I've been both sexually harassed at work and groped by strangers when out on the town (by a woman) - but yeah, I agree with your larger point. I think it's certainly more prevalent the other way around.
I got groped by some passing female tailgaters when I was just walking down the street minding my own business listening to a podcast. It was very startling.
Do we? How do you draw that conclusion from the data? Personality disorders seem to be fairly resistant to treatment/therapy, and certainly more than 1% of the population has issues with mental health, yet they don’t seem to commit crimes at such an alarming rate.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t think your conclusion is directly supported by this study.
You've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's an abuse of this site, regardless of which ideology you're promulgating, because it destroys the intellectual curiosity which the site is for.
Since (a) the site guidelines explicitly ask you not do this; (b) you've ignored our recent request to stop doing this, and (c) you've been using multiple accounts to do it in this thread, we've banned this account.
Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with.
No, but it's important that we control and police language and shove PC culture into your head at absolutely any opportunity and just grind and grind and grind away at any artifact of traditional culture.
Case in point - see the 900 post Tesla Falcon Heavy thread, where the majority of the discussion centered around a tangential point over gender expectations.
Considering that traditional culture in my perspective includes racism, sexism, and homophobia, I'll have to pass on whatever point you're trying to make right now
Not at all - I abhor racism, sexism, and homophobia. My point has more to do with our general indulgence in materialism, offensive and gaudy cultural products (such as music that is highly denigrating and much of TV), a general contempt for anything religious or sacred, and our habit of placing relatively minor issues on the pedestal, while doing little in the way of pursuing policy that would benefit most people.
I dont think any of this is under attack by means of the "minor issues" that are addressed on HN sometimes. Everyone has their own cause to champion and I think that the ones you've mentioned are worthy things to address. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.
Maybe because it's a ridiculously vague and abstruse question that presupposes a set of ideas that libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter, never set out to directly answer?
Libertarianism is simply a political framework which we can use to see and interpret the world. It can be combined with other frameworks to help us reach even deeper levels of understand (or perhaps not).
The right-libertarian could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels.
A left-libertarian, maybe someone with a strong civil libertarian persuasion, could argue that the non-aggression principle is being violated by the emissions of greenhouse gasses. They would then establish an "emissions rights" framework, and perhaps a marketplace to address the issue.
> could argue that the best solution is a competitive marketplace that will fuel hyper-economic growth, and accelerate the rate at which we develop technologies that allow us to ween off of fossil fuels
Or ween of dependence on climate. All these green arguments start from a false premise that human interference is the only threat to the stability of our ecosystem, ignoring extinction events and natural catastrophes that we know can be as impactful as global warming (and more). Instead of being conservative and hoping for the best if we stop burning stuff we should be discussing how to deal with a more volatile climate in general.
Debatable - some of us hold taxation to be tantamount to theft, so we believe in the exact opposite. I'm not here to debate or change your mind though, just offering a perspective.
> America made it possible for them to start a company like that....
What do you mean by "America" made it possible? Steve Jobs, Wozniak, and all the other people who worked there made it possible.
> people gave the a shitload of money,
No one "gave" them money. They voluntarily purchased a product or service.
> It doesn't matter if one is obliged by law to do something or not.
Yes it does.
> I don't have to offer an old lady my seat on the bus, but what kind of piece of shit doesn't do that?
Please don't use HN for generic ideological battle. It's far away from what this site is for. Worse, destroys what it is for, so the well-being of the forum needs people to abstain from it here.
> some of us hold taxation to be tantamount to theft, so we believe in the exact opposite
How do you like those roads you've used to go to work or shopping. Or that power/water/gas infrastructure. Or the public health system. Or maybe the emergency services? How about the legal system?
They're all paid for by taxes. If you live in a country where this takes place the price is that you pay tax to contribute to the development, upkeep and use of said system. If you don't like it, I'm sure you can find a 3rd world country somewhere where you can fulfill your libertarian wet dream of building all your own infrastructure.
> What do you mean by "America" made it possible? Steve Jobs, Wozniak, and all the other people who worked there made it possible.
And what country did they live in that afforded them the education, resources and economy to support their work? People don't flock to America and SF to make startups because they like bay views and paying exorbitant rent. They go there because of the economic and social circumstances are favourable to starting and running a business.
As I explained to your enemy upthread, ideological battle is exactly what this is site isn't for and we need you guys to take it elsewhere. Please don't post like this to HN.
Thanks for the reminder; and to think that I've spent a lifetime just assuming that public infrastructure grew out of the ground, like grass.
Look, I said I wasn't trying to change the guy's mind or debate. This isn't anything new, we've discussed this about a million times and I'm sure we'll never agree on the proper role and scope of taxation. My statement was simply a counterpoint to the completely undefended and unqualified idea that "Eluding taxes is super-unethical."
>And what country did they live.....
Ah yes, the cosmic effects that we must pay tribute to because we happened to be in the right place at the right time. If we're headed down that route, "America" deserves about as much credit as the invention of mathematics, or at the very least, the computer. Maybe we should thank Steve's mother. We can go down the line infinitely. The point is, people create, build, and make things, and it's those people that should be attributed and credited.
I've known many "low-class" wealthy people. Likewise, I've met some incredible snobby, "upper-class" people who were not very wealthy, mainly intellectuals and artists.
> There is a moral failing in our country where the pursuit of money is seen as the objective optimal thing to do. But it's very reasonable to look at how money changes people, and to turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust.
It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism.
One could look at poor communities, and, as you said "turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust" and choose enrich themselves.
I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. Going deeper, they seem to me to be an essential component of civilization, one of the many necessary "glues" of social order.
edit: This site is slowly turning into Reddit - contrarian opinions need not apply. Instead of down-votes, why not rebut what I said? It's not like the matter is settled, and the last couple times the populous tried to "abolish" social classes, mass terror followed.
>edit: This site is slowly turning into Reddit - contrarian opinions need not apply. Instead of down-votes, why not rebut what I said? It's not like the matter is settled, and the last couple times the populous tried to "abolish" social classes, mass terror followed.
Now now relax. You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good because they glue our society together. You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that?
>It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism.
Sure but the veneration is usually weak, it's akin to the 'noble savage' - the 'hardworking blue-collar.' It's veneration at a distance, contