I think you misunderstood my point. I meant who should decide for someone else what he/she ought to work on? Who should decide for someone else what kind of world that person should want to live in?
Most modern democratic governments already regulate their financial markets, and already invest in research grants, infrastructure projects and support for start ups. The fact is, providing incentives to work towards long term goals is exactly the kind of thing that free markets aren't good at.
To claim that markets are not "good" at this kind of optimization entails the belief that they should be.
I'd argue that capital allocation in the face of risk and uncertainty is a hard problem, and that while governments (in their role as infrastructure providers) make the problem easier, they (governments in their role as social planners) enact policies to alter the risk landscape to achieve desirable social/economic ends and sometimes rents for specific interest groups.
Yes. And this is a GOOD thing. Because society as a whole (not to mention the human fucking species) is better off when certain special interest groups are advantaged: Children. The Elderly. Parents. Altruistic people. Social services. Healthcare. Investment in basic science research. Space exploration. Protecting the environment.
...and when certain people are disadvantaged: Killers. Psychopaths. Rapists. Thieves. Bullies. People who exploit market inefficiencies. Monopolists. Oligarchs that buy elections and bribe politicians. Aristocrats who throw their weight around to abuse and bully.
If you think certain types of people ("special interest groups") should NOT receive advantages or disadvantages based on their value to the human species... well... then you are f u c k i n g d u m b.
Who decides these things? WE DO. SOCIETY. YES, LIBERTARIANS, SOCIETY IS REAL.
The worst atrocities of history are generally Government power run amok, where governments use propaganda mechanisms to rally the public into a frenzy and then do horrible things (like the Iraq war, Holocaust, etc.)
There is a big difference between the constructive activities of governments (solving coordination problems, building roads and other infrastructure, basic criminal justice) and the perverse social engineering that corrupt governmental organizations seem to universally gravitate toward.
Most of these events had some measure of popular support. Many people wanted to put the Japanese in camps. Many people wanted to rid Europe of Jews. A lot of Americans wanted the Iraq war, and a lot of Americans want prisons to be horrible, believing we're a Christian nation and that a Christian nation should punish the wicked and smite the infidels. It is, I think, a mistake to presume that government even in the act of tyranny necessarily separates people from the better angels of their nature through deception or coercion.
However government is viewed by many as a legitimate purveyor of lethal force, both locally (everything from cops w/ guns to the death penalty) and remotely (intercontinental missile strikes, rendition, and foreign occupation).
Since governments typically have significant control over the media (by being able to classify information or more direct measures) there exists a significant self-perpetuating propaganda regime, which I think calls into question the basic legitimacy government is thought to enjoy, and along with it the mandate to use lethal force.
Most of the things we consider atrocities are the abuse of lethal force. When a militia member in Africa forces a child to murder his parents, we consider that unequivocally wrong, yet when a government murders his parents we consider that a legitimate projection of lethal force, perhaps only b/c we don't know the details.
So while governments do have some legitimacy and do a lot of good, the basic structures (consent, monopoly on coercion, and propaganda) are ripe for abuse and (I'd argue) transition into covert/improper use of force as they stabilize and their purpose becomes widely viewed as oriented toward peacetime activities.
I agree with you. But I also feel that cynicism, while justifiable and oftentimes necessary, can itself be a blinder to the degree to which the faults of government can tend to take root in any power structure of any significance. Government can fall prey to abuse, and often does, but this doesn't necessarily mean that a lack of government in and of itself will limit abuse where any one group of people has any power over another. If government isn't a legitimate purveyor of lethal force or significant social planning then who or what is?
Absolutely.
>cynicism, while justifiable and oftentimes necessary, can itself be a blinder
I agree with this as well, and think that the proper course of action for the individual citizen is to uphold his civic duty and actively dissent, rather than merely resorting to cynicism.
Dissent can take many forms, but generally ought to provide a check to the tendency of government (or any kind of institution) to abuse its' power.
Parents decide how to raise their kids.
Bosses decide how their employees will act.
Elected leaders decide on what norms the country will have.
You are promoting a kind of ridiculous individualism that is completely disconnected from reality. No one is an island. We all exist in a community and a society and the rules of our society are determined--ideally--through mutual discussion, thinking, negotiation, agreement.
"Who should decide for someone else?" WTF are you talking about? Society should decide social issues. That's who.
"Who should decide?" The appropriate authorities that have been selected by social processes to have that authority. Your question is so fucking dumb because it pretends to be oblivious to the fact that legitimate authorities are put into power precisely because the community has delegated the job of deciding to them.
Your question amounts to saying "It's wrong that the legitimate authorities who have been elected, selected, chosen to decide questions within their sphere are making decisions within their sphere! What right do those legitimate community chosen leaders have to make decisions on behalf of the community!?"
Fucking idiot. The community leaders have the legitimate authority to make the community decisions precisely because the entire purpose of their office, and the reason they were put in that office, is so that they would and could make those decisions.
You're begging the question. "Who should decide?" is a retarded libertarian talking point that just emphasizes how little you understand co-operation and the entire fucking purpose of government.
"Who should decide?" The fucking GOVERNMENT. THAT IS WHY THEY EXIST. TO BE THE ONES WHO DECIDE.
Why do you consider yourself someone who understands people?
Also, why do you use profanity in your HN comments. Profanity can certainly add some rhetorical impact at times, but your use of it comes off a bit more like trolling than rhetoric.
I'm educated because, factually, I am fucking educated. Computer nerds--even the ones with computer science degrees who are fewer and fewer these days--always receive extremely narrow technical educations and are complete idiots when it comes to anything that isn't code. This is why they are libertarians. Libertarianism is the dumbest mass movement since puritanism. It's utterly bankrupt of culture and can only exist in the minds of people who severely overestimate their knowledge.
I come here to vent my hatred for libertarians. There are lots of libertarians here. They think the best way to solve major social issues is literally to do nothing and have no government, no community, no society. It's the dumbest ideology ever but it's very well funded by Koch, Thiel, etc. The Tea Party and austerity politics are the achievements of libertarians.
In my perfect world libertarian billionaires would be convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death.
First, the profanity does not add any kind of flourish to your writing. I'm not the least bit offended by profanity. I'm just mentioning to you that your use of it is awkward, like toilet paper stuck to a shoe. Whether I agree with your point or not it just makes it worse than it would have otherwise been and does not add the zing or oomph you apparently think it does. It also feels to me a bit like the way a non-native speaker of English might mimic "everyman" use of profanity he'd seen depicted in a movie.
Second, for someone who claims to value community and society you are not engaging in a constructive discussion or making any kind of argument. If you have any intelligence or education it is certainly not evident from your remarks. No disrespect if you are actually educated or intelligent, but my guess at this point is that you are a 10 year old kid trolling for laughs and trying to learn Ruby on Rails.
It's not about offending people, it's about venting my feelings. I'm aware that I'm just yelling into a void. But venting is it's own reward.
Also I'm definitely not going to put any thought or work into a hacker news comment. Don't throw your pearls before swine and all that.
What HN never fails to offer up to me is libertarians such as yourself who indulge my rants and raves. So thank you. Like a 50 year old fat man showing his penis on ChatRoulette, your talking to me makes me feel like I have an audience.
Give HN a chance and please desist from deliberately polluting it.