Hacker News Reader

Comment by Consultant32452 | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. It seems to be that collectivism, ironically, has made cooperation impossible rather than individualism. The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped. Government guarantees you healthcare and income in retirement, so there's no need to have a family big enough to take care of you. And as the kid, your parents are taken care of, so your role is diminished. When a hurricane comes through and damages your neighbor's rooftop there's no need to pick up your tool belt, FEMA is going to cut them a check. People feel like they don't need to get involved in charity work such as feeding the hungry because the government takes care of that for the most part. Each one of those items and countless others seem like a great idea individually, but collectively it's destroying the social fabric of our nation.

View on HN

Just throwing out a question here - What evidence do you have for the order of events? e.g. "The government has taken on the role of "taking care" of your neighbor, so everyone stopped" - how do you show that it wasn't the rise of urban centers, where you had too many neighbors to care for, that led to government stepping in where individuals were failing?

For each of the items you list, I can see it going the direction you describe, or instead going the other direction, with government stepping in only after individuals were clearly not taking care of the problems. How do you propose that we can tell which direction it went?

The 19th century in the US was the great age of limited government. It was also the period of the greatest outpouring of charitable giving the world has ever known. This was the period when the first modern nonprofit community hospitals were created. It's when the Carnegie libraries were built, huge numbers of colleges were built. It's when the society of the prevention of cruelty to animals was built, the first international missions were started. Considering the technology available at the time it's really amazing what was accomplished. This was the boom time for personal charitable giving. And there were no income taxes and no tax breaks. So everyone who gave did so without being induced by the large government to do so.

I have no intention of making an argument that government is better or worse at: providing healthcare, building libraries, feeding the hungry, etc. All I'm suggesting is that when the government creates programs like SNAP then people have a tendency to believe that the hungry are being fed.

Britain led the way in that enlightenment e.g. The 1848 Public Health Act. Except in Britain it was government that led it. In the US, you had to rely on the hoping that some of the rich did good (today: Gates, Buffet?) whilst all the rest did bad (today: Koch, Trump?)?

This blame-the-government thing is uniquely American. In other parts of the world there are big governments that really help their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably (e.g. I live in Sweden).

> This blame-the-government thing is uniquely American. In other parts of the world there are big governments that really help their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably (e.g. I live in Sweden).

You are in top 10% of European countries. You are comparing your filthy rich country to the entire United States. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare Sweden to Washington State.

Also: ask Eastern European countries, Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, African countries, Greece, Cambodia, Myanmar... how much they trust their government. You have no idea how much of a prosperity bubble you are in, in Sweden.

You also seem to be unaware that the United States has more Big Government economic regulations than in Sweden.

First, re wealth: This is laughable. A good software engineer gets $40k/year in Sweden, before tax (which is higher than the US). Sweden is not a filthy rich country, it's a relatively poor country with a good social net and nice people. Perhaps you were thinking Switzerland or Norway, which are both stinking rich whilst also nice?

Second, I was holding Sweden up as an example the you could aim to emulate. "Socialism" the Swedish way is really quite nice. I've lived and moved countries and know many who have moved around the world and to and from the states and I warmly recommend Sweden as the place everyone wishes their home countries was more like ;)

> Second, I was holding Sweden up as an example the you could aim to emulate. "Socialism" the Swedish way is really quite nice.

Sweden does not have socialism. There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states. Sweden has a freer economy with higher tax rates.

Sweden also has 145% the per capita income of the EU average. And don't forget that excludes poor Eastern European non-EU countries like Ukraine.

> Sweden does not have socialism

Well, the Swedes think they have their 'nordic model' version of it. Its been governed by the Social Democrats for almost all the last hundred years. Perhaps their definition differs from yours?

> There is less economic regulation of private companies than in the United states

Crikey, poor you folks! Given how startup-hostile Sweden truly is on the ground, its amazing that Silicon Valley can exist at all if its worse over your side of the pond! ;)

Here, very few people can or would start a company, and startups are rare and happen despite the poor investment. I've met some of the founders of the companies that are often cited like skype and I don't think they started in Sweden rather than the states because Sweden is a less regulated economy. Sweden is part of the EU, and the rules are the EU rules which Britain alleges to have found so over-regulated that they had to leave! ;)

Everything you hear on the news is true unless you have some personal experience of it. So it is with the brush Sweden gets tarred with in the US. There's some crazy left-wingers who think Sweden isn't socialist enough (and their idea of collectivism seems to be towards communism, and Sweden isn't communist), but its mostly the right-wingers thinking Sweden is some immigration hellhole. People in Sweden don't recognize the Sweden portrayed on Fox News.

Interestingly, the coverage of the US that you get on the European media seems to be much more truthful and balanced; I know plenty of US citizens, I've visited an awful lot, I've worked for US companies for years, and the general portrayal of the US life in the media over here seems to ring true.

Regulation-wise, Sweden is not hostile. But yeah, I don't see much incentive to start a business in Sweden when you forfeit 65% of your profits to the State.

