7 ms·

Two things comes to mind; the author embodies "I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." And second I wish the author

Two things comes to mind; the author embodies "I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." And second I wish the author wouldn't try to ram his point about tax down. He's looking back at his life and saying taxes gave me a leg up and ignoring the places where low taxes and regulation did the same (the private school, AOL). Nobody who is libertarian argues that there should be charity or we shouldn't care for our fellow person (well nearly nobody, I'm sure their are some mean spirited people out there). The point is how efficient we do it. He's looking down the one path that happened to him but what if instead of having a military when he was young there was just lower taxes and better support for mothers would society be better off? What if instead of Pell grants there was better primary schools? What if we gave Bill Gates more money to try and make the world a better place? What if lower taxes made food cheaper so that he wouldn't have to be fed through the schools lunch program?

potatolicious 14y ago
> "Nobody who is libertarian argues that there should be charity or we shouldn't care for our fellow person (well nearly nobody, I'm sure their are some mean spirited people out there). The point is how efficient we do it." I disagree. More often than not when libertarians come around on HN the "it isn't efficient" argument seems more like a proxy for "we shouldn't do this" without sounding heartless. It's also based on a bit of blind faith that, failing any requirement to help their fellow person, people will do it on their own, at rates high enough that the people who need help will be helped. This bit of blind faith simply doesn't jive with observable reality around the world. Most of the time I see the argument made "government is inefficient, we should leave social assistance to charities" is made knowing full well that such a scheme will never work, and that the unfortunate/needy will simply be left in the cold. It's intellectually dishonest and a cheap ploy to avoid saying "well, let them die". The entire stance - or at least, the stance in the way it seems to be most commonly expressed - is fundamentally mean-spirited, made all the more galling by the disingenuous reframing.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  People are starving this very second. Instead of helping them you're sitting on your first world ass commenting on a forum. Does it not bother you they're dying and you can do something about it? Why are you so mean spirited and cold? I'd like to steal half of your property and donate it to the needy and less fortunate. So what if I steal your means of production? Sure, you'll also become poor and require my generous assistance - but that's welfare. Rinse and repeat.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "So what if I steal your means of production? Sure, you'll also become poor" This is such a huge straw man it may in fact spontaneously combust. Your post is so full of mindless rhetoric, blatant exaggeration, and outright falsehood that I feel stupid for having responded to it. If you would like to have a conversation about very important issues re: taxation, the duty of the individual (or lack thereof), and other such issues that are pertinent in our time, I would be glad to do so as soon as you are willing to talk without sounding like a raging manifesto. Good night.
    - smokeyj 14y ago
      Why is my rhetoric so offensive, but not your own? > It's intellectually dishonest and a cheap ploy to avoid saying "well, let them die". Claiming libertarians are against welfare because they secretly enjoy watching poor people die is intellectually dishonest. If you can't see the irony in this..
      - philwelch 14y ago
        In the immoral words of Paul Graham, "will you two please stop?" It's Christmas.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        TeMPOraL 14y ago
- clarky07 14y ago
  You are making an awful lot of assumptions of the way we think and what we believe with absolutely no evidence to back it up other than this is what you think we think. Maybe you should look at the stats on charitable giving and come back to this discussion. For a prominent example, Romney gave 4 million to charity last year. Meanwhile, Joe Biden gave less than half of what I did, while making 1/8 of what he did. < 4k if I remember correctly. If you insist I'll look it up but I'm just on mobile. I know this is anecdotal, but the stats across the board show huge discrepancies. Liberals want to force everyone to be taxed more, conservatives actually give their money to help people.
  - mkr-hn 14y ago
    > You are making an awful lot of assumptions of the way we think and what we believe with absolutely no evidence to back it up other than this is what you think we think. > Liberals want to force everyone to be taxed more, conservatives actually give their money to help people. Just going to leave this here
    - clarky07 14y ago
      Which would you like citations for? That liberals want higher taxes or that conservatives give more to charity?
      - mkr-hn 14y ago
        I could show you contrary citations and easily disprove your generalizations, but that's not the point. The point is that your statement was stupid and hypocritical.
        clarky07 14y ago
        How is it hypocritical? He suggested he knows what we think that is completely contrary to what we say, while I gave statements that can be backed up by data which I included anecdotal evidence of, and can give you significant evidence to back it up. His statement can't possibly be backed up with anything. I'd love to see your evidence of liberals giving more to charity. And if you have evidence of them not wanting higher taxes that'd be great news.
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  Why allow anyone to handle any of their responsibilities? There's a chance they may not, so government should be doing it.
