6 ms·

Maybe I'm crazy but this seems like an argument for communism. Basically he's saying success is due to luck and that the playing field will never be equal when

Maybe I'm crazy but this seems like an argument for communism. Basically he's saying success is due to luck and that the playing field will never be equal when some people can be lucky and others can't. Take this quote… "This can lead to some awkward philosophical conclusions. If you have succeeded by doing something relatively simple, you have to ask yourself why everybody else hasn't done the same thing. You could tell yourself that they simply value different things and thus chose their lives. You sacrificed and worked hard-and even if somebody else looks like they've worked hard without the same results, they must be secretly lazy." He's basically putting forth two premises: (a) 2 people can work equally hard and get vastly different results and (b) that there's something inherently wrong with that. But if both those are true than there's really only one solution which is communism. That's the very definition of communism in fact. Government is the only entity that has enough power over people to make things fair so it should control all the resources because it will act fairly and distribute rewards evenly. I don't mean to accuse him of holding a belief he doesn't hold but how else could the world create the environment he desires?

unalone 17y ago
* Communism isn't inherently bad. * There's a wide swatch of gray between the market and the government, and it's acceptable that society should fall between the two.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  I didn't say communism was inherently bad. Admittedly I think it is. But I went out of my way not to make a value judgment so as to not cloud the point I was trying to make which is that the stated philosophy is communism. My intent was just to state the facts as I saw them and let others judge. As for your other point there certainly is a wide swath between the two but if you want complete fairness than you have to go all the way to the Government side.
  - unalone 17y ago
    That depends on your definition of complete fairness. I see "fair" as including the opportunity for success; fairness becomes a matter of never letting somebody sink into a pit they can't rise from. That can be achieved without much of a socialist bent at all: All you need are nets. Out of curiosity, why do you think communism is inherently bad? Do you take the angle of "Man is entitled to the fruits of his labor", or is there something else to it?
    - TomOfTTB 17y ago
      Because it's never, ever worked. There are a lot of ideas that seem smart from an academic perspective but which, when implemented, fail. In the case of Communism it only works if a whole society can manage to bury their natural human desire to achieve more than their neighbor and history has proven time and time again that burying that instinct is not possible and when you try you simply get lethargy.
      - unalone 17y ago
        Okay. I was thinking Communism more in the idea of "let's not let the market be entirely free," not Communism in the sense of "everybody is forced to be equal." I'd argue that a completely free market would be just as terrible.
        TomOfTTB 17y ago
        Clearly there's a spectrum. I mean, the market we have now isn't completely free and I'm not one that has a problem with regulations. My only issue is the piece basically saying "I became 20 in a bad economy but others became 20 in a good economy so the Government should step in and fund me to the point that my experience is equal" Some people are luckier than others and that stinks but I don't think the Government can fix that. But I have no problem with Government safety nets that stop people from falling completely down the rabbit hole either.
        unalone 17y ago
        I didn't really think Squashed was suggesting he ought to get funding, I think he was stating that the system as it stands now, where hard work leads to nothing, is flawed. You can see the implied solution as "I need money," but from his older writings, I'd be more inclined to think it's "There's a problem with a system wherein happiness is so based on the economy, and where we're told we need a good job to be happy, so that our happiness is based on a fluctuating system." The problem isn't the lack of a job, in other words, so much as it's the emphasis on having certain jobs. ALSO: Can we please stop downvoting based on who we agree and disagree with? I'm enjoying this conversation quite a lot and I hate seeing Tom and myself dipping into 0 and -1 while productive debate's going on.
- billswift 17y ago
  Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. -- Tom Paine, Common Sense Gov't is at best a necessary evil - communism is unmitigated evil.
  - unalone 17y ago
    Quoting a guy that lived over 200 years ago doesn't prove a point, though I like Paine quite a lot. Remember that he lived in a simpler, quieter society. Government is necessary to avoid a lot of sorrow. It gives us regulated foods and highways and it stops a lot of greedy people from doing bad things, while in theory allowing the people who're rich based on merit and talent to thrive without punishment. I think that government should be a choice on parts of the people - I'd like a few more anarchic societies in the world for people who don't want to deal with regulations and are fine with risking themselves for freedom - but civilization thrives under a good government.
  - billswift 17y ago
    Good gov't huh? That's the one where 2 wolves and a lamb vote for what's for dinner? Democracy is the ultimate expression of might makes right, the only justification of voting is that since the majority can beat up the minority the minority better go along from the start. Can anyone here point me to ANY rational reason anyone should go along with a gov't other than to avoid being assaulted or worse?
    - unalone 17y ago
      I kind of like the idea that my food's been inspected for poisons, my highways won't collapse on me, I won't be raped and killed when I go for a walk outside, and that companies don't have permission to turn into dictatorships. I like the last point a lot because I wasn't a fan of Internet Explorer and I'd have hated to have to use it. Petty reason to like antimonopoly practices, but hey, I'm free to be petty. Even the stuff the government fucks up on are fundamentally good ideas that I hope one day get revised. I like the philosophy that I get a say in who gets elected, though I wish we had instant runoff voting and caps on campaign expenditures. I like the idea of having free education, though the school system is awful. I also like that I have a right to avoid the government in favor of private practices in most cases.
