10 ms·

I've probably devoted more time on HN to discuss the reality of politics and government than to cover technology issues. At times I feel pretty bad about this.

I've probably devoted more time on HN to discuss the reality of politics and government than to cover technology issues. At times I feel pretty bad about this. I've also been subject to a partial new post hell-ban which may still be in place (surprisingly enough, most of my new submissions are tech related). And, yes, I've felt bad about this from time to time, to the point of limiting myself to reading HN and not posting for weeks at a time. As I have watched all of this NSA, IRS, ACA/Obamacare and big-broken-government nonsense has developed over the last, say, ten years or so, I can't help but think that the tech community needs to be shaken-up like this in order to finally abandon ship and start really using their brains politically rather than acting as mindless sheep following who knows what. I'll issue a blanket statement and say that everyone reading HN is smart. About technology. Not necessarily about politics and the ways in which the world turns. And yes, I'll say it, there's a wide swath of HN'ers who have been indoctrinated by the left-leaning academia, media and the echo chamber of the circles they frequent and identify themselves with that they've stopped applying critical reasoning skills to their political life. As I said here [0], you have to be smart about your politics if you want to succeed in business in general. If you are not, you run the risk of incompetent moronic government-originated factors affecting your playing field in small and major ways. And, by the way, it really doesn't matter if you are an employee or an entrepreneur, a union or non-unionized worker. When things like this start happening they affect EVERYONE and there's a chain reaction that will make things suck in a big way for all involved, at any layer and at every station in life. What you want, in order to succeed, is as little meddling and interference as possible. No, I am not suggesting anarchy. That's bad. No, I am not suggesting no government. That's worst. What I am saying is that you want a small non-intrusive government at all levels, from local to federal. You want a government that truly has our long term best interests at heart and not one that is a partisan prostitute acting almost exclusively to keep their sick species and party alive at the expense of the opposition and, what's worst, you, me, our families and our very country. We might just be entering into a phase where we might just realize that terrorism can't even begin to match the level of destruction bad governments and their policies are capable of producing. Yes, yes. Crazy talk. I really don't like talking this way. It's just that sometimes I feel like people need a collective slap on the face with a well timed "Snap out of it!" before they'll wake up and see what is really going on. Snap out of it! Get involved! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6961005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6961005

lambda 13y ago
> rather than acting as mindless sheep following who knows what. I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. > What I am saying is that you want a small non-intrusive government at all levels, from local to federal. Not particularly. There is no intrinsic reason to want a "small government" over a large one (or vice versa). What you want is an effective government, that best matches your interests. Of course, everyone has their own interests, so the best rough metric that we've come up for maximizing the effectiveness of the government across the whole population, and minimizing its harm, are democratic institutions with various protections in place to prevent various types of abuses. Likewise, you don't necessarily want small corporations or large ones. A large corporation has more power and is able to abuse that power more; but it is also frequently more efficient than having lots of small actors, as lots of transactions between independent actors can add friction and cost. Distributed systems have problems, as they can exhibit lots of complex behaviors that can cause destabilizing feedback, and they can be inefficient. Centralized systems have problems, because they provide single points of failure or points of corruption that can be exploited for gain. Some balance between the two of them is necessary, and it's also necessary to spend effort on simply fixing problems that come up rather than thinking that every problem can be solved by adhering to some philosophy of "big government" vs. "small government". > mindless sheep ... wake up and see what is really going on. Did you really just write a long winded "wake up sheeple" post? Are you trying to be a self-parody?
- robomartin 13y ago
  > I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. Why? > There is no intrinsic reason to want a "small government" over a large one (or vice versa). What you want is an effective government, that best matches your interests. You would have a point there if "big government" was used to convey the literal meaning of the phrase by Libertarians. It is not. In proper context "big government" refers to size, reach, complexity, all of the above and sometimes even more. It is generally about government that has grown beyond some boundary. This is just like saying "big brother is watching". This doesn't literally mean that your eldest brother or a some kind of a giant person is watching you. You do get that, right? Big government: wants to touch, manipulate and regulate everything and wants to have a say in everything in your life, from how much soda you can drink to which doctors you can see and more. It spends money inefficiently and with damaging results. It thinks it has power over people and that our rights are granted by government and their laws. Small government: stays out of the way and lets market forces act. It enacts and enforces just enough regulations to create protections from extremes and to protect and support those in need. It certainly stays the hell out of your diet, home, sex life and medical choices. It operates within a strict balanced budget framework that ensures our financial stability and well being as a nation. It knows that they derive their ability to act from the will of the people and that our rights cannot be trampled. In this context, yes, you do want small government.

lambda 13y ago

> rather than acting as mindless sheep following who knows what. I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. > What I am saying is that you want a small non-intrusive government at all levels, from local to federal. Not particularly. There is no intrinsic reason to want a "small government" over a large one (or vice versa). What you want is an effective government, that best matches your interests. Of course, everyone has their own interests, so the best rough metric that we've come up for maximizing the effectiveness of the government across the whole population, and minimizing its harm, are democratic institutions with various protections in place to prevent various types of abuses. Likewise, you don't necessarily want small corporations or large ones. A large corporation has more power and is able to abuse that power more; but it is also frequently more efficient than having lots of small actors, as lots of transactions between independent actors can add friction and cost. Distributed systems have problems, as they can exhibit lots of complex behaviors that can cause destabilizing feedback, and they can be inefficient. Centralized systems have problems, because they provide single points of failure or points of corruption that can be exploited for gain. Some balance between the two of them is necessary, and it's also necessary to spend effort on simply fixing problems that come up rather than thinking that every problem can be solved by adhering to some philosophy of "big government" vs. "small government". > mindless sheep ... wake up and see what is really going on. Did you really just write a long winded "wake up sheeple" post? Are you trying to be a self-parody?

robomartin 13y ago
> I'll tell you right now, that anyone who uses that phrase is more of a "mindless sheep" than those he criticizes. Why? > There is no intrinsic reason to want a "small government" over a large one (or vice versa). What you want is an effective government, that best matches your interests. You would have a point there if "big government" was used to convey the literal meaning of the phrase by Libertarians. It is not. In proper context "big government" refers to size, reach, complexity, all of the above and sometimes even more. It is generally about government that has grown beyond some boundary. This is just like saying "big brother is watching". This doesn't literally mean that your eldest brother or a some kind of a giant person is watching you. You do get that, right? Big government: wants to touch, manipulate and regulate everything and wants to have a say in everything in your life, from how much soda you can drink to which doctors you can see and more. It spends money inefficiently and with damaging results. It thinks it has power over people and that our rights are granted by government and their laws. Small government: stays out of the way and lets market forces act. It enacts and enforces just enough regulations to create protections from extremes and to protect and support those in need. It certainly stays the hell out of your diet, home, sex life and medical choices. It operates within a strict balanced budget framework that ensures our financial stability and well being as a nation. It knows that they derive their ability to act from the will of the people and that our rights cannot be trampled. In this context, yes, you do want small government.