5 ms·

The underpinning idea in US governance is the idea that if you don't like the society you live in you can build a new one a little further out west. Until seas

by fleitz 14y ago

The underpinning idea in US governance is the idea that if you don't like the society you live in you can build a new one a little further out west. Until seasteading becomes feasible SF/the internet is as west as it gets. Amazingly, or unsurprisingly to libertarians, we can build our own society with out government telling us what to do. What is wrong with people solving their own problems rather than lobbying government to provide a half-assed solution for them? Frankly, it's rude to go to Washington and tell them how to live their lives, they can see how others live and decide for themselves whether they want to operate that way.

jfb 14y ago
Of course, none of those successive societies built in the West were ever even possible without the support of the Federal government, which continues to this day.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kunle 14y ago
> What is wrong with people solving their own problems rather than lobbying government to provide a half-assed solution for them? Nothing is wrong with it. It's ideal. That being said, the main issue with lobbying is that if you're not doing it, someone else is, and they're generating an outcome that impacts you. Even if you were a purist who truly didn't want to lobby the government, everyone else's rent-seeking puts you at enough of a disadvantage, that you'll eventually have to do it, just to maintain your status quo (not to mention moving forward).
rayiner 14y ago
It's particularly hilarious because the west coast wouldn't exist without massive federal investment over decades. From getting people out there to irrigating what is mostly a desolate wasteland, places like Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California are creatures of federal investment.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- xugle 14y ago
  Now why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good libertarian fantasy world with facts ?
- natrius 14y ago
  Southern California has paid off that investment many times over, and Nevada and Arizona probably have as well.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That's not how investments work. If someone invests $100,000 in your startup, and you IPO for $10 billion, you don't just pay back $100,000 and call it even. The way I see it, the federal government should own basically half of California.
    - EricDeb 14y ago
      Depends if it was an investment or a loan, but in this case I would agree with you that it was largely an investment
    - natrius 14y ago
      I don't understand why you think it's instructive to compare government investments to venture capital. The government engages in plenty of investments, and none of them operate that way.
      - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Because the government chooses not to monetize and propertize them that way. In a very real sense, the government has ownership rights to a massive amount of valuable stuff and writes it off their books every year. The easiest example is how logging rights in federal lands are basically given away for near-free rather than sold at a market rate for a profit to the government.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
The underpinning idea in US governance is the idea that if you don't like the society you live in you can build a new one a little further out west. And this is also the basic root of most of what's wrong with the United States. There is not always another Western frontier freshly depopulated by mutated smallpox.
zt 14y ago
Well, we can disagree whether moving a little farther west is really the underpinning idea in US governance. I think that question was basically settled in the Whiskey Rebellion: there was never some idyllic period of liberty in American history where the government just was not on people's back. Developers and entrepreneurs seem to too often live under this false notion that just because they can build things easily--literally our whole lives have been animated by the fact that we can just make a computer do nearly whatever we want--that somehow that is true for everyone in our society. A world with perfect liberty is a naturally unequal one--and the government can do a lot that is not telling "us what to do" that can address the worst examples of the inequity with a smaller proportionate decrease in overall liberty. But, I digress in to the deepest and most fundamental question in western political philosophy, so let me move on to simply say what's below. The federal government exists. It has immense powers. State and local governments exist. They have immense powers. Those things are not changing in our society any time soon (even with sequestration). Given that fact, I think we're presented with two choices. We can either try to make government work better or we can ignore it. Either way it exists and affects our lives. I, for one, think it might be better if people like the folks on HN (libertarians, liberals, and everyone else) took part in the rule-making, the regulation, the laws, and the services that come out of our government. That we made sure that the folks who opine on the future of the internet were at least cursorily aware of its functioning, etc.
- erichocean 14y ago
  Given [the fact that the federal government exists and has immense powers, and state and local governments exist and have immense powers], I think we're presented with two choices. We can either try to make government work better or we can ignore it. I hear this argument a lot, and for some reason, I always think of slavery in the US. Imagine you are a slave. You don't like it, and wish slavery would end. Another slave tells you: "Given the fact that slavery exists and slave owners have immense power, I think we're presented with two choices. We can either try to make slave owners better or we can ignore slavery." Put in that light, the suggestion seems absurd: empower slave owners to be even better at slavery? Really? How does that help us not be slaves? And how does ignoring slavery help? And why are these the only two options? I can see why the slave owners would want these to be the only two options, but you're a slave, too. Surely, surely, ending slavery has to be an option too? ----- My favorite slavery thought experiment concerns democratic slavery: One day, a slave notices that his owner is, well, something of a dictator. He's the only guy in charge, and hey, who picked him anyway? So the slaves get together and demand the right to vote to choose their slave owner. (The possibility that slavery might be wrong, in and of itself, does not occur to them.) Two different slave owner "parties" arise (let's call them the Rs and Ds), and every four years, the slaves are given the opportunity to vote for the slave owner candidate from the R party, the D party, and usually one (or sometimes two) fringe candidates not associated with either party. The slaves do a great "get out the vote" effort to choose their slave owner for the next four years, but still, less than half of the slaves vote. Those slaves that don't vote for a new slave owner are told to STFU about slavery, since they didn't vote, by the slaves who did vote. Now replace "slavery" with "government", "slave owners" with "politicians", and "citizen" with "slave". At the very least, it should be clear that the act of voting doesn't legitimize government, just like voting doesn't legitimize slavery (which is not the same as saying government is illegitimate, it may be, or may not be, but voting doesn't make it so). Voting also doesn't confer any moral benefit over those that choose not to vote, for similar reasons -- those telling non-voters to STFU are, in fact, wrong to do so. ----- All of this is to say that, it seems to me, the mere existence of a thing, regardless of its "immense" power, doesn't mean anything with regard to whether we should attempt to prop it up further, ignore it, or tear it down. And as with the democratically-elected slave owners, even the presence of things like 'voting' and 'elections' is no guarantee that the system (slavery) is in any way moral -- voting slaves are still slaves, after all. IMO no one should feel obligated to help an entity they believe is actively hostile to their own, or others, interests -- regardless of the current power and/or respect said entity has with their peers -- government included.

