Hacker News Reader

Comment by OliverJones | Hacker News Reader

The real WTF here? Municipal executives who sign contracts with distant third party tech companies containing revenue quotas for those companies.

Perverse incentives! the original purpose of laws against driving too fast or jumping red lights is promoting public safety. When the municipality has an obligation to issue a certain number of violations, the original purpose is subverted. Now, of course another public policy purpose of these laws is to raise revenue.

When the revenue is made possible by a tech company, the municipality probably has a contractual obligation undermining its public safety mission.

Municipal officials, if they were willing, could raise revenue by asking the people to pay more taxes, even excise taxes on vehicles. But there's no incentive for municipal executives to be honest any more: for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes.

So dinging violators of regulations is an easier way for towns to get money. Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!

Hacker News friends, let's remember that we are, or easily could be, the creators of those distant third party tech companies whose contracts perpetuate the perverse incentives.

View on HN

We should put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy for those hurt by the offense. We should set ticket prices based on the needed premium to insure the victims. That would remove the incentive to increase tickets, while preserving the purpose!

For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.

> For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.

This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues.

The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility.

Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.

> if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues.

That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.

No, injuries do not have to occur for you to get a ticket. Injuries do have to occur for one to have standing in a civil suit. If it is a criminal act, then you have the right to presumption of innocence, to confront your accusers, and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was indeed you who was driving at the time.

As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint.

As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with.

Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.

I do not think cerium's suggestion requires that the beneficiaries need be regarded as plaintiffs in a civil suit, it merely suggests limits on the flow of funds.

Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.

I wasn't suggesting that the beneficiaries would be named plaintiffs, but that in order for the state to sue a red-light runner for running a red light, the state has to be a plaintiff, and if they cannot prove any injury from someone running a red light, then they have no standing to sue.

Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.

> put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy

That's a great idea. But that means taking that revenue from fines out of the government's general fund. Or it means engaging in a shadow-booking shell game where the fine revenue goes both to (a) showing the government's general fund books are balanced and (b) is somehow earmarked for making restitution to victims.

Your suggestion requires long-term honest bookkeeping from a government. I believe that makes it infeasible, sorry to say.

The fact that the government no longer has that money in the general fund is exactly the point.

Otherwise, one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience is to advocate perfect compliance with the law.

It would be better to get rid of the revenue aspect entirely. Instead of assessing a fine (plus court costs), just assess demerit points on the license of the diver who is guilty of the traffic offense.

With enough offenses, the person's license can be suspended or revoked.

That already happens here in California. Three(?) strikes in a two year period and your license is suspended. At the same time, you still have to pay for the ticket.

The point I was trying to make was to eliminate fines and court costs as a form of punishment for traffic offenses. The only penalty would be demerit points on one's drivers license.

That removes the revenue aspect from traffic enforcement, but still will lead to eventual license suspensions for repeat offenders.

This has been successfully implemented in China. If you exceed the limit you have to watch am educational video and do some public service. Very good detriment to rich people speeding.

Yes--this would be the best, but it's always been about Revenue Collection since I got my provisional licence at 15 1/2.

Personally, I would like to see fines tied to Income.

In my county, of Marin, the wealthy drive like they don't have a care in the world. They don't care if they get a ticket. It's just a part of driving? "Oh well?"

The help--they know a $500 ticket might ruin their year, or put a dent in next months rent? It's not fair.

Plus--towns, counties realized 25 years ago that fees, and fines on all levels are a legal way to tax.

I'll spill the beans on Marin County. Just don't drive through it on a Friday, or Saturday night, after 10:30 p.m. Cops assume everyone drinks like they do on their days off, or at parties.

San Anselmo is basically a speed trap. If you aren't white and look wealthy, be prepared for a pull over for no reason, or a really debatable ticket.

San Rafael is o.k.; they have real crime to attend to.

Ross, Greenbrae, Kentfield, Corte Madera, Novato, and Sausalito are just Revenue Collection Squads.

(Your tech wealthy bosses usually end up living here, if they make it big, and you might be invited to a hootenanny?)

You can get most of the way there by just mandating the fines go to a different layer of government. If it's cities deciding fine levels and enforcing them with city police, but revenues go to the state, then there is not nearly as much incentive to over-enforce.

