6 ms·

When we stop being a for-profit society. Don't hold your breath.

by njharman 14y ago

marknutter 14y ago
No; when government becomes sufficiently small.
- Reebz 14y ago
  No and no; when we are sufficiently globalized and companies are taxed (fairly) by all countries. In your example, France is pissed off they're not getting a slice of the billion dollar pie because Google sits in the US. Our archaic ideas of "nations" are tied to land masses - not a great partner to a distributable service that can be accessed almost anywhere near the speed of light.
  - oleganza 14y ago
    Your archaic idea of taxes is what holds back productive efforts to be distributed wherever needed at the maximum speed.
  - mercurial 14y ago
    At the risk of derailing the discussion, it's my understanding that the US government is not getting much in corporate taxes from Google either, thanks to a well-established practice of tax-dodging by funneling profits into Ireland.
- erikpukinskis 14y ago
  When government is "sufficiently small" then conventional colleges will be able to just pay ISPs to block Coursera. Cutting out the middleman! I guess government is inefficient.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Why would customers choose an ISP that does such a thing?
    - xyzzyz 14y ago
      Why do you think they would have a choice? Compared to the situation in Europe, Americans don't really have much choice right now.
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        Because with a sufficiently small government, ISPs would not enjoy a government-mandated duopoly?
        mindcrime 14y ago
        Because with a sufficiently small government, ISPs would not enjoy a government-mandated duopoly? BINGO! Give yummyfajitas a cookie. Government inhibits competition and innovation more than it helps.
        xyzzyz 14y ago
        ...instead enjoying monopoly unencumbered by some silly competition law.
        icebraining 14y ago
        Why couldn't competitors enter the market?
    - pi18n 14y ago
      Because the theoretical government was too small to force even a duopoly, so one provider has bought all the wires.
      - jessaustin 14y ago
        In the USA, technologically unnecessary government regulation of the wireless spectrum is the only reason the wires confer any sort of monopoly. If the FCC didn't exist, we wouldn't all be forced to use 1940s tech on all non-wifi bands, and our local loop to our ISP would be wireless, fast, and effectively free. Instead, we have Ma Bell, Part II. I don't see how an evil corporation could have brought about such a situation without the enthusiastic assistance of the state.
nickik 14y ago
Disagree. Its not a for-profit society problem. If you give lawmakers the power to block things like coursera you do not have to wonder that the get lobbied to use it. Its not a for-profit problem its a political power problem.
- njharman 14y ago
  They only get lobbied because there is a profit motive. Also lobbing takes money and it only pays if you're making a profit.
  - nickik 14y ago
    > They only get lobbied because there is a profit motive. True. The only why we could get around this is if people only cared for the soiety and not themselfs. This concept was called "New Socalist Man" in the economic debates of the 1920 - 1950 but the simple true is that it is a utopian concept. > Also lobbing takes money and it only pays if you're making a profit. Lobbying has a return on investment like any other thing a company can do. The diffrence is that the profit that falls out of lobbying does not come from bigger costumer sadisfaction or rising demand, it comes from state privlages or less competition.
h123b 14y ago
Communists North Korea and Cuba are free of corruption, now?
yason 14y ago
We could just transform into being a "for society's profit" instead of "for-profit society".
- tomrod 14y ago
  I like how that sounds. My only concern is philosophical -- who then sets the agenda? We wouldn't be able to implement democracy without the tyranny of the majority, nor could we exalt any one minority group without the same issue. At least with a for-profit society the motivations are clear.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    Your philosophy needs a bit more development. The first order of business in designing a democracy is figuring out how to mitigate the tyranny of the majority. Read the Federalist Papers. I wrote this a couple days ago: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4658896 http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4658896 To answer your question, the answer is "Everyone." The problem is that while this is technically true already (that's what consent of the governed is), the purpose of democracy is to make it explicit and transparent so that it can be criticized and reacted to.
    - tomrod 14y ago
      I can promise you my love of knowledge is bright and receptive. I've read the federalist papers and the writings of many who claim to be the intellectual successors of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. If only the US were a democracy instead of a representative republic! But, given the standard human condition, we still coalesce into tribes. Be it based on race, religion, hometown, shared career, you name it, we form blocs. These blocs then either innately or in response to other blocs seek to gain power (heck, that's what political science _is_, the study of acquisition of power, and it's far from a solved question). So the fairy dust solution of "everyone" being the minority represented doesn't really hold true in the real world. Thus, given these constraints, I conclude a for-profit-society is more transparent and navigable than a profit-for-society. If one were to assume that everyone else lived a profit-for-society life, then one defector would be able to manipulate the entire society to their personal aims. Though I strive to live my personal life to a more noble ideal, I cannot assume everyone else will. Your proposal is akin to the ideal anarcho-capitalists* have, in that states compete. As I understand the philosophy, judicial systems and police forces are private and distinct. Law is common-law, meaning it's not case based, but rather takes into account the accuser, accused, and the situation. The will of the court is then implemented via by a hired police force. The issue is then when courts and police merge horizontally and vertically. You then have a _de_ _facto_ state. It's unavoidable, and the answer is "Well, you obviously can't have a society where people are like that." This answer ignores the strategic human element. One cannot even call this behavior immoral, as it likely comes about with noble intentions. Anyway, just some thoughts. I salute your goals. *EDIT: anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), not socio-anarchists.
naturalethic 14y ago
Guess we should be a for-loss society huh? Or perhaps perpetually stagnate. It's not profit motive here, it's government meddling, protectionism, mercantilism.

