Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickpp | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, I can't. I am a working man, not a philosopher.

But please look around you. Every great thing around me was created by a free(-ish) market: this PC, my car, my job, the materials in my home, the heating engine, the food I get in the restaurant, the entertainment on my TV, everything.

Then every crappy experience in my existence has something to do with the government: state hospitals, infrastructure, the DMV and other bureaucratic institutions, my and my children's schools.

I tend to judge systems by their results and so far the free market seems to produce much better results.

I don't think anybody can argue for a world without governments, but not to the point at which they stifle the free market. And I am afraid that is the direction we are generally taking.

View on HN

I find it a bit disturbing that you value entertainment on TV as "great" and "state hospitals" and "schools" as crappy.

In fact, overall, it seems like you value as "great" everything around you that don't implies interacting directly with other humans, and as "crappy" about everything that does.

So if the free market purpose is to value antisocial products while making every social bonds look crappy, well, I'm not so sure I love it.

You're misinterpreting my quick examples. I am talking about the whole product (or my experience of it) rather than about the people involved. The people are often great, including in those schools and hospitals I disliked so much.

My best absolute best experiences are with people and involve no markets nor governments: family, friends and professional peers.

Look at the innovation pace of products delivered by free market vs those by government. If government made computers, they would still be big as room and only the rich could afford them. Meanwhile free market delivered computers into your pocket with power and capabilities that just 10 years ago no one would believe.

Our education system preparing our kids for future is still basically the same as our grand-grand-parents was.

Just imagine where our hospitals and schools could be if not crippled by government..

If not "crippled by government", schools and hospitals would be Darwinian shitshows that absolutely guaranteed rising health and income inequality.

I agree that things like fast computers are nice side effects of allowing capitalism to go to work in some arenas, but, in others, you definitely need government to reduce the pernicious effect of unadulterated profit motive.

It's appealing to think to yourself "hey, I make pretty good money, why shouldn't I be able to use that to buy a higher-than average education for my kid?" This is fine--hire a tutor. But taking your tax dollars to a for-profit selective academy that most don't have the option of using contributes to the degradation of public schools that you helplessly claim to be an unavoidable consequence of their being government-run.

Institutions meant to serve all only work when everyone contributes to them. Private, unregulated healthcare and education, by design, only serves those with money. Since health and education are, in the long run, how we generate personal wealth, this scheme is sure to accelerate the widening of inequality.

private schools and hospitals would be Darwinian shitshows that absolutely guaranteed rising health and income inequality

Reality disagrees. Pretty much everywhere where private schools and hospitals are allowed at least to some degree, they provide better value and results for everyone, including the very poor: https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21660063-where-gover...

Hospitals the same. In my country (eastern Europe) the difference between state hospital and private hospital is like difference between two centuries. The beauty of free market is that it lowers the costs for everyone. So the poor will always have "less luxury" at given time period, but in absolute terms will be much better of with free market then with state services. In eastern post-communist Europe, this is evident on every step.

Government funded R&D has led to many great "free market" products.

We have for profit hospitals and they are a terrible thing overall! We also have for profit prisons which are also a terrible thing.

You really think the PC is a good example of something "created by a free market" not the result of the govt pouring millions into R&D in the decades previous?

Nobody's denying the contribution of the govt $$$ to the creation of the PC. But I've seen computers build by governments. They were slow, huge, power hungry, expensive behemoths. They sucked.

We're a long way from there. And free market brought us all the way here.

Are you aware of the fact that Sillicon Valley was created by the US Government?

Are you referring to the fact that SV was initially founded by the defense industry -- which was in turn all funded by the gov't -- in its early days?

Yes.

Ever heard of NASA?

What about the internet? The highway system?

Same thing with the internet. Government spending got us super expensive connections between a handful of universities. Free markets took that and brought it as what we know as the fast, cheap internet to our doors. Although regulations in the telecom/cable/ISP markets are working hard to impede that.

Yes, govt made the highways. Did not really repair them afterwards (at least around here) but it was definitely a good thing.

However, when judging by the bottom line, the number of good products created by govts is incredibly small compared to the amazing breadth and diversity coming from the open markets.

That logically makes me trust the market system overall and to prefer a small, limited government role.

But I am afraid we are moving into quite the opposite direction...

What kind of role do you think the government should play? Should we continue to privatize things like prisons? Seems it would be difficult to incentive rehabilitation when prisons are paid per bed filled. On the other side, should we privatize the military? the fire department? the courts? the police? why not?

A role as small as possible, but not smaller. Specifics depends of the domain, and there you need a domain expert, which I am not.

I just believe that as a general strategy, we should be continuously attempting to reduce govt power and involvement while allowing the free markets to work.

I am worried that we are doing the opposite, where our current response to pretty much any issue is more govt regulation/intervention instead. A middle way would be great.

> I just believe that as a general strategy, we should be continuously attempting to reduce govt power and involvement while allowing the free markets to work.

Sure, I can agree with that. But what if the lack of government power is what is preventing free markets from working? Things like anti-monopoly legislation. I mean, I'll give you that the reason these things exist is because private companies use the government to enforce their monopoly. But how do you plan on opposing that without using some sort of anti-trust action?

They both were built in the name of defense and national security during the cold war. You are not suggesting that we be in a permanent state of wars to promote gov't funding of R&D?

LOL. The PC was nearly entirely a free market phenomenon. It’s like sayming cars wouldn’t exist without governments switching warships to oil, most developments are inevitable regardless of government actions.

PC "free market" only took off when someone found a means to legally screw with IBM's monopoly on the BIOS. You also seem to have forgotten why quips such as "Wintel", "Chipzilla", "M$", "Adopt Extend Extinguish" were created. And that's just limited to ICT...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com