stretchwithme 14y ago
I agree. One cannot just look back at all the things that have happened and conclude they are right because you have prospered. We have, or some do, the capacity to think in principles and what things actually provide real benefit. I happen to think people are more generous when they are free to be successful and they aren't bled to death. Even with the high taxes in the US, I read that charitable contributions are up around $300 billion. And private charity has some incentives that are absent in government charity. People are actually more careful with their own money. And when the results are obviously bad, they change what they are doing. The federal government has let many bad things happen for decades before addressing them. The disastrous public housing projects. Welfare that destroys the work ethic. It eventually changed course on these things, but not without much political wrangling. A private donor would move to change it after seeing the evidence. Worse still is the total lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement that many recipients of public money seem to have. I feel most people when receiving a gift from a private donor would say please and thank you. And if the private donor could not continue to give for some reason, they'd say thank you just the same, not harass them.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Your comment bothers me in very fundamental ways, though this is far from the first time I have seen this sentiment. At the core of it is that your entire position is based around supposition - notice the generous use of "I feel that... would...", "I happen to think", and pointing out a lot of theories - that people would spend private charity differently than government charity, that welfare destroys the work ethic, that public housing would not have been implemented if the money was in private charitable hands, that people who receive public money are ingrates, etc. Where is the empiricism that we hackers pride ourselves in? Your entire position is based on your personal behavioral model of how people think, that isn't verified against copious observations from around the world. This is, I think, a long-winded way of saying "citation desperately needed" and drawing big bold underlines beneath it. Have you actually talked to a substantial number of welfare recipients to know that they generally do feel a "total lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement"? Or, pardon the bluntness, is that entirely a personal assumption?
lumberjack 14y ago
>What if we gave Bill Gates more money to try and make the world a better place? Is this sarcasm or do you truly believe this? I hope not but if so, perhaps you should read this[1], where the particular criticism I'm concerned with is the irresponsibly zealous research funding on a malaria cure with the consequence of alienating other important fields of research that are just as important. Ironically enough this is exactly the sort of thing government funding is so notorious of, namely, ignorance or ulterior motives that lead to a less efficient budget that could have been employed is so much better ways. However, that is only one wealthy man, not enough data for a solid argument, but even on a purely rational basis, I would very much, rather the money was in a place where the general population had, at least in theory, some say on where it is to be spent. To me it seems that by going from public to private funding one is exchanging inefficiencies. The inevitable economic inefficiencies of bureaucracy for new inefficiencies in the way the money is allocated from the perspective of what benefits the citizens of the nation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  I don't have faith in any one individual or group of individual to make good decisions for all of us. That is why I believe in radical decentralization, allowing for experimentation and innovation. I completely disagree with you. I don't want the general population to have a say where Bill Gates' money goes. I want money to be in the hands of thousands of different-thinking individuals who can try to find an opportunity that the rest of us don't know about.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  You're completely free to go out and earn a couple of billion and then to spend it in the way you propose. Bill Gates gets to spend his the same way.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Here is the thing I never understand: where is all this libertarianism before people get rich on the back of our society? Bill Gates started a business in the U.S. with full notice of how our system works. It's not like we decided after the fact "hey, this guy is rich, let's take his money." Indeed, he's gotten an even better deal than he originally bargained for--taxes now are lower than they were in the 1970's and 1980's.
ams6110 14y ago
And second I wish the author wouldn't try to ram his point about tax down. He's looking back at his life and saying taxes gave me a leg up and ignoring the places where low taxes and regulation did the same (the private school, AOL). Furthermore, millions of others avail themselves of the same benefits without anything close to this result. He seems to imply that without the help of "the taxpayers" he would never have made it, but honestly both he and his mother sound like the sorts of people who would have "found a way"
confluence 14y ago
> I am a great believer in hard work. The luckier I get, the more of it I seem to be able to do. Correlation != causation. People fundamentally underestimate the complexity of the world and due to a variety of psychological factors grossly over attribute successful outcomes to personal attributes. Give some more of your hard work bullshit to people without legs. Oh yeah, you don't, because your ability to see complexity only extends to the edge of your own ego.
- rhizome 14y ago
  Not to mention a level of success that enables them to ascribe it to hard work.

