Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think building solidarity and values is tremendously important, and here's why: what is the government really responsible for? Even as you go down the political spectrum to libertarians (short of anarcho-libertarians), you have consensus that government should at least provide security, from domestic crime and international threats, the enforcement of contracts, etc. Most people would go on to say that it's the government's job to provide at least basic education, utilities and transportation, etc, and do so with low waste and corruption. Fostering a culture of solidarity and shared values goes directly to those basic functions of government.

When you look at Scandinavian countries, and wonder how their systems work so well, you have to consider how shared culture and values plays a role in that success. When you wonder why the welfare state works so poorly in the U.S., you can't ignore the impact of the tremendously acrimonious culture we have, steeped in animosity between the races and between different socioeconomic classes. And if you go further down the spectrum of dysfunction, you can't help but notice the stark contrast between the extensive but relatively corruption-free governments of the Scandinavian countries and the very limited but highly corrupt governments of places like India or Bangladesh. I think that comes from a lack of solidarity. There is no motivation to, say, not take a bribe, if your mentality is that you're only in it for yourself.

> .. you can't ignore the impact of the tremendously acrimonious culture we have, steeped in animosity between the races and between different socioeconomic classes.

That is actually symptom of the problem, not the cause. It's not too long time ago when Finland had one of the bloodiest civil wars in European history[1], but still country was made enough unified to survive during WW2[2][3] and of course build 'nanny state' we have today.

Only reason that was possible was that big differences between classes was seemed as primary problem, caused by the system, instead of thinking it was caused by external forces which cannot really be affected. Maybe biggest success in this front was to ban private schools for kids and provide good basic education for everyone. Take note that all of the kids went to same schools, so kids from both factions of civil war shared classrooms, meals, etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of.

If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right. And that is indeed the language we see used by some to promote universal health care or a living wage.

My pet theory is that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth.

I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. The debates, to date, have raged about what those values should be.

My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education, etc. E.g. in Chicago, there is a deep schism between the heavily black south side, and the whiter north side. Now, every city has poor parts and rich parts, but what's really stark about Chicago is how completely the two parts disassociate from each other, due to in no small part a lack of shared culture.[1] This is, of course, to the detriment of both. The school system (CPS) is a primary example. Its a deeply dysfunctional piece of welfare: generous on one hand (relatively high spending/student), but crippled by the fact that whites and the middle/upper classes all but "opt out" of the system (CPS is 90% minority and 90% low-income).

[1] My wife grew up in a small town in Iowa, where there were also rich people (doctors, store owners) and poor people. But there was tremendous shared culture: everyone went to the same high school, one of a small number of churches, participated in the same set of after-school activities, etc.

Your wife's experience sounds a lot like my own childhood in rural Scotland - where everyone did go to the same secondary school (each village had its own primary school).

Now I live in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, which has a remarkable percentage of kids in private education (~25%) and very clearly drawn boundaries around social class.

I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system.

Really? But Wikipedia tells me that After 1970 the desirability of assimilation and the melting pot model was challenged by proponents of multiculturalism,[4][5] who assert that cultural differences within society are valuable and should be preserved, proposing the alternative metaphor of the mosaic, salad bowl or "American Kaleidoscope" – different cultures mix, but remain distinct.[6][7]

If the majority of voters do not want the government to build solidarity, or to build it against the status quo, then the only way the government can legitimately pursue such an agenda is to label it a constitutional or human right.

You seem to be writing from an exclusively US point of view. In much of the world governments don't act like that at all (think of France, with their agenda of protecting the French language).

Looking from outside at the US it seems to me that the overt patriotism that is almost uniquely widespread in the US is a shared value promoted by the government.

What is the government really responsible for?

Large and long-term investments. Acting strategically over decades on behalf of millions of people. Most organisations aren't in a position to be acting on those scales.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com