The difference between government and cooperation is involuntary vs voluntary. If your government is doing something, it's not voluntary for anyone who voted against it. Also, since tax evasion is a crime in nearly every country, any government activities are going to be supported by the citizens in a coercive nature.

So yes, big governments can certainly provide services that you like. They can also provide never ending wars funded by your income that you can't do a damn thing about.

And here we have the Disappearance of Cooperation. The whole system is bad if the government does something you didn't want. Naturally if they do something you want then the whole system is good.

You know what cooperation means - it means that some of the time you don't get what you want and that's OK because the system gives you what you want (and need) also.

I dare you to describe a society where all services are provided on a voluntary basis. Go ahead I dare you.

I never suggested that a government would be incapable of helping their populations thrive and live safely and comfortably. I said when the government says it's going to take on the role of feeding the hungry, that people tend to mentally check that mark off in their brain and are less likely to get involved in that issue in their area. This isn't some vast anti-government conspiracy. I'm not suggesting the government shouldn't have a role in things like feeding people. I'm just saying that private charity has an emotional bonding experience with your community that government assistance lacks.

I live in a country with universal healthcare and it works pretty well much of the time, so perhaps I don't have the same perspective as you. But some of your examples ring a little extreme.

Do you really suggest "having a big family" as the way to survive health problems and retirement? Because that's how it works in some (e.g.) SE Asian countries, and life there can be very harsh indeed if you strike adversity and don't have family to care for you. Some people are infertile, or have lost their children.

Not to mention that simply populating the world with more and more people is kind of environmentally short-sighted. I'd rather have the government bulk buying my meds, and lighten my overall footprint on the planet, rather than harking back to ancient times when there was little or no government, and family was everything.

> ...life there can be very harsh indeed if you strike adversity and don't have family to care for you.

Life can be very harsh if you're unfortunate but don't qualify for government benefits. Or maybe you've genuinely turned a corner in your life but government rules don't have mercy like individuals can.

I guess I don't know what sort of scenarios you're alluding to. In the context of healthcare, universal healthcare means by definition that its available to everyone.

But yes, unfortunate you if you get something that's not covered under the universal deal, e.g. some kind of leading edge cancer treatment. That's when you hope your private insurance (if any) will pick up the tab.

> In the context of healthcare, universal healthcare means by definition that its available to everyone.

The government doesn't literally pay for anything you want or need. It picks what things it will pay for and what things it won't. You can't always ask government to make a special exception in extenuating circumstances like you could with a parent or cousin.

I'm not saying family is always better. I'm saying there are certainly downsides to government-based charity.

You think Universal Healthcare is charity? Thanks for demonstrating the disconnect that many people have in the US and why lack of care about facts and information has us in the place we are right now.

>I'd rather have the government bulk buying my meds, and lighten my overall footprint on the planet, rather than harking back to ancient times when there was little or no government, and family was everything

That's a perfectly respectable opinion. And you and I probably are in agreement on the government's role on many of these kinds of social issues. However, it's completely possible to both support those programs and simultaneously understand their impact on social fabric.

The US hardly lacks collectivism, it is merely on an incomprehensibly grand scale. Pay your taxes and the state will help you, evade them and the state will punish you.

Certain African countries are strongly individualistic. The state is too weak to help or punish anybody. Infrastructure crumbles, crime and slavery abounds.

You seriously don't want to visit let alone live in a country that lacks collectivism.

Collectivism != cooperation. The comment to which you replied also says the US has heavily collectivism. But due to its coercive nature, it killed the cooperation that existed before it.

Why then does the society with the flimsiest socialised provisions amongst rich nations (the US) also have on most measures by far the most precipitous collapse in social cohesion?

European countries are much smaller than the USA. I realize that within the USA there exist differences but I think your population centers are far larger than ours. Europe has a larger population but it is very dense with small, medium and then rarer large communities (similar to Japan I think). The USA appears to me (this could be quite wrong) to have large, very large and then sparse communities.

I wish I could summon up a one of those nice charts on this subject from gapminder! That would show immediately if there's something to it.

It could also be simply that the American media and intellectual class are unusually neurotic and there similar issues exist everywhere but the local reporting in my country doesn't emphasize it as much.

The relevant comparison is amongst all the wealthy nations (European, N. American, Asian & Australasian), not "USA" vs "Europe" (the various nations constituting the latter have highly divergent social policies).

There are many differences among these nations. Some are densely populated (the Netherlands), some sparse (Australia). No comparisons I've ever seen amongst them however remotely suggests that as you add more sophisticated social welfare policies, this reduces social cohesion. On the contrary, such policies tend to smooth out the effects of inevitable industrial change, rendering populations more resilient. It's no accident that nations clinging to relatively crude social policy (the US, the UK) have far lower economic mobility than those using the state of the art (Sweden, Germany). And it is about sophistication, not absolute expenditure, by the way. France, for example, has high spending, but it's badly targeted and rendered inflexible by traditional interests, so on many indicators other than health, it looks more like the laggards (US, UK) than leaders (Sweden, Denmark, Canada).