potatolicious 14y ago

> "Nobody who is libertarian argues that there should be charity or we shouldn't care for our fellow person (well nearly nobody, I'm sure their are some mean spirited people out there). The point is how efficient we do it." I disagree. More often than not when libertarians come around on HN the "it isn't efficient" argument seems more like a proxy for "we shouldn't do this" without sounding heartless. It's also based on a bit of blind faith that, failing any requirement to help their fellow person, people will do it on their own, at rates high enough that the people who need help will be helped. This bit of blind faith simply doesn't jive with observable reality around the world. Most of the time I see the argument made "government is inefficient, we should leave social assistance to charities" is made knowing full well that such a scheme will never work, and that the unfortunate/needy will simply be left in the cold. It's intellectually dishonest and a cheap ploy to avoid saying "well, let them die". The entire stance - or at least, the stance in the way it seems to be most commonly expressed - is fundamentally mean-spirited, made all the more galling by the disingenuous reframing.

smokeyj 14y ago
People are starving this very second. Instead of helping them you're sitting on your first world ass commenting on a forum. Does it not bother you they're dying and you can do something about it? Why are you so mean spirited and cold? I'd like to steal half of your property and donate it to the needy and less fortunate. So what if I steal your means of production? Sure, you'll also become poor and require my generous assistance - but that's welfare. Rinse and repeat.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "So what if I steal your means of production? Sure, you'll also become poor" This is such a huge straw man it may in fact spontaneously combust. Your post is so full of mindless rhetoric, blatant exaggeration, and outright falsehood that I feel stupid for having responded to it. If you would like to have a conversation about very important issues re: taxation, the duty of the individual (or lack thereof), and other such issues that are pertinent in our time, I would be glad to do so as soon as you are willing to talk without sounding like a raging manifesto. Good night.
  - smokeyj 14y ago
    Why is my rhetoric so offensive, but not your own? > It's intellectually dishonest and a cheap ploy to avoid saying "well, let them die". Claiming libertarians are against welfare because they secretly enjoy watching poor people die is intellectually dishonest. If you can't see the irony in this..
    - philwelch 14y ago
      In the immoral words of Paul Graham, "will you two please stop?" It's Christmas.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - TeMPOraL 14y ago
clarky07 14y ago
You are making an awful lot of assumptions of the way we think and what we believe with absolutely no evidence to back it up other than this is what you think we think. Maybe you should look at the stats on charitable giving and come back to this discussion. For a prominent example, Romney gave 4 million to charity last year. Meanwhile, Joe Biden gave less than half of what I did, while making 1/8 of what he did. < 4k if I remember correctly. If you insist I'll look it up but I'm just on mobile. I know this is anecdotal, but the stats across the board show huge discrepancies. Liberals want to force everyone to be taxed more, conservatives actually give their money to help people.
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  > You are making an awful lot of assumptions of the way we think and what we believe with absolutely no evidence to back it up other than this is what you think we think. > Liberals want to force everyone to be taxed more, conservatives actually give their money to help people. Just going to leave this here
  - clarky07 14y ago
    Which would you like citations for? That liberals want higher taxes or that conservatives give more to charity?
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      I could show you contrary citations and easily disprove your generalizations, but that's not the point. The point is that your statement was stupid and hypocritical.
      - clarky07 14y ago
        How is it hypocritical? He suggested he knows what we think that is completely contrary to what we say, while I gave statements that can be backed up by data which I included anecdotal evidence of, and can give you significant evidence to back it up. His statement can't possibly be backed up with anything. I'd love to see your evidence of liberals giving more to charity. And if you have evidence of them not wanting higher taxes that'd be great news.
stretchwithme 14y ago
Why allow anyone to handle any of their responsibilities? There's a chance they may not, so government should be doing it.

