Comment by kunle | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kunle | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> We should understand that as a consequence of technology and an economy of ideas, the gap between the rich and the poor will likely increase from its already high-seeming levels.

The gap doesn't just "seem" high, it "is" high. The core reason this is a problem is that higher gaps in income in a society are correlated (not necessarily causal, but they frequently appear) with social instability.

As voters, we currently want more America than we've proven willing to pay for. This means one of 2 things must happen.

1. We pay more for the America we have

2. We get less America than we want

"less" in this case could mean really obvious things like less services or benefits of certain types. It could also mean less of intangibles/unquantifiables such as social stability, or opportunity etc, which are hard to value until they're not there (I've spent much of my life in seriously unstable places in the world, and I can attest that little else works when you dont have the basics). Most likely, we'll have to pay a little more, accept a little less, and as OP suggests, buy slightly different things with what we're paying. If we don't make those decisions, gravity will make them for us.

I would argue that plenty of "less" is "more". - less inefficiency - less duplicate programs - less intrusion upon personal liberties (drug war, EPA) - less government power ~= more personal sovereignty.

Your argument makes sense insofar as we as a society need to litigate/revisit what our positions are on these things, but, as is typically the case, the answers aren't all that clear. All the things you mention are things that reasonable people can disagree on.

My point was that your choices presented an often-heard false dichotomy. Fundamentally, I think it's a mistake to equate "America" with the "Federal Government" or even "Government".

Ah - I misunderstood your point, but to some extent, you misunderstood mine. I don't equate "America" with the "Federal Government". I equate the taxes we pay, with a benefit in public goods that must be administered by someone (hopefully someone we choose). That might be the federal government, it might be state and local authorities, some private folks, charities, businesses or some combination (status quo = some combination). For the sake of this discussion, I'm indifferent as to who administers it, but we can agree that public goods cost something - everything from intangibles (social stability) to really tangible things (like roads).

That being said - yes we could be more efficient. I'm doubtful that $1TN in deficits annually are attributable to waste though - are we really overpaying for services to the tune of $1TN? Possible, but doubtful.

I equate the taxes we pay, with a benefit in public goods

Ah, but there's the sad sad assumption that causes us to put the noose around our own necks. Often times, the emotions and ignorance of voters are manipulated so that the money paid isn't going to "the children" or "healthcare savings", or "defense"... it's going to empower and enrich those in the government. We're actually paying for our own suffering.

I'm indifferent as to who administers it

I'm not. I'm a firm believer that local tends to be more accountable. As with software development, you don't spread authority and concerns all over your object model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com