Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

You should read Atlas Shrugged instead of bashing it. Who knows, you may learn one thing or two - like the basic principle of refusing to live at the expanse of someone - and to let no one live at one's expanse in return.

> Laws don’t exist merely to frustrate the business ambitions of coastal hipsters: They also exist to protect the more vulnerable members of society

No. They exist to skew the odds in favour of those who are already "in the business", or to line up the pockets of the friends or financial backers of those that make the laws.

(EDIT: some of them also exist to get reelected, and very few of them for what laws are really needed for - protecting private property)

The market is the only thing that can beat some sense to a politician - but only after he's used your tax money to fight back, and until after reality can not be denied any longer.

Take any eco 101 book to learn how the NYC medallion scheme is damaging and learn for yourself. Here's a good read which requires little domain knowledge:

http://www.worthpublishers.com/Catalog/uploadedFiles/Content...

(EDIT2: Downvote as much as you want. An article with that much politic biais deserves IMHO at least a matching response.)

I think it's hilarious how the little guy buys into Ayn Rand am regurgitates this nonsense. Ayn Rand does not have your back. The Only people for whom it makes any sense to believe in Rand's ideology are those very same people who are skewing the odds that you rail against. Unless you're worth a few million (at least) then you are the greater fool if you believe in Randianism.

Not very law and regulation is a huge conspiracy and in fact, most of the very unnecessary and self serving ones were created by Randians for Randians. Everyone hates the RIAA around here so I think they're the perfect example of this.

I really love how Randians selectively pick and choose examples to support their ideology that just happen to be totally hypocritical. If you read Ayn Rand without trying to fit it into your personal ideology it comes off sounding like it was written by a narcissistic sociopath (redundant, I know. Sociopaths are already narcissists)

The ideology can be summed up to refusing to live at someone else expanse, and refusing that people life at your expanse.

It goes both ways, and I need no one to back me up. I am happy with my ideology, and I won't be coerced into anything I won't do out of my free will - with or without money. That is true freedom.

BTW even stretching that definition very far, I fail to see how it can include the RIAA, which lives at the expanse of our legal system, and which makes a lot more people life at its expanse.

Information goods are not in the domain of economy (even if some like to say they are non rival and non excludable like a public good) - they are not scarce resources.

And the free software movement has show that no special incentive was required to produce high quality information goods.

The answer to the RIAA is in the market - in the artists around us whose work we enjoy and can financially support. kickstarter movements now make that possible.

The ideology can be summed up to refusing let someone else live at your expense.

Fixed that for you. I've read the book. There's quite a bit of kicking freeloaders to the curb. My takeaway was that if you didn't want to be kicked to the curb by some tough guy, you shouldn't live at his expense. Which is really some lame contrapositive of "don't let freeloaders live at your expense".

It was a terrible piece of fiction, by the way. The characters were way too unbelievable.

I'm sorry to say that, but I think you totally misunderstood the message. You can not fix the most important idea of the book, coming with a lenghty tirade, if you cut half of it.

You think about and describe bullying. The ideas in the book are closer to refusing voluntary servitude - ala Boetie: http://mises.org/document/1218/The-Politics-of-Obedience-The...

"States are more vulnerable than people think. They can collapse in an instant—when consent is withdrawn" says the above article. I'd correct that and say "the productive and growing economy" instead.

Atlas Shrugged is just a story explaining that, and providing a philosophy to leave with that in mind.

The characters aren't really meant to be believable. http://books.google.com/books?id=TYZaNwrIM8YC&pg=PT664&#...

I guess "believable" is the wrong word. They were one-dimensional and boring. The book is a terrible description of a way of life masked as a story, and in my opinion, that's all it is.

I find irony in this thread because Ayn Rand was a huge proponent of IP and laws that secure its rights to the creative originator.

Back then, it made sense. With the current technology, information goods don't.

When we invent say the matter duplicator, things will change again. The core statement remains.

I really love how Randians selectively pick and choose examples to support their ideology that just happen to be totally hypocritical.

Personally, I really love how the comment you're replying to recommended a Paul Krugman text. You'd think if he were picking carefully he'd avoid Krugman to support his views? :)

Did you actually read the PDF before posting this comment ?

Even Krugman can't deny reality. The medallion scheme of NYC is a bad thing for everyone - except the few happy medallion holders.

Well, I have read Atlas Shrugged. Twice, actually (even the 40 page speech at the end!) and I think Ayn Rand's philosophy is crap. I think there are good parts of the book: taking pride in your work is great and I like how her characters get such exhilaration from a job well done, but the rest of her message (the part people usually seem to talk and think about) of hating government and regulation and living lives receiving help from no one are a bunch of nonsense.

One great example of this: Alan Greenspan, who had previously been a huge Randian, admitted that his hands off regulatory policy had been a mistake. His belief that banks' self-interest would keep them from destroying themselves was wrong.[1]

Now I know I've probably opened a can of worms talking about the mortgage crisis, there seem to be as many different opinions on what caused all that as there are people, but my narrow point here is that a man who was given the power to bring Rand's philosophy of deregulation to life regretted doing so and in fact had his worldview changed.

[1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html

I'm familiar with the Greenspan quote, but in retrospect, they didn't destroy themselves. They'd seen the presidence of the savings and loan scandal and seem to have acted as if the government would be there to back stop them. In fact, given the willingness of the government to bail them out one could even argue Ayn Rand was completely right about the whole situation and that they acted rationally by taking on huge risk. If they banks were allowed to fail early and often from their mistakes, the behavior we saw likely would not have happened(for the exact reasons Rand states).

Obviously you are right, but don't waste your time on this topic in this forum. You would have been better off making a dry economic explanation about the NYC medallion scheme than trying to promote libertarianism or objectivism on Hacker News. It's basically 50-50 libertarians and leftists here and the only time either side makes a point that the other side won't down vote is if it is technical in nature (which, honestly, is a better way to comment for this type of setting anyway).

It's a sad thing - but it seems that you're right :-(

Even a textbook extract from Krugman saying the very same thing (!!) can't help if the leftist had already decided which facts he will deign considering.

Hard to believe you can't see that you're proving the author's point. You're completely unwilling to believe that perhaps some laws do help protect the more vulnerable members of society?

Amusing to see someone so cynical that they've become naïve.

Not that naive- I am totally willing to believe a small minority of the laws indeed do that, which is why I quickly edited my initial reply to mention that :

- some of the laws were on the books so that politicians can get reelected.

- and that here might also be some honest politicians in there, trying to do the good thing such as repealing crappy laws, and enforcing property and self defence laws

But in this lemon market I think they are crowded out by the standard politicians.

The proportions must vary - with some places like Alberta acting as a beacon for the rest of the world - but my hopes aren't high. Freedom seems to be regressing on a global scale. Some people have much to gain with Agenda 21 and the likes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com