by fleitz 14y ago

jfb 14y ago

Of course, none of those successive societies built in the West were ever even possible without the support of the Federal government, which continues to this day.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kunle 14y ago

> What is wrong with people solving their own problems rather than lobbying government to provide a half-assed solution for them? Nothing is wrong with it. It's ideal. That being said, the main issue with lobbying is that if you're not doing it, someone else is, and they're generating an outcome that impacts you. Even if you were a purist who truly didn't want to lobby the government, everyone else's rent-seeking puts you at enough of a disadvantage, that you'll eventually have to do it, just to maintain your status quo (not to mention moving forward).

rayiner 14y ago

It's particularly hilarious because the west coast wouldn't exist without massive federal investment over decades. From getting people out there to irrigating what is mostly a desolate wasteland, places like Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California are creatures of federal investment.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
xugle 14y ago
Now why did you have to go and ruin a perfectly good libertarian fantasy world with facts ?
natrius 14y ago
Southern California has paid off that investment many times over, and Nevada and Arizona probably have as well.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That's not how investments work. If someone invests $100,000 in your startup, and you IPO for $10 billion, you don't just pay back $100,000 and call it even. The way I see it, the federal government should own basically half of California.
  - EricDeb 14y ago
    Depends if it was an investment or a loan, but in this case I would agree with you that it was largely an investment
  - natrius 14y ago
    I don't understand why you think it's instructive to compare government investments to venture capital. The government engages in plenty of investments, and none of them operate that way.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Because the government chooses not to monetize and propertize them that way. In a very real sense, the government has ownership rights to a massive amount of valuable stuff and writes it off their books every year. The easiest example is how logging rights in federal lands are basically given away for near-free rather than sold at a market rate for a profit to the government.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