alex_c 17y ago
I didn't read it as an argument for any particular environment or world view. I read it as an argument that certain people online need to pull their head out of their ass when they're proclaiming why others would be as successful as them if they only tried.
- SamAtt 17y ago
  Only if the original author believes in complete inaction. I didn't take the author's point to be that life's unfair but that's cool because it's ok that way. I took the author's point to be life's unfair and it should be changed.
  - alex_c 17y ago
    Yes, but I didn't read much about HOW it should be changed - just that life's unfair and the first step should be to admit that.
  - pyre 17y ago
    But there is no 'call to arms' for change. The only thing that he seems to be advocating is that 'techno libertarians' need to realize that "do what I did and you'll be rich like me" is a fairytale. It's a fairytale even if a libertarian's utopian wet-dream where to come true. Everyone in a society can't be highly successful, but most of the people he's referring to don't seem to think about their calls of "just grab life by the ball, and you'll be ok" beyond their own anecdotal evidence.
lisper 17y ago
> But if both those are true than there's really only one solution which is communism. No. Just because one extreme position is wrong it does not follow that the opposite extreme position is right.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  But the only way to remedy his concern is the opposite extreme. Because no matter how hard the Mexican immigrant works he's never going to achieve anywhere near the same amount as the guy whose parents sent him to Harvard. Again, keep in mind this guy started out by saying "I'm 20, I went to all the right schools and I didn't get a great job so life is unfair". So he's not arguing for lifting those who are profoundly disadvantaged out of poverty (which I have no problem with). He's arguing for fairness among the upper classes meaning everyone should be equal. I have no problem with making sure the kids of the Mexican immigrant can go to college but this guy's arguing for equal treatment for all and that's just not something the Government should be trying to do (because it will profoundly backfire)
  - Retric 17y ago
    There are many types of “fair” and equal. One thing that makes our system unfair is the failure to communicate what happens, not just how the system actually works. (You must spend lot's of time and money to find all the available tax breaks.) With my version of “fair” you should rework the federal tax code to be as simple as possible. Everyone get’s 700$ / month from the government, free health care and pays ~35% in taxes with zero tax breaks of any kind and no minimum wage of any kind. Donate to charity or retirement and you get no help from the government. You are still protected from starvation, but there is no unemployment insurance, social security or medicare. The real advantage is the simple system is easy to understand and does what most “social” programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc) try and do. There are also just 2 numbers to debate, the tax rate and the government subsidy. PS: A true tax code would need to be longer than that, but the goal would be something that could be printed legibly on a single sheet of paper and understood by most people with an 8th grade education.
    - 17y ago
anigbrowl 17y ago
Communism? I certainly didn't read it that way. Have you considered the idea of a basic income - it's been mentioned before here, most recently http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=756880 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=756880 Via the inspiration for that thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income: "Winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics that fully support a basic income include Herbert Simon[24], Friedrich Hayek[25][26], James Meade, Robert Solow[27], and Milton Friedman[28]." Hardly communists, or even Marxists. It seems to me that the original poster is not arguing for government enforced fairness (and communism isn't any better at delivering that than capitalism IMO), but for mitigation of the worst inequities. Over in Europe colege education is heavily subsidized by the state, on the understanding that the state will collect a rather greater share of subsequent income in the form of taxes. This is by no means perfect, and indeed European college graduates are not assured of a job or promising opportunities on graduating either, far from it; but at least they graduate without enormous debts. On the flip side, America provides far better business opportunities for entrepreneurs, not least the simple fact of a single market of 300 million with a single dominant language and a national media landscape, which is not to be sneezed at. Indeed, in 50-100 years, when China or India have caught up with the developed world in terms of GDP per capita, the potential entrepreneurial gains from being able to market to a Billion people at once will make US business fortunes look modest. I think the point being made here is not that communism or any other system is better than capitalism, but that diligence and loyalty are socially exalted but economic rewards flow more towards opportunists and rent-seekers.
- pyre 17y ago
  > Indeed, in 50-100 years, when China or India have caught up with the developed world in terms of GDP per capita, the potential entrepreneurial gains from being able to market to a Billion people at once will make US business fortunes look modest. I don't know about India (but I'm sure it's a similar situation), but in China you have vastly different cultural groups across different regions. It's a large country. And I'm talking a larger cultural divide than "East Coast" vs "West Coast" in the USA. I doubt that you'd be able to having a marketing campaign that included all 1 billion people... It might be viewed by close to a billion people, but you'd have to be targeting a smaller demographic.