+1 for ear-marking

I'd also allow projects that remediate the offense. E.g., for red light violations, I'd allow red light fine monies to fund studies of various intersections to see if e.g., the yellow light duration needs to be made longer, etc.

Or e.g., fines from moving violations in general could go towards improving transportation so that people can safely move about in a hurry.

> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!

Rather reminiscent of the way religion worked in the middle ages.

Until Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses

Good catch! I'm a Lutheran minister, and my comment about making good people bad and good again is, precisely, informed by Dr. Luther's rant about selling indulgences.

> of the way religion worked in the middle ages.

Still does. The local Catholic Church diocese here in eastern MA campaigned, from their PULPITS!!, against decriminalizing cannabis here in MA.

The only explanation I can think of: the less ways people have to be "bad," the less leverage the bishops have over the people.

That's different. Your parent was referring to indulgences, a pay for sin scheme. There's nothing wrong with religions choosing morals to preach - that's their raison d'etre - if you don't like what they choose, you can leave the church or attempt to change their choice (this is why we have freedom of religion).

> campaigned, from their PULPITS!!

Gosh, they're only supposed talk about abstract notions and lots of feel-goodies for everyone there.

Taking a stand in church on decriminalizing drugs...that's too far!

If i remember correctly, there is a never-enforced federal statute forbading preachers from advocating for/against paticular politicians. It made sence back when written, but it's hard to imagine it ever enforced today.

Not the best citation but i am on a mobile.

http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_...

It doesn't target churches specifically. But churches like to operate under 501c3 nonprofit charity status so they can avoid paying taxes, and part of the 501c3 tax regulation forbids supporting candidates. I was curious though and apparently they are allowed to spend some undefined small portion of their time and resources lobbying or talking about legislation.

>there is a never-enforced federal statute

The IRS is the agency that would enforce this by striping the organization of its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. The organization would then be subject to various taxes.

I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way.

Now if they were to preach against the use of drugs - that would be fine. But specifically preaching about decriminalization would not be OK.

> I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way.

I believe you to be wrong. The protections they receive on the free exercise of religion aren't a compromise attained in exchange for tax exemption -- both are the product of the first amendment. If Congress "shall make no law" respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion (or speech), then it has no power to prevent the churches from proclaiming whatever they wish.

The tax exemption is there because making a law that imposes a tax on religion is a means of prohibiting "the free exercise thereof", for most definitions of "free" and "exercise".

Your equation makes it something more like "You have the right to exercise free speech, so long as you agree not to yell fire in a theater," which is wrong. I have the right to free speech because the government is not allowed to restrict that right, and it includes the right to yell fire in a theater. If there are harms associated with my yelling fire in a theater, then I might be liable for those harms, but if no such harms occur, then I am liable for nothing.

(Reasonable, non-discriminatory) taxation does not infringe on those freedoms, which is why newspapers can be taxed, as well as gun sales or sales of bibles.

That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights, and whether or not you consider taxes to be infringements. Taxes on voting have been considered to be prima fascia discriminatory, despite having been largely categorized as reasonable. Why? Because it is considered de facto discriminatory against the poor.

That said, it isn't a matter of whether or not it infringes, but whether or not congress can make laws respecting them, and laws that tax religion are laws that were created to tax religion. Yes, I know that isn't a slam dunk argument, because it cuts into whether or not the tax is particular to the exercise, and whether or not the tax interferes with the free exercise of that religion, but it's worth pointing out that while your argument holds merit, there are meritorious arguments to the contrary.

Also worth noting that whether or not we can tax religion is an entirely different argument from whether or not we should tax religion, which is again a different argument from whether or not we would tax religion.

> That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights,

I think those things were chosen precisely because they are guaranteed by the same document (and in the case of newspapers, the very same amendment) as was under discussion.

Probably, but not everyone considers those things to be rights. Meanwhile, I tossed voting out because while it is patently a right, it is expressly not protected by that document.

Edit: I often forget that most people don't know the context to this. TLDR, there is no "right to vote" in the constitution. There are amendments that prohibit discrimination in the practice of voting, but if a state wanted to abolish elections for all people, they would not be infringing anyone's constitutional right to vote because no such right exists, as no such right is enumerated. Of course, not all rights are enumerated, but typically unenumerated rights are subject to lesser judicial scrutiny. Of course, this is not generally the case with voting and (lately at least) gay marriage, but altogether, this is a much longer discussion that is somewhat tangential to the argument at hand.

