Hacker News Reader

> the end-game of libertarian "the government should enforce property rights only"

The alternative is government, but this is clearly a case where they've failed. Federal, state, and local governments haven't provided any comparable services, only the private sector did, and with no government funding.

I think the liberal (or north-american libertarian) way, would include local community areas run by individuals within said community similar to a co-op. Remember that liberalism doesn't tell you HOW you have get together, only that politicians can't create a one size fits all solution and force everyone to pay for it.

The bigger issues with co-ops right now in the USA are the regulatory barriers in the way of forming one without everyone involved becoming liable for anything bad that happens.

There's something incredibly American about a multibillion dollar fast-food corporation that's unwittingly found itself as the gathering place for those abandoned by a society that has gutted and underfunded social services.

>gutted and underfunded social services

The US spends so much, that social security and medicare combined have nearly 33 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. To give you a sense of scale, that's half of the world's gdp. In terms of taxes, there are 4 payees for every beneficiary and it's estimated that by 2030 that number will be 2 to 1.

When you sift through all the propaganda, America is financially imploding because it gives so much. So feel what you wish, but to state that the services are underfunded doesn't match reality.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/17/you-think-th...

The washington post's take on this same unfunded-liabilities thing:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/...

Also, don't "payee" and "beneficiary" mean the same thing? Should the article have used "payer" instead of "payee"?

Perhaps the funding for such services are not going as far as one would think.

That is a myth. I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that Americans tend to thing they spend such huge amount of money on social services and welfare. You don't okay. Look at the statistics and try to travel a bit. For people who have actually been around the world, it is blindly obvious that America isn't spending much money on its poor.

America has the highest level of inequality of any rich country. Look it up.

Ok by Indian and Chinese standard, America is probably extremely generous and that seems to be the standard which many American conservatives measure American efforts towards the poor. If it is significantly better than India or some other dirt poor third world country then it must be great.

Seriously America is one of the richest countries in the world and yet I've never been to a developed country where you see so much depravity, poverty and people struggling all in the midst of opulence. Kind of sick that people tolerate this.

>That is a myth ... You don't okay.

I'll stick with the numbers.

>try to travel a bit. For people who have actually been around the world

I don't live in the United States, and I've done plenty of traveling. I'm giving you the facts, and you're ascribing motive and/or a viewpoint. You're saying that the only way I can possibly believe what I believe is because I haven't seen the world. Out of respect for each other and the discussion, why don't we assume that both of us have seen the world and instead stick to the facts.

> America has the highest level of inequality of any rich country. Look it up.

So what? I don't care if Elon Musk retires and plays golf on Mars for the rest of his days, not if that means reduced automotive emissions and a better life for everyone here. The better metric is how well are the poor in the US doing as compared to other countries like the ones you've mentioned.

> I've never been to a developed country where you see so much depravity

I don't know how to quantify that.

> Ok by Indian and Chinese standard, America is probably extremely generous

Exactly, and it's be cause we have a lot of rich people here that pay lots of taxes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/18/who-r...

One issue with talking about United States social services in this manner is that there is a clear bias towards the elderly and the disabled (about 3/4 of recipients) instead of merely the impoverished (about 1/4 of recipients). Of the assistance to the impoverished, I'd wager that a huge chunk of that 25% is Medicaid.

If there is indeed a problem with our social benefit programs, it has very little to do with these poor neighborhoods with McDonalds community centers. Instead, it will have everything to do with a society that is rapidly aging (mainly due to the demographics of the "baby boom"), the pay-as-you-go setup of Social Security, and perhaps our unwillingness to control medical costs that might strangle Medicare and Medicaid.

By community space, I assume you mean public buildings like libraries, town halls, community centres, youth clubs, etc.

In what way are they better than private spaces? The main difference is that people can use public spaces for free, but only because the cost is borne by those who don't use them.

Meanwhile, using such facilities carries a social stigma, because they are, by and large, only used by people who cannot afford to congregate in private spaces (bars, restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, clubs, classes, etc.)

This article demonstrates how it's possible for companies to provide de facto public spaces, at minimal cost (the cost of a coffee, or similar), in a mutually beneficial arrangement.

> but it's really not hard to imagine something superior to both McDonald's and shelters, just real community space.

Depends a great deal on how you define "superior". McD's has the singular advantage of being generally self-funding.