When we stop being a for-profit society. Don't hold your breath.

marknutter 14y ago

No; when government becomes sufficiently small.

Reebz 14y ago
No and no; when we are sufficiently globalized and companies are taxed (fairly) by all countries. In your example, France is pissed off they're not getting a slice of the billion dollar pie because Google sits in the US. Our archaic ideas of "nations" are tied to land masses - not a great partner to a distributable service that can be accessed almost anywhere near the speed of light.
- oleganza 14y ago
  Your archaic idea of taxes is what holds back productive efforts to be distributed wherever needed at the maximum speed.
- mercurial 14y ago
  At the risk of derailing the discussion, it's my understanding that the US government is not getting much in corporate taxes from Google either, thanks to a well-established practice of tax-dodging by funneling profits into Ireland.
erikpukinskis 14y ago
When government is "sufficiently small" then conventional colleges will be able to just pay ISPs to block Coursera. Cutting out the middleman! I guess government is inefficient.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Why would customers choose an ISP that does such a thing?
  - xyzzyz 14y ago
    Why do you think they would have a choice? Compared to the situation in Europe, Americans don't really have much choice right now.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      Because with a sufficiently small government, ISPs would not enjoy a government-mandated duopoly?
      - mindcrime 14y ago
        Because with a sufficiently small government, ISPs would not enjoy a government-mandated duopoly? BINGO! Give yummyfajitas a cookie. Government inhibits competition and innovation more than it helps.
      - xyzzyz 14y ago
        ...instead enjoying monopoly unencumbered by some silly competition law.
        icebraining 14y ago
        Why couldn't competitors enter the market?
  - pi18n 14y ago
    Because the theoretical government was too small to force even a duopoly, so one provider has bought all the wires.
    - jessaustin 14y ago
      In the USA, technologically unnecessary government regulation of the wireless spectrum is the only reason the wires confer any sort of monopoly. If the FCC didn't exist, we wouldn't all be forced to use 1940s tech on all non-wifi bands, and our local loop to our ISP would be wireless, fast, and effectively free. Instead, we have Ma Bell, Part II. I don't see how an evil corporation could have brought about such a situation without the enthusiastic assistance of the state.

nickik 14y ago

Disagree. Its not a for-profit society problem. If you give lawmakers the power to block things like coursera you do not have to wonder that the get lobbied to use it. Its not a for-profit problem its a political power problem.

njharman 14y ago
They only get lobbied because there is a profit motive. Also lobbing takes money and it only pays if you're making a profit.
- nickik 14y ago
  > They only get lobbied because there is a profit motive. True. The only why we could get around this is if people only cared for the soiety and not themselfs. This concept was called "New Socalist Man" in the economic debates of the 1920 - 1950 but the simple true is that it is a utopian concept. > Also lobbing takes money and it only pays if you're making a profit. Lobbying has a return on investment like any other thing a company can do. The diffrence is that the profit that falls out of lobbying does not come from bigger costumer sadisfaction or rising demand, it comes from state privlages or less competition.

h123b 14y ago

Communists North Korea and Cuba are free of corruption, now?

yason 14y ago

We could just transform into being a "for society's profit" instead of "for-profit society".

tomrod 14y ago
I like how that sounds. My only concern is philosophical -- who then sets the agenda? We wouldn't be able to implement democracy without the tyranny of the majority, nor could we exalt any one minority group without the same issue. At least with a for-profit society the motivations are clear.
- saraid216 14y ago
  Your philosophy needs a bit more development. The first order of business in designing a democracy is figuring out how to mitigate the tyranny of the majority. Read the Federalist Papers. I wrote this a couple days ago: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4658896 http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=4658896 To answer your question, the answer is "Everyone." The problem is that while this is technically true already (that's what consent of the governed is), the purpose of democracy is to make it explicit and transparent so that it can be criticized and reacted to.
  - tomrod 14y ago
    I can promise you my love of knowledge is bright and receptive. I've read the federalist papers and the writings of many who claim to be the intellectual successors of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. If only the US were a democracy instead of a representative republic! But, given the standard human condition, we still coalesce into tribes. Be it based on race, religion, hometown, shared career, you name it, we form blocs. These blocs then either innately or in response to other blocs seek to gain power (heck, that's what political science _is_, the study of acquisition of power, and it's far from a solved question). So the fairy dust solution of "everyone" being the minority represented doesn't really hold true in the real world. Thus, given these constraints, I conclude a for-profit-society is more transparent and navigable than a profit-for-society. If one were to assume that everyone else lived a profit-for-society life, then one defector would be able to manipulate the entire society to their personal aims. Though I strive to live my personal life to a more noble ideal, I cannot assume everyone else will. Your proposal is akin to the ideal anarcho-capitalists* have, in that states compete. As I understand the philosophy, judicial systems and police forces are private and distinct. Law is common-law, meaning it's not case based, but rather takes into account the accuser, accused, and the situation. The will of the court is then implemented via by a hired police force. The issue is then when courts and police merge horizontally and vertically. You then have a _de_ _facto_ state. It's unavoidable, and the answer is "Well, you obviously can't have a society where people are like that." This answer ignores the strategic human element. One cannot even call this behavior immoral, as it likely comes about with noble intentions. Anyway, just some thoughts. I salute your goals. *EDIT: anarcho-capitalists (ancaps), not socio-anarchists.

naturalethic 14y ago

Guess we should be a for-loss society huh? Or perhaps perpetually stagnate. It's not profit motive here, it's government meddling, protectionism, mercantilism.