There are limitations (https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics), but only for actual candidates.

> [A 501(c)(3) organization] does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Naturally, it would be absurd to prohibit every opinion about drugs, prostitution, taxes, immigration, discrimination, marriage, abortion, or murder.

To quote Thomas Mann, "Everything is politics."

As I understand it 501(c)(3)'s may preach about issues and topics, endorsing a side related to the issues. They may not however endorse a particular candidate in an election.

This is incorrect. They are not allowed to be partisan. So endorsing parties or candidates would be off the table.

> for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes.

My understanding is that in the Reagan era, it was assumed that if tax payers could get tax cuts passed, then common-sense budgetary-discipline would force the legislature to follow through with spending cuts. The motto was to "starve the beast".

The problem is that transfer payments (from tax payers to voter blocks) are so compelling for most politicians that they refuse to swerve in the game of political chicken.

Nowadays, some libertarian-minded voters call for spending cuts directly, hoping that the tax cuts will follow.

Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector.

> Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector.

I don't understand what you mean by this. The whole concept of a "market signal" is that it's not a deliberate communication.

Right--the regular drivers who are never found in violation are the ones who are claimed to benefit from enforcement. If there are budget shortfalls that can be fixed by enforcement-related revenues, let those who benefit be the ones who pay (via taxation).

Except that it does good. To go out and catch idiots driving is a good thing.

> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system!

Darn!! You just basically described what racketeering is, no??

Wait, political corruption from an elected official is your WTF here?

Have you been paying attention?

Taxes are theft. Lower taxes at all costs. Of course don't cut police, road maintainence, schools, etc. so what's a politician to do? Be honest?

Edit: The first 2 sentences are sarcasm. Though there are people who think this way.

Be very happy that HN has an undownvote button.

For what its worth, I think most people who agree with your first to sentences would have no problem with cutting the things you list in the third.

Probably not police but certainly schools.

I am one of those people.

Though what you forget to add is that we'd rather pay to have such services in our communities by ourselves, of our own volition, rather than it being taken from us without our explicit consent. This discussion always boils down to consent.

I'm genuinely curious, how do you go about executing this? Not everyone will consent, so how do you selectively apply those services? In the winter, I pay for snow plows and salting the roads, but my neighbor doesn't, so...?

I am really having a difficult time seeing how to actually make this happen.

Roads would be plowed by the companies that owe them. I.e. as a service to the people that are renting usage of the road. And yeah, we envision a society where all land can be owned, including roads.

Of course, transitioning to such a system where currently all roads are owned by everyone else and simultaneously by no-one, would be a tricky thing to solve. Though it has been "solved" in certain parts. E.g. If you consider large gated communities. It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent.

It took me the longest time to reconcile a bunch of these things when it came to Libertarianism (or further). Eventually I did "get it" when I started thinking about how I would solve these problems in the absence of a state and only having access to the concepts of "private property" and "contracts". Having a state there, ready and ever-present to fix all our problems is a cushion/crutch when it comes to solving the problems that a community would have to deal with.

Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick? Who pays for those things that everyone benefits from but no one sees? International trade agreements, armed forces, border controls, research, pest control, safety regulation, building regulation, civil defence etc etc.

> Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick?

They die.

This is considered a feature, not a bug. Beneath the smokescreen rhetoric of consent and personal freedom, the core ethos of libertarianism is "survival of the fittest."

I'm really glad the pretty words and nice imagery are coming off this fact. I've seen a lot more acknowledgement lately that this is how libertarian societies work out for people lacking any ownership of their own resources.

Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die".

Meanwhile, on the state's watch:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

> Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die".

Then by all means prove me wrong. What, as a Libertarian, do you think should be done for sick and infirm people without their own financial support?

It's a circular argument. The response will be "their family and the community will look after them". But if there's no family, and even if there is, "community" will be some nebulous concept with no practical example, nor method for which to reliably and practically have any impact.

The argument is loaded. Of course not everyone will be covered. Of course there will be people that fall between the cracks of family, community and charity.

Really, you demand perfection of a hypothetical system, yet there are millions starving right now. Millions killed, forgotten and neglected due to negligence of the state, or by active effort. All while countless others are forced to pay a state to fix those very things, while the state doesn't do it or does it half-assed while funding gets sent to low-priority causes.

