Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

Consent matters.

There is no worse tyranny than to force someone to pay for something they do not want to buy, simply because you think it would be good for them.

I am vehemently pro-research and pro-education, but these tax-funded programs are not it. There must be some meaningful connection to the delivery of value, otherwise this stuff is just public-private wealth transfer. This seems obvious to me. Why should this research be subsidized? Why should government subsidies exist in general?

This isn’t crazy stuff. We would like a smaller federal government. Why is everyone acting like the sky is falling when an elected official does the things people voted for them to do?

(Note: I did not vote for this administration, but I am happy about some of the policy decisions that are being made (and unhappy about others).)

View on HN

Do think that it’s _not_ consent when people all over the country spend decades voting for representatives who create and maintain research programs? Unlike this, those were very deliberate proposals with extensive public debate.

Do you think there was consent to have a guy who wasn’t on the ballot do things which the guy who was on the ballot said he wouldn’t do, with zero involvement or consent from the people’s representatives?

I can think of a large number of vastly worse tyrannies.

The outcome of this is not going to be a smaller government that achieves 80% of its previous goals with 70% of the spending. The outcome of this is going to be massively chaotic organizations and less efficiency because of the huge fucking wrecking balls slammed into everything by people that have publicly spoken about their goal to destroy the post-new-deal society and replace it with CEO-kings running fiefdoms.

Heck, I'm living in a vastly worse tyranny. Not like Trump will cut my taxes. I'm not even a millionaire.

Government subsidies should exist in general because fundamentally, humans are very bad at making long-term decisions. Institutions, taxes and transfers are how we make sure that society is oriented away from people's short-term preferences and towards long-term benefit to all.

If people are very bad at making long term decisions, then how would a government (made of people) somehow mitigate this? Governments also have demonstrated their fundamental inability to outperform in making long-term decisions.

“People are bad, therefore let’s throw organizations of even more people at the problem” doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

In fact, not only does this “solution” not solve the problem, it creates a whole host of new ones: corruption, graft, human rights abuses, and perpetuation of the status quo due to codification.

Most people are bad at making long-term decisions. Some are not. Biases can be overcome with sustained training and dedication.

Using taxes to fund basic research is one of many ways our institutions have a countervailing effect towards long-term thinking. In fact we should be taxing much more and doing much, much more of it.

This is explicitly anti-majoritarian, yes.

Corruption is indeed a potential issue, and we should focus on ways to e.g. root out peer review rings. But the numbers we're talking about are tiny.

What you are describing is by definition an oligarchy.

If you require taxpayers to consent to every single line item, voting is going to become rather cumbersome.

You don't believe that, or you would have moved to be out from under this ultimate tyranny. Somalia, perhaps.

Your argument is the classic Randist Libertarian one: "There is no such thing as society, everything I did I earned myself with no reference to anyone." It is, of course, complete and utter garbage. Government spending is the only known way of constructing projects that are not attractive money-makers: rural electrification, communications systems, roads, water treatment, education. In order to keep currency flowing, governments remove it from circulation via taxation.

This violates consent, though. Consent matters, regardless of how much handwaving occurs after people choose to violate it.

The other such places you describe also violate consent. Same criminal acts: coercion by violence.

I do indeed believe in the things I have said, and I have indeed emigrated from the United States for many such reasons, principally among them my objection to being forced to fund neverending war.

Unfortunately the US Government still taxes me remotely.

You can renounce your US citizenship and thus avoid the burden of US taxation.

Yes, please do this GP. Renounce your citizenship and be free of the big bad taxes. Most of us prefer infrastructure and long term public research.

The tragedy of the commons... Telling any particular fisherman not to fish the fish to extinction also violates their consent.

Coercion is necessary for governance and you wouldn't want to live in a world without it. The Thief who steals money with a knife doesn't consent to jail time. If the government doesn't levy taxes to pay for policing, then there is no way to punish the theif for violation of the victims consent.

Your unthought out opinion is a position of privilege, not one of reason or sanity.

That doesn't even broach the topic of a child being born into poverty or slavery.

Without a military force, funded by taxes, to defend against neighboring slavers your notion of consent doesn't matter in the first place. That's the fundamental contradiction of anarchy.

Eh, consent is a little nebulous in this context. Sure in interpersonal relationships, consent is important. But on a societal scale there are plenty of ways in which consent is violated. I don't consent to breathing toxic fumes from other people's cars. Should we make cars illegal? I don't consent to having to wear clothes all the time, is it unethical that I have to wear clothes?

Also, the money they are taking is produced by and guaranteed by the US government. Is it really "your" money? Without the US government that money is worthless.

but the spending was all set by democratic process where citizen's representatives set the spending in their constituents interests.

instead, now that value is being taken away from me without consent, and im goinf to be forced to spend more somewhere else in my life to make up for it, without the actual consent of it going through votes and discussion in congress

Gov subsidies of research is one of the smartest public investments because it drives growth in new areas, ultimately opening up new companies/jobs, and allowing the country to keep pace with, or lead, competitors who will otherwise capture that market. Or the research improves medical care which improves the quality of life of citizens.

If you really want to reduce government subsidies, start with the defense industry, which is fully funded by your tax dollars. And it really accomplishes very little for the country, other than the scientific research it funds (which is actually substantial and which often results in breakthroughs with non-military applications).

Congress passed laws allocating the spending. That by definition is consent.

They did this without my involvement. Furthermore, the amendment that they claim permits them to steal your money was ratified by representatives who were elected by no people alive today.

The current population had no say whatsoever in these laws. They were born into it like being born into slavery.

There is no “unsubscribe”.

You want all laws to be renewed each generation? Fine, how do you set the renewal date? What about the transition from one law to another? My point is there will always be someone that is subject to a law that was passed prior to them being of the age of consent for a particular law. No serious political theory defines the legitimacy of a law by 100% explicit consent by the governed. Instead the consent given is a broad transfer of the right to govern generally. That’s all that is necessary. I don’t need to consent to everything the police do to protect public safety if I have consented to their general mission.

> Why should government subsidies exist in general?

Bro... I think you missed the civics class where they explain how economies/governments work.

tl;dr the magical free market isn't, the world is complicated, and governments are supposed to help their people, which includes providing things, like money, to do things, like advance the state of the civilization, its people, its businesses, products, services, technologies, defenses, education, health, food, energy, etc etc etc etc etc

> Why is everyone acting like the sky is falling when an elected official does the things people voted for them to do?

Two words: National Socialism. Sometimes the people are morons, and the leaders psychopaths.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com