Comment by Meai | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Meai | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I actually agree with you somewhat although you are not saying a lot. We have to find a system where the fortune of a single person automatically contributes to the good of the whole. Capitalism is actually already surprisingly good in that regard, and that's why it has been so successful. But in the end, there will be people who are vastly more successful in any system, and we need a way to make all efforts automatically contribute to society. I don't mean taxes, because those can be controlled by a governing body and are regarded as external force. Nobody wants to pay taxes. No, we need motivators which are intrinsic to the human mind. People need to want to help. Let's not kid ourselves and think that we can just "pull ourselves together" and be nicer to each other in the future. Human nature can't be overridden by mere wishes. Capitalism works because there is nothing stronger than the motivation to provide for yourself and your family.

How do we use that motivation to nurture society as a whole? I don't know. Taxes are not good enough, as we can see today, they can always be outsmarted. You can't outsmart human nature, which means billions of people struggling towards a single goal.

Successful economic models cannot be divorced from the cultural context in which they arise. American-style Capitalism was born during the Protestant Reformation. This religious movement provided a theological basis for individual property rights and free enterprise, as well as the understanding that actors in such a system must be restrained by conscience and charity toward their fellows.

We cannot expect to solve the problems of human nature via economics or public policy when the philosophical and religious landscape has shifted.

I argued that we can't fight human nature and therefore we should find policies that utilize it for the good of everyone. You argue that we as human beings have to change first before we can accept any such policy. Of course it will be a little bit of both, but seeing as me or anyone hasn't even defined any such new policy, I find it hard to see how you can oppose it yet with religious or philosophical concerns. It may very well be possible today. In fact, it's highly likely because the strategy behind the policy is based on human nature.

> Nobody wants to pay taxes.

See, this just isn't true. The fact that this idea is taken for granted gets at the root of the problem.

I'm happy to pay my taxes, although I don't pay more than I legally need to.

> I don't pay more than I legally need to.

Well that's what I meant. You have no particular wish to pay taxes. You wouldn't mind stop paying them. You would mind stop having sex though. I'm talking about motivations that can't be shut off and don't need to be taught to every new kid, because you are born with them. We need to somehow harvest them to make working together attractive.

I would argue that all successful policies somehow come down to the fact that people want them in place. In that regard, taxes are clearly a failed experiment. You cannot force people to do anything (not for long, not forever as we can see from history). The only really effective law, is the one that people love to obey.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com