The underpinning idea in US governance is the idea that if you don't like the society you live in you can build a new one a little further out west. And this is also the basic root of most of what's wrong with the United States. There is not always another Western frontier freshly depopulated by mutated smallpox.

zt 14y ago

Well, we can disagree whether moving a little farther west is really the underpinning idea in US governance. I think that question was basically settled in the Whiskey Rebellion: there was never some idyllic period of liberty in American history where the government just was not on people's back. Developers and entrepreneurs seem to too often live under this false notion that just because they can build things easily--literally our whole lives have been animated by the fact that we can just make a computer do nearly whatever we want--that somehow that is true for everyone in our society. A world with perfect liberty is a naturally unequal one--and the government can do a lot that is not telling "us what to do" that can address the worst examples of the inequity with a smaller proportionate decrease in overall liberty. But, I digress in to the deepest and most fundamental question in western political philosophy, so let me move on to simply say what's below. The federal government exists. It has immense powers. State and local governments exist. They have immense powers. Those things are not changing in our society any time soon (even with sequestration). Given that fact, I think we're presented with two choices. We can either try to make government work better or we can ignore it. Either way it exists and affects our lives. I, for one, think it might be better if people like the folks on HN (libertarians, liberals, and everyone else) took part in the rule-making, the regulation, the laws, and the services that come out of our government. That we made sure that the folks who opine on the future of the internet were at least cursorily aware of its functioning, etc.

erichocean 14y ago
Given [the fact that the federal government exists and has immense powers, and state and local governments exist and have immense powers], I think we're presented with two choices. We can either try to make government work better or we can ignore it. I hear this argument a lot, and for some reason, I always think of slavery in the US. Imagine you are a slave. You don't like it, and wish slavery would end. Another slave tells you: "Given the fact that slavery exists and slave owners have immense power, I think we're presented with two choices. We can either try to make slave owners better or we can ignore slavery." Put in that light, the suggestion seems absurd: empower slave owners to be even better at slavery? Really? How does that help us not be slaves? And how does ignoring slavery help? And why are these the only two options? I can see why the slave owners would want these to be the only two options, but you're a slave, too. Surely, surely, ending slavery has to be an option too? ----- My favorite slavery thought experiment concerns democratic slavery: One day, a slave notices that his owner is, well, something of a dictator. He's the only guy in charge, and hey, who picked him anyway? So the slaves get together and demand the right to vote to choose their slave owner. (The possibility that slavery might be wrong, in and of itself, does not occur to them.) Two different slave owner "parties" arise (let's call them the Rs and Ds), and every four years, the slaves are given the opportunity to vote for the slave owner candidate from the R party, the D party, and usually one (or sometimes two) fringe candidates not associated with either party. The slaves do a great "get out the vote" effort to choose their slave owner for the next four years, but still, less than half of the slaves vote. Those slaves that don't vote for a new slave owner are told to STFU about slavery, since they didn't vote, by the slaves who did vote. Now replace "slavery" with "government", "slave owners" with "politicians", and "citizen" with "slave". At the very least, it should be clear that the act of voting doesn't legitimize government, just like voting doesn't legitimize slavery (which is not the same as saying government is illegitimate, it may be, or may not be, but voting doesn't make it so). Voting also doesn't confer any moral benefit over those that choose not to vote, for similar reasons -- those telling non-voters to STFU are, in fact, wrong to do so. ----- All of this is to say that, it seems to me, the mere existence of a thing, regardless of its "immense" power, doesn't mean anything with regard to whether we should attempt to prop it up further, ignore it, or tear it down. And as with the democratically-elected slave owners, even the presence of things like 'voting' and 'elections' is no guarantee that the system (slavery) is in any way moral -- voting slaves are still slaves, after all. IMO no one should feel obligated to help an entity they believe is actively hostile to their own, or others, interests -- regardless of the current power and/or respect said entity has with their peers -- government included.