stretchwithme 14y ago

I agree. One cannot just look back at all the things that have happened and conclude they are right because you have prospered. We have, or some do, the capacity to think in principles and what things actually provide real benefit. I happen to think people are more generous when they are free to be successful and they aren't bled to death. Even with the high taxes in the US, I read that charitable contributions are up around $300 billion. And private charity has some incentives that are absent in government charity. People are actually more careful with their own money. And when the results are obviously bad, they change what they are doing. The federal government has let many bad things happen for decades before addressing them. The disastrous public housing projects. Welfare that destroys the work ethic. It eventually changed course on these things, but not without much political wrangling. A private donor would move to change it after seeing the evidence. Worse still is the total lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement that many recipients of public money seem to have. I feel most people when receiving a gift from a private donor would say please and thank you. And if the private donor could not continue to give for some reason, they'd say thank you just the same, not harass them.

potatolicious 14y ago
Your comment bothers me in very fundamental ways, though this is far from the first time I have seen this sentiment. At the core of it is that your entire position is based around supposition - notice the generous use of "I feel that... would...", "I happen to think", and pointing out a lot of theories - that people would spend private charity differently than government charity, that welfare destroys the work ethic, that public housing would not have been implemented if the money was in private charitable hands, that people who receive public money are ingrates, etc. Where is the empiricism that we hackers pride ourselves in? Your entire position is based on your personal behavioral model of how people think, that isn't verified against copious observations from around the world. This is, I think, a long-winded way of saying "citation desperately needed" and drawing big bold underlines beneath it. Have you actually talked to a substantial number of welfare recipients to know that they generally do feel a "total lack of gratitude and sense of entitlement"? Or, pardon the bluntness, is that entirely a personal assumption?

lumberjack 14y ago

>What if we gave Bill Gates more money to try and make the world a better place? Is this sarcasm or do you truly believe this? I hope not but if so, perhaps you should read this[1], where the particular criticism I'm concerned with is the irresponsibly zealous research funding on a malaria cure with the consequence of alienating other important fields of research that are just as important. Ironically enough this is exactly the sort of thing government funding is so notorious of, namely, ignorance or ulterior motives that lead to a less efficient budget that could have been employed is so much better ways. However, that is only one wealthy man, not enough data for a solid argument, but even on a purely rational basis, I would very much, rather the money was in a place where the general population had, at least in theory, some say on where it is to be spent. To me it seems that by going from public to private funding one is exchanging inefficiencies. The inevitable economic inefficiencies of bureaucracy for new inefficiencies in the way the money is allocated from the perspective of what benefits the citizens of the nation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...

jacoblyles 14y ago
I don't have faith in any one individual or group of individual to make good decisions for all of us. That is why I believe in radical decentralization, allowing for experimentation and innovation. I completely disagree with you. I don't want the general population to have a say where Bill Gates' money goes. I want money to be in the hands of thousands of different-thinking individuals who can try to find an opportunity that the rest of us don't know about.
jacquesm 14y ago
You're completely free to go out and earn a couple of billion and then to spend it in the way you propose. Bill Gates gets to spend his the same way.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Here is the thing I never understand: where is all this libertarianism before people get rich on the back of our society? Bill Gates started a business in the U.S. with full notice of how our system works. It's not like we decided after the fact "hey, this guy is rich, let's take his money." Indeed, he's gotten an even better deal than he originally bargained for--taxes now are lower than they were in the 1970's and 1980's.

ams6110 14y ago

And second I wish the author wouldn't try to ram his point about tax down. He's looking back at his life and saying taxes gave me a leg up and ignoring the places where low taxes and regulation did the same (the private school, AOL). Furthermore, millions of others avail themselves of the same benefits without anything close to this result. He seems to imply that without the help of "the taxpayers" he would never have made it, but honestly both he and his mother sound like the sorts of people who would have "found a way"

confluence 14y ago

> I am a great believer in hard work. The luckier I get, the more of it I seem to be able to do. Correlation != causation. People fundamentally underestimate the complexity of the world and due to a variety of psychological factors grossly over attribute successful outcomes to personal attributes. Give some more of your hard work bullshit to people without legs. Oh yeah, you don't, because your ability to see complexity only extends to the edge of your own ego.

rhizome 14y ago
Not to mention a level of success that enables them to ascribe it to hard work.