Hacker News Reader

Comment by utternerd | Hacker News Reader

"Competent bureaucracy" is essentially an oxymoron. "Things" necessary for economic growth are infinitely more efficient when directed by the market, not by forceful removal of my property for "them" to decide how best it can be utilized. Why is my body (which extends to my means of production) not my own?

View on HN

> "Competent bureaucracy" is essentially an oxymoron.

That's the belief that underpins your opinion but that is far from a fact. It's also a belief that tends to be self-fulfilling -- you get the government that you believe you should have.

It's a belief based on historical data and personal experience. The "state" and it's blind followers have one of the highest death tolls attributable to it, that's an objective truth. It's fascinating that so many people are fine having their lives decided by others, under the illusion of "authority".

Let's bomb some more kids in the middle east for no reason, shall we?

It's belief based on a small dataset that doesn't represent all democratic governments that exist. If anything, your experience is probably based on significant outliers.

Slavery, Prohibition, Women being unable to vote, Gays being unable to marry; the list of inequities imposed on others due to democracy, and faith in the State to "do the right thing" is long. The aforementioned aren't small data sets, nor are they outliers. That's not even mentioning how many murders the State has contributed to (see: Germany and Russia for significant contributions, in the millions of murders) under the guise of "protecting it's people". (see: USA's actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.)

Slavery, murder, theft, are inequalities that humans do to each other which the state exists to prevent. This argument is a poor one. You can't simply pick and choose the negatives without balancing it against the positives.

Competent bureaucracy is what they've got in Sweden. You obviously don't believe public goods exists. That's stupid.

Using the force of the state to further other's goals is something I am entirely against because historically we can see how much damage it's done, calling that stupid isn't constructive.

I don't feel the need to be constructive towards the whole taxes=theft crowd. Engaging them would just encourage them.

It seems to be common that those that haven't experienced a reasonably competent bureaucracy do not believe one can exist.

"'Things' necessary for economic growth are infinitely more efficient when directed by the market". This. I think you just touched the essentiel cultural difference.

IMHO the market is a good tool but it is very far from perfect. Its main weakness is the strength it gives to the signal price. The market is a global race to the lowest price and highest ROI. "Things" like infrastructure, health, environnement are expensive with a low (short/mid term) ROI. The market will never favor them.

> Why is my body (which extends to my means of production) not my own?

You believe your means of production are entirely self-contained which is entirely false. You need all of civilization for your production to be useful. It's not unreasonable to have to pay for that civilization.

So you're saying I'm indentured to my society? This is sounding increasingly similar to slavery. Using force against someone else to get what you want isn't morally acceptable, and it certainly isn't altruistic; if you disagree with me on that, that's fine.

Of course not. But if you use society to make money then you should pay for that usage. If you want to opt-out of society, you have that option.

If you've been educated in a school, travelled on a road, drank water from a tap, watched TV running on electricity, or worked on a computer that communicates across the globe to other computers then you absolutely have taken advantage of a society with a central authority and should conribute to it.

To believe otherwise is absurdly individualistic and self-centred. We are a social species and everything good we have done come through collective effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com