Hacker News Reader

Comment by globalnode | Hacker News Reader

Good points, i like them, but i fear you were sucked in by low effort trolling. Your original point was clear, that fiddling with a broken system is a distraction from a better more workable system. If you try to begin to articulate a more workable system you'll then have to contend with a barrage of mindless ad hom and rhetorical rubbish... (ug ug socialism bad) so sometimes critiquing the current system is just easier.

View on HN

"Critiquing the current system" on its own is nearly useless. Literally everyone can do it. Yes, articulating a more workable system is hard, that's why it's actually meaningful.

The problem is that socialism actually is bad. Neoliberalism is a much better idea that leads to better outcomes, and is based on reason and empiricism and systems thinking. Socialism is pseudoscience, vibes, and cults of personality and ideology.

Socially conscious neoliberalism in democratic countries has led to the most acceleration towards widespread human prosperity in all of history.

Could you elaborate your position, maybe make a structural argument like I did above, or maybe refute mine? I'd argue my post above was pure systems thinking, wasn't it?

So far you have made an assertion, but have not shared anything to back it.

Oh, I just realized you're the same commenter that was arguing that people just want to criticize and not offer any proposals for solutions.

Getting that response to an actual proposal from you is the thickest of ironies.

I initially thought globalnode's comment was a bit cynical and mean spirited. But you... kind of proved his point? Instead of proposing and judging solutions as you initially mentioned, you basically enacted the "ug ug socialism is bad" he predicted.

I didn't completely read your reply. That's not what I'm responding to.

I am critiquing the proposal of socialism as the answer. My initial complaint was answered. My new complaint is with that proposed solution.

Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems. Mamdani is a great example. Mamdani is mostly solving problems by governing as a wise technocratic pro-social neoliberal. His one main exception - rent control - will very likely backfire and continue to prove my point.

Your reply would require an essay from me much longer than what you wrote to explain why it's mostly wrong and why collective ownership of the AI labs and AI data centers (or almost anything) would be bad compared to private ownership with government oversight and taxation.

For now, I would recommend the latest in the Alexander vs. Pritchard series to help articulate broadly why liberalism is preferable to socialism: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/re-re-re-pritchard-on-liber...

I have read the arguments from each and find Pritchard to have made the best case for socialism I've come across and yet find Alexander far more persuasive and correct, here.

I would also recommend reading OpenAI's social democratic policy proposals: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440...

I feel like while this is a slightly better answer, it still fundamentally is a cop-out.

> Socialism is just empirically and morally extremely bad and will not solve our problems

This is a purely ideological assertion, or "vibes and dogma" to use your terms. We were talking about systems thinking, and yet you answer a structural analysis with unbacked claims.

The link dump also feels a bit distractive - we were talking of making concrete proposals and judging them on their merits, now you instead link to some other people talking about vaguely relate topics. Your response did neither of the things you were talking about earlier. I feel like you haven't managed to live up to the standard you have set.

The fact that you ask for specific proposals only to then not even read them is the cherry on top.

As a final ironic twist, you link to OpenAI in response to a critique of power centralization and share their policy proposals as response to a critique about regulatory capture. Why not link a Standard Oil press release about why monopolies are great, actually?

I am fine with socialists who actually try to provide clear arguments and proposals. That's why I'm a big fan of Cassie Pritchard, who is ideologically basically a tankie yet who actually engages in rational discourse (and who agrees with you on what to do with AI labs and data centers). My initial comment and first reply were not responses to you. I am annoyed by people who do not want to grapple with the world. You should separate my "socialism is bad, immoral, and ineffective" from my initial comment about many people not even trying.

>Why not link a Standard Oil press release about why monopolies are great, actually?

My point was that you might very well like OpenAI's proposals, if you were to read them! Because they may not actually be that far off from what you desire. They just won't go quite as far as your ideal scenario. What they describe is arguably a mix of private and public ownership.

This is not to say it's necessarily not just PR talk they'll soon abandon. But it's a starting point, and them disregarding their positions there would be relevant to future government regulation approaches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com