And to answer your question. I don't know. I can hypothesize, and we could argue the merits. But really, you will fundamentally disagree with every single suggestion. Or you'll find some little flaw or hole that gets missed(just like you did above), and automatically you'll declare that it is a bad solution and we could never do it.

So... "Family and community" seem not to be working for today's homeless and hungry. Why not?

Are taxes so strangling that families and communities simply cannot afford not to let their neighbour/uncle sleep on the street/eat from the trash? Bear in mind that people spend $20B/year on pay-to-play games on their phones.

Is the overbearing nature of the nanny-state confusing the libertarian "ethos", i. e. by creating the illusion that there are no homeless, or by requiring true libertarians to temporarily redirect their spending to PACs until such time when true freedom is achieved and the ethos can fully unfold?

If "family and community" are your support group, how much (actual) freedom do you have to – for example – come out as gay as a member of a conservative family in a likeminded small community?

Most poor people are concentrated within a few communities, and poverty often runs in families. Conversely, someone living on Cape Cod probably can't find a poor person within 20 miles or in their family. Should the brunt of care for poor people be born by others in or near poverty?

Many homeless have severe mental health problems. Those can make them quite annoying, or hostile, or otherwise unsympathetic. Would people give equally to all needy? And, if not, do you believe homeless people deserve assistance in correlation to their ability garner sympathy?

>"Most poor people are concentrated within a few communities, and poverty often runs in families. Conversely, someone living on Cape Cod probably can't find a poor person within 20 miles or in their family. Should the brunt of care for poor people be born by others in or near poverty?"

By community I meant any arbitrary level of "distance" between the person needing help and the one willing to give it. Some will want to only take care of the people within their near community or family. Others will go out of their way to feed people in distant continents, as I'm sure some do right now. Heck, if there weren't people like that existing right now, then who in the world convinced governments to send aid to third-world countries? Noble politicians? I'm sure polls would answer that.

>"Many homeless have severe mental health problems. Those can make them quite annoying, or hostile, or otherwise unsympathetic. Would people give equally to all needy? And, if not, do you believe homeless people deserve assistance in correlation to their ability garner sympathy?"

That's not up to me to decide. That's up to those people that want to give to charity and help whatever type of needy person they want.

But if you ask me, I'd put orphans at the top. Does that make me an evil person for not prioritizing mentally-ill individuals that can't function in society? Depends on who you ask, but I'd say no of course. It's a complicated problem. I told you my preference above. Other individuals have other motives and preferences, just like some want to distribute their money equally (such as yourself?).

Since you specifically mentioned homelessness, here's a good example of care provided by "family and the community" back in the days when those were the sole sources of relief:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_penny_coffin

Do I understand correctly that this kind of thing is what you consider normal in your ideal society?

Charity.

So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself?

Charity in fact would deny someone else the ability to look after themselves, which would be denying them rights.

So charity doesn't really fit with the morality of Libertarianism.

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-char...

Objectivism isn't libertarianism.

And no, giving charity does no deny another a right. They can choose to forego their rights. And I would suggest not giving to those who do so out of choice.

Charity is a choice, not an obligation enforced through violence. As such it is the correct answer.

Whether we live in such a society or not, charity exists and provides for those who cannot or cannot yet provide for themselves. It works pretty well.

Is it in my interest to give to another? If I am free to make that choice then yes.

>"So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself?"

I'm not sure who or what has been creating a vilified image of the Libertarian for you. Libertarianism has nothing to do with "looking after oneself", and you're probably just dressing up the word "selfish" by stating that. It has everything to do with consent, and freedom from coercion. Now, what kind of world we choose to make after those principles dictates what kind of society we are in right now.

Also, what the other person said. You're posting a link that is making commentary about Objectivism, not Libertarianism.

"It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent."

Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance.

>"Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance."

The state is completely different in this regard. There is no meaningful piece of land on earth where you could settle and be free from a state. Even if it's arid desert and no one would contemplate living there, if you were to start a thriving community there and the residents start making money or break the outer-state's laws, they will impose on you.

You really have no option when it comes to settling and making your own community.

Or on other planets for that matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

True, but does it matter? Because in such a hypothetical stateless land, you also have no courts, and therefore no way to enforce agreements other than via direct threat of violence. So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.

> So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.

One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases.

Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.