unalone 17y ago

* Communism isn't inherently bad. * There's a wide swatch of gray between the market and the government, and it's acceptable that society should fall between the two.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
I didn't say communism was inherently bad. Admittedly I think it is. But I went out of my way not to make a value judgment so as to not cloud the point I was trying to make which is that the stated philosophy is communism. My intent was just to state the facts as I saw them and let others judge. As for your other point there certainly is a wide swath between the two but if you want complete fairness than you have to go all the way to the Government side.
- unalone 17y ago
  That depends on your definition of complete fairness. I see "fair" as including the opportunity for success; fairness becomes a matter of never letting somebody sink into a pit they can't rise from. That can be achieved without much of a socialist bent at all: All you need are nets. Out of curiosity, why do you think communism is inherently bad? Do you take the angle of "Man is entitled to the fruits of his labor", or is there something else to it?
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    Because it's never, ever worked. There are a lot of ideas that seem smart from an academic perspective but which, when implemented, fail. In the case of Communism it only works if a whole society can manage to bury their natural human desire to achieve more than their neighbor and history has proven time and time again that burying that instinct is not possible and when you try you simply get lethargy.
    - unalone 17y ago
      Okay. I was thinking Communism more in the idea of "let's not let the market be entirely free," not Communism in the sense of "everybody is forced to be equal." I'd argue that a completely free market would be just as terrible.
      - TomOfTTB 17y ago
        Clearly there's a spectrum. I mean, the market we have now isn't completely free and I'm not one that has a problem with regulations. My only issue is the piece basically saying "I became 20 in a bad economy but others became 20 in a good economy so the Government should step in and fund me to the point that my experience is equal" Some people are luckier than others and that stinks but I don't think the Government can fix that. But I have no problem with Government safety nets that stop people from falling completely down the rabbit hole either.
        unalone 17y ago
        I didn't really think Squashed was suggesting he ought to get funding, I think he was stating that the system as it stands now, where hard work leads to nothing, is flawed. You can see the implied solution as "I need money," but from his older writings, I'd be more inclined to think it's "There's a problem with a system wherein happiness is so based on the economy, and where we're told we need a good job to be happy, so that our happiness is based on a fluctuating system." The problem isn't the lack of a job, in other words, so much as it's the emphasis on having certain jobs. ALSO: Can we please stop downvoting based on who we agree and disagree with? I'm enjoying this conversation quite a lot and I hate seeing Tom and myself dipping into 0 and -1 while productive debate's going on.
billswift 17y ago
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. -- Tom Paine, Common Sense Gov't is at best a necessary evil - communism is unmitigated evil.
- unalone 17y ago
  Quoting a guy that lived over 200 years ago doesn't prove a point, though I like Paine quite a lot. Remember that he lived in a simpler, quieter society. Government is necessary to avoid a lot of sorrow. It gives us regulated foods and highways and it stops a lot of greedy people from doing bad things, while in theory allowing the people who're rich based on merit and talent to thrive without punishment. I think that government should be a choice on parts of the people - I'd like a few more anarchic societies in the world for people who don't want to deal with regulations and are fine with risking themselves for freedom - but civilization thrives under a good government.
- billswift 17y ago
  Good gov't huh? That's the one where 2 wolves and a lamb vote for what's for dinner? Democracy is the ultimate expression of might makes right, the only justification of voting is that since the majority can beat up the minority the minority better go along from the start. Can anyone here point me to ANY rational reason anyone should go along with a gov't other than to avoid being assaulted or worse?
  - unalone 17y ago
    I kind of like the idea that my food's been inspected for poisons, my highways won't collapse on me, I won't be raped and killed when I go for a walk outside, and that companies don't have permission to turn into dictatorships. I like the last point a lot because I wasn't a fan of Internet Explorer and I'd have hated to have to use it. Petty reason to like antimonopoly practices, but hey, I'm free to be petty. Even the stuff the government fucks up on are fundamentally good ideas that I hope one day get revised. I like the philosophy that I get a say in who gets elected, though I wish we had instant runoff voting and caps on campaign expenditures. I like the idea of having free education, though the school system is awful. I also like that I have a right to avoid the government in favor of private practices in most cases.

alex_c 17y ago

I didn't read it as an argument for any particular environment or world view. I read it as an argument that certain people online need to pull their head out of their ass when they're proclaiming why others would be as successful as them if they only tried.

