Hacker News Reader

I think it's a mistake to project any kind of ideology onto these freaks. They'll say anything as a means to their personal ends. Why do you think Thiel has been babbling about the antichrist?

The fact that you can win an election just by "pumping hundreds of millions" into a campaign that includes many highly unpopular policies seems like the underlying problem here?

Money in politics is a problem, but pumping hundreds of millions into a campaign doesn't guarantee a win. In the last presidential election, the losing candidate actually spent more.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris...

> but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite;

The Democratic establishment are in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is very favorable to corporations and the wealthy.

The Republicans think even the status quo isn’t billionaire friendly enough. They want to go as far as possible as quickly as possible to eliminate even more of the middle class. Their real goal is to disenfranchise labor entirely, hence the push for “AI” and eliminating jobs.

Of course billionaires prefer one over the other. But from the perspective of the left, both are unacceptable. Neither of these options will actually pull in the other direction, tax the rich, restore the wealth of the middle class, etc.

This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening.

Republicans started going after CDL drivers who were issued licenses when they can’t read road signs in English.

The result is basic economics…truckers who speak and read English get paid more now.

Whether we are talking about healthcare, student loans, public school or even housing…everywhere the federal firehose gets aimed in the name of helping things get more expensive and hurt the middle class.

The disaster that is the ACA was easy to see coming before it was even formed. The Ben Carson plan is the only economically viable plan that could have reduced the cost of healthcare, but we got ACA instead and costs have skyrocketed every since.

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truck-driver-wages-downshi...

Facts, in my HN?

>This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening.

No it isn't. Parroting unproven narratives and lies manufactured by the state department only discredits your claim.

Look, I think that redistributive policies impact markets in unpredictable ways, often with negative externalities on prices. But the idea that Mr 300 million dollar gilded ballroom is practicing anything remotely resembling fiscal responsibility is bananas.

Yes, health care costs will probably go down, as demand falters when poor folks die from lack of healthcare. Yes, education costs will probably fall if you dramatically reduce the number of people who can afford education. But personally? Not a great trade off.

Embargoes are just the beginning of the problems with this idea. After you renounce the protection of nations, they are free to literally nuke you. The very first thing that would happen to seasteaders is that a navy would roll up and sink their shit.

There are quite a few scifi novels of libertarian societies that rely on constant surveillance to assure that NAP isn't violated. I'd say the central theme is that eventually technology will solve these disputes so the fundamental system shouldn't allow any political leeway that will slow progress (why solve technical problems when you can just be made whole by the government).

Someone else might want to live were you live, who gets to decide who lives there? You both live in identical virtual copies. The goal is to sidestep politics entirely wherever it appears

Where it falls apart (aside from its total amorality) is that technological progress is secondary to scientific progress and if science says in 100 billion years the universe is over, then there is no technical solution, I don't want people increasing entropy and killing me sooner before then.

The Democrats have their problems, and no one should give them a free pass. The Atlantic hit the nail on the head when they called it the HR-ification of the Democratic Party. The party apparatus is mostly just appropriating positions, that's their idea of leadership. Hillary Clinton's weaponization of rules and procedures against Bernie Sanders is a great example of that.

That is a far cry from the open corruption of the Republican party however. Allowing the CEO of ExxonMobil to become the Secretary of State. Doing pay for play and accepting lavish gifts from Silicon Valley royalty. The Trump coin grift and dishing out pardons for crypto scammers.

Both sides is a gross oversimplification.

So, the side that is more open about their corruption is the one that deserves to be voted out? That leaves the more secretive and professionally corrupt in power, right?

I mean, that’s what happened, whether we like it or not.

Technocracy shouldn't be inherently wrong choice. Especially when states really do depend increasingly on technology and productivity. In that view selecting a CEO in high role in government is probably a reasonable option. What are alternatives? Career politicians? Career bureaucrats? Maybe a CEO with proven history could be reasonable choice.

Now if oil companies are bad or good, is much more political question. And really up to voters. Vote for party which supports your political direction.

Rex Tillerson wasn't even a terrible Secretary of State, all things considered. We've certainly had much worse.

> What are alternatives?

People who aren't so boxed into the status quo (ideologically and financially) that they can't fathom anything being more important than technology, "productivity", and the almighty GDP. People whose top priority is to actually listen to society with an open mind, and find ways to improve the quality of life of everyone.

Technocrats hear about the mental health problems plaguing society and rush to invent a robotic therapist and stronger psychiatric medication to try to curb the symptoms instead of treating systemic causes that have lead to the situation, like the role of our economic system, exploitation that people face, lack of access to mental health services.

A CEO who's guaranteed to be invested into maintaining the status quo is the worst possible option, it's a comical conflict of interest. What does a "proven history" look like, anyway?

We need to figure out a way to link the compensation of our representatives to how well the bottom half of society is doing to get the incentives aligned. Any ideas?

Libertarianism is "freedom" only for the top slice and always has been.

Depending on how principled you want to be about what happens to the underclass, you have a choice. Either exert control privately, by removing state protections for people and using corporate strength. Or you can co-opt the existing government to act on your behalf. You can mix and match, where you weaken parts of government which protects and strengthen that which controls.

Whether the jackboots have a national emblem or a company logo on them doesn't make a lot of difference to the necks.

> the far left would say that both parties are the same

This is a hyperbole. The two parties are not exactly the same, though they are the same on a number of issues, such as support for the military-industrial complex and Israel. Here's what Noam Chomsky said: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies."

The way I would put it is that there are sane billionaires and insane billionaires, though they both have the economic interests of the billionaire class at heart. The insane billionaires want to disrupt everything and eat the world, while the sane billionaires just want to keep the quiet status quo of their dominance, and so they play "nice".

> maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign

I doubt that Musk's money changed the election outcome. Indeed, Musk's financial meddling in the subsequent Wisconsin Supreme Court election turned a lot of people against his candidate, who lost. The purpose of Musk's contributions was to buy influence with Trump, which worked, at least for a while.

Exaggeration maybe, hyperbole? I literally can’t go a day browsing Reddit without seeing like 10 people say both sides are the same.