I think you're missing my point, which has to do not with the desirability of entering into such an agreement, but rather with how to enforce such an agreement in the absence of any sort of state.

You wont be able to enforce every arbitrary agreement. The constitutional courts will only rule on limited matters such as physical aggressions.

And (for example) for Oracle to enforce non-compete, It will have to come in agreement with big corps such as Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. This will work for most cases. But former-employee of Oracle will be able to work at Joyent.

In conclusion, You have to get help from others to enforce an agreement not enforced by Govt.

Also note, constitution ~= what everyone consents on. That is, 1. It will be short & sweet. Everyone will be able to understand it. No suprises. 2. It will never have surveillance measures.

How do you solve these problems?

1. I do not wish to consent to the contracts of your community. However, I was born here, and lack the resources to leave, or any goodwill that may assist me in doing so. Perhaps I am LGBT in the deep south.

2. Somebody is murdered. A person can be demonstrated to be the killer, but they do not consent to jailing or court.

3. Somebody is emitting carbon dioxide on their own property, as I suppose is their right. But the expanding sea is now trespassing on my island, flooding my property.

4. I buy up all the land surrounding your property, and erect a wall. I refuse to grant you passage onto my property (and thus, off of yours) unless you sign a contract agreeing to turn over to me a portion of all value you produce.

How are "taxes theft" but landownership is not? Why does someone get to claim exclusive ownership over some land and another person does not (just because the first persons ancestors reached the land first (in some cases, only if you conveniently ignore the native population))?

Well, one is where your labor and the benefit of it (earnings) get taken from you without consent. The other is land ownership, I'm not sure how else to digest that? Are you implying that land belongs to everyone and someone claiming exclusive ownership of it is somehow theft?

The usual response about how land "becomes" owned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

I really can't think of any fair way of distributing land other than the mechanism above which is essentially "first come first serve" along with a "use it or lose it" expiry mechanism.

One of the big problems I have with this theory is the way "consent" is being defined: I find it illogical to think that every person should have to explicitly agree to every possible law they could be held accountable for. Exercising this would become the biggest farce and waste untold amounts of money.

Well, Libertarianism usually means very little government and as a consequence, very few laws. So there is no need to have elaborate mechanisms to "consent" to countless laws. Though the precise amount of "laws" varies depending on which Libertarian you speak to.

They will all, however, agree on property/ownership law and the Non-aggression principle. It's actually quite elegant, because you could define all sorts of "laws" or prescribed/prohibited behaviors simply by following through with the consequences of the above principles.

E.g. Fraud, or breaking a contract. The money and ownership of goods was transferred from one entity to another. If one side "refuses" to hold up their side of the trade, then they're effectively depriving the other party of the use of the property that they own.

The thing I've come to realize after being alive for a while is, the world you want to live in is pure fantasy.

The idea that we'd do away with a democratic state and replace it with all-volunteer contracts and shit, it has absolutely no resemblance to reality at all. It's an even bigger fiction than a communist paradise, from each according to his ability and all that.

BUT...my ideal world (for simplicity's sake, star trek--post-scarcity, people can explore and make art, etc) is also fiction. I get that. I don't think we're there, of course, though I'd like to see us get closer.

The difference between our aspirational fictional worlds is, whenever people take steps toward yours (think America in the late 1800s, which is probably the best proxy for the libertarian paradise we could look at in the West), lots of people suffer. Private charity simply didn't--and wouldn't--work the way libertarians think it would/should. Life is hard for a lot of people, and shitty, and we've moved beyond that because it doesn't have to be a cruel world like that.

But when people take steps toward my ideal post-scarcity world (think, broadly speaking, Scandinavia, or even anywhere with universal health care, like Canada), it actually kinda works. Health care systems get funded, people can be artists without starving. People suffer less.

Maybe you prioritize the libertarian ideal of personal freedom (which is not what I'd even consider freedom in any way) over the suffering of a bunch of people, and hey, that's your prerogative.

But looking at the outcomes of one or the other, man I know where I throw in.

How do you account for the free rider problem? Suppose you live in a small town how do they collectively pay for expensive medical services if one member of the small community gets an illness that requires lots of resources to treat? Isn't it better to distribute the burden over a larger population? Wouldn't there be a massive amount of administrative overlap if all services truly were done at the community level? How do you prevent the race to the bottom mentality if everything is done at the community level?

Cut Medicaid/Medicare?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com