SamAtt 17y ago
Only if the original author believes in complete inaction. I didn't take the author's point to be that life's unfair but that's cool because it's ok that way. I took the author's point to be life's unfair and it should be changed.
- alex_c 17y ago
  Yes, but I didn't read much about HOW it should be changed - just that life's unfair and the first step should be to admit that.
- pyre 17y ago
  But there is no 'call to arms' for change. The only thing that he seems to be advocating is that 'techno libertarians' need to realize that "do what I did and you'll be rich like me" is a fairytale. It's a fairytale even if a libertarian's utopian wet-dream where to come true. Everyone in a society can't be highly successful, but most of the people he's referring to don't seem to think about their calls of "just grab life by the ball, and you'll be ok" beyond their own anecdotal evidence.

lisper 17y ago

> But if both those are true than there's really only one solution which is communism. No. Just because one extreme position is wrong it does not follow that the opposite extreme position is right.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
But the only way to remedy his concern is the opposite extreme. Because no matter how hard the Mexican immigrant works he's never going to achieve anywhere near the same amount as the guy whose parents sent him to Harvard. Again, keep in mind this guy started out by saying "I'm 20, I went to all the right schools and I didn't get a great job so life is unfair". So he's not arguing for lifting those who are profoundly disadvantaged out of poverty (which I have no problem with). He's arguing for fairness among the upper classes meaning everyone should be equal. I have no problem with making sure the kids of the Mexican immigrant can go to college but this guy's arguing for equal treatment for all and that's just not something the Government should be trying to do (because it will profoundly backfire)
- Retric 17y ago
  There are many types of “fair” and equal. One thing that makes our system unfair is the failure to communicate what happens, not just how the system actually works. (You must spend lot's of time and money to find all the available tax breaks.) With my version of “fair” you should rework the federal tax code to be as simple as possible. Everyone get’s 700$ / month from the government, free health care and pays ~35% in taxes with zero tax breaks of any kind and no minimum wage of any kind. Donate to charity or retirement and you get no help from the government. You are still protected from starvation, but there is no unemployment insurance, social security or medicare. The real advantage is the simple system is easy to understand and does what most “social” programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc) try and do. There are also just 2 numbers to debate, the tax rate and the government subsidy. PS: A true tax code would need to be longer than that, but the goal would be something that could be printed legibly on a single sheet of paper and understood by most people with an 8th grade education.
  - 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago

Communism? I certainly didn't read it that way. Have you considered the idea of a basic income - it's been mentioned before here, most recently http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=756880 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=756880 Via the inspiration for that thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income: "Winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics that fully support a basic income include Herbert Simon[24], Friedrich Hayek[25][26], James Meade, Robert Solow[27], and Milton Friedman[28]." Hardly communists, or even Marxists. It seems to me that the original poster is not arguing for government enforced fairness (and communism isn't any better at delivering that than capitalism IMO), but for mitigation of the worst inequities. Over in Europe colege education is heavily subsidized by the state, on the understanding that the state will collect a rather greater share of subsequent income in the form of taxes. This is by no means perfect, and indeed European college graduates are not assured of a job or promising opportunities on graduating either, far from it; but at least they graduate without enormous debts. On the flip side, America provides far better business opportunities for entrepreneurs, not least the simple fact of a single market of 300 million with a single dominant language and a national media landscape, which is not to be sneezed at. Indeed, in 50-100 years, when China or India have caught up with the developed world in terms of GDP per capita, the potential entrepreneurial gains from being able to market to a Billion people at once will make US business fortunes look modest. I think the point being made here is not that communism or any other system is better than capitalism, but that diligence and loyalty are socially exalted but economic rewards flow more towards opportunists and rent-seekers.

pyre 17y ago
> Indeed, in 50-100 years, when China or India have caught up with the developed world in terms of GDP per capita, the potential entrepreneurial gains from being able to market to a Billion people at once will make US business fortunes look modest. I don't know about India (but I'm sure it's a similar situation), but in China you have vastly different cultural groups across different regions. It's a large country. And I'm talking a larger cultural divide than "East Coast" vs "West Coast" in the USA. I doubt that you'd be able to having a marketing campaign that included all 1 billion people... It might be viewed by close to a billion people, but you'd have to be targeting a smaller demographic.