarrassing for all of us.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    How does centralizing and nationalizing innately lead to less of a grind? I wasn’t thinking about that aspect when I wrote my comment. Life seems like work to me. I think I live in a country that’s fortunate enough to get to believe otherwise, but when we factor in all of the externalities of our goods and services, there’s a tremendous amount of work and environmental debt (future labour) occurring. If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
    - MarcelOlsz 2y ago
      If this system subsumes successful iterations it becomes more efficient. I would prefer a system that spreads out and flattens the profit curve. If you want to be a big genius and have a house 5x bigger than any in your community then you should actually work for it. Join the toilet paper co-op or whatever the fuck and iterate. I would like to see "risk" entirely eliminated. You either work your job, or you apply for a grant. Risk is a stupid thing. There are plenty of insanely smart people who will not rock the boat because they do not want to undertake risk and so we lose out on their productivity. We've created a thunderdome where only the most callous and pathological survive and win, anyone else gets crushed. >If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually. We are living inside of the externality of a small group of peoples pathologies.
speakfreely 2y ago
I'm giving you an upvote because I am 51% sure that was just good trolling.
- MarcelOlsz 2y ago
  I was half joking and making a reference to his silly small government comment but I do absolutely believe in nationalizing the tits out of everything. My dream is to walk into a grocery store and everything is the best it can be, with identical labelling, no marketing, and all the information I want about it. "SALT". "WATER". Any positive iteration should lead to reward and absorption by my fictional state. I've probably read too much sci fi.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Why would anything there be ‘the best it can be’ in that scenario?
    - homarp 2y ago
      can linux kernel code be 'the best it can be'?
      - lazide 2y ago
        because people are allowed to fix their own issues, and also allowed to put their name on their work in the public eye. neither, generally, would be possible in the scenario you describe.
        homarp 2y ago
        please note that I am not OP. How about 'generic' drugs? are they the best 'manufactured' they can be?
        lazide 2y ago
        Generally? No. But will meet regulatory minimums insofar as active ingredients, purity, etc. They don’t have a monopoly like the OP described, however. If they did? Yikes… Notably, that kind of economy is roughly how the USSR ran, and no one praised it when it died.

lovich 2y ago

> (government is bad at solving most problems) I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems. > and to seek ways to shrink government. Id rather seek ways to maximize liberty, and while they frequently can mean limiting the government, the act of shrinking the government is not _necessary_, and even works against my goals if the government is the one keeping my liberty maximized

jdasdf 2y ago
>I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems. The only person mentioning corporations was you.
- StefanBatory 2y ago
  There is no alternative. Governement, or corporations. Choose one.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    There in fact are many forms of community organization which are neither government nor corporation.
    - Joker_vD 2y ago
      Those forms cannot really compete with the neighbouring (or even overseas) nation-states. Look no further than the history of the North America and Australia after the Europeans discovered those continents.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        I'm not suggesting that we have charity run aircraft carriers, nor a corporate Navy either for that matter. There are nonetheless many functions of government which can be performed by community organizations, particularly at the local level, where the problems are the most tractable and where people are most likely to perceive a sense of responsibility and get involved. I'll give a concrete example: I don't think the government needs to be in the business of organizing youth football. Many sports get by just fine with sports teams organized, funded and run by volunteers. Youth baseball is usually this way; organized by dads and perhaps partially funded by local pizza shops (too corporate? Essentially harmless.) Football though is organized through school districts, funded by property owners paying their taxes. This isn't necessary.

jimbob45 2y ago

What you’re saying is broadly true but my understanding is that the Thai government is dysfunctional in an Emperor Nero sort of way.

speakfreely 2y ago
Are you referring to Air Marshal Fufu? The wiki article does not disappoint.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

JTbane 2y ago

Disagree, some programs that people call "big government" (such as Social Security, SNAP, etc) are a net good