This is where the rightist points out that most positive examples historically had ethnically homogeneous populations and that those populations with growing minorities also are developing integration problems that are usually blamed, perhaps scapegoated, on social welfare policy.

Do you have a deconstruction of that?

Actually all mentioned countries have sizeable immigrant minorities (except Denmark I guess).

I'd say burden of proof is on the side claiming "developing integration problems" and such in Australia / Sweden / Germany. Without any data it seems like empty rightist populism.

Data:

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/...

Terrorism is unrelated to integration problems. Also, Germany is the (second? Idk how that's measured) most inviting country? Why does it have least attacks on that chart? That chart actually reinforces my point ... Just empty populism connecting random things to desperately prove its point.

That's nonsense. If that was the case, European countries would have a lower level of social cohesion, which is just the opposite. American society is far more individualistic, and still there is very little in terms of social support for poor people and disaster relief, for example.

Bah. I've lived on a farm, in the city, in the burbs. People are people where ever you go. If you're not neighborly, that's your problem, not the government's.

Socially advanced European nations do not have cooperation and social cohesion problems. What makes America unique?

Your making the classic mistake of equating the top 10% European countries like Switzerland and Sweden with the entire United States. Midwestern states, Washington state, and New England have cohesion.

Correct your perspective and see that the United States and Europe are fairly equal. Example: Italy has next to no cohesion.

> Italy has next to no cohesion

References? In my personal experience that's far for accurate. If anything they are an extremely nationalistic country.

Living half way between the US and the EU has taught me otherwise - that the kind of cohesion between say Portugal and Sweden is surprisingly solid - once you know where to look e.g. social values, political views. Trying to do the same with someone from deep Texas and a little town in the Maine coast could be an interesting example of the opposite.

Having different languages even inside the same territory doesn't account for lack of cohesion. It's quite irrelevant in practice actually.

Cohesion seems to be mistaken these days by sheepishly following politicians into unnecessary wars and lacking critical thinking. Widespread ignorance is not cohesion, is divisive at best.

> References? In my personal experience that's far for accurate. If anything they are an extremely nationalistic country.

Turkey is a nation that is even more nationalistic and they have very serious trust issues with their fellow citizens.

It's not a value judgment. It is a fact. Plenty of polls, references and other evidence exists. Or ask any Turk.

Uh, visit inner-city Milwaukee, Detroit, or Gary sometime. Or, for that matter, some opioid-ravaged population-3000 former logging town in central Wisconsin. Social cohesion seems to evaporate along with jobs in the Midwest as everywhere else.

> some opioid-ravaged population-3000 former logging town in central Wisconsin

You're buying a false narrative. Most midwestern town in states like Montana, the Dakotas, Utah do not have opioid problems. In fact, those states have the happiest and most satisfied people in this country.

Actually that is the false narrative. Those states may have the most satisfied people, but they also have the highest overdose death rates: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2011/11/oregons_h...

(Google "National drug overdose rates" for more info - CDC and academia have plenty of studies, but no pretty graphs)

Isn't caring for your neighbor an inherently 'collectivist' act?

Yes of course, but let me try to shine a light on the distinction I was trying to make.

If I as an individual become aware that there are hungry people in my area, I may as an individual choose to put forth some effort, funds, etc. to attempt to rectify this problem. This is an individual act for the collective good. You are emotionally attached to your own act and have a personal interest in improving the system of feeding people because you want to make sure your money feeds the most people possible.

Conversely, if we all decide we're going to take some of your money, whether you like it or not, and decide how all of us cumulatively wish to solve the hunger problem, that is not an individual act. It is not an act of your conscience. It separates you emotionally and cognitively from the people you're feeding. You never meet them, you never get to know them. You have no attachment whatsoever to what's going on. You just pay taxes and hope the bureaucracy does a decent job, or more likely you stop thinking about feeding the hungry altogether because it's "taken care of." You still want your money to be used efficiently/effectively but the entire scope of government is far too big for the average person to deal with at that level.

I'm not intending to make any argument about which way is the most effective at: feeding the hungry, providing healthcare to the poor, etc. That's a different debate altogether. I'm only pointing out that the government giving some of your money to feed people is a completely different social experience than you doing so yourself. And further that when the government tells you it's going to take care of feeding everyone, it tends to drop off your radar.

So according to you, NO ONE takes care of their neighbours, NO ONE helps anyone in their family when they need it, and NO ONE does charity work, because the government know fulfills that roll.

But we can all plainly see that this is completely wrong, and people do do all that.

As with virtually every case of the use of "everyone" when I said everyone stopped I did not mean it literally.

And yes, families are far more likely to be broken today than in decades past. The elderly are more likely to be dumped in a home somewhere. Welfare has ravaged families. The single motherhood rate is 8x what it was in the 50s because we incentivize broken families. Over 50% of adults are single now. That's historically unprecedented, and it didn't start heading that direction until the 1950s when socialist programs started really taking hold in the US.

You could do what a lot of people do, and don't use the word everyone when it is not the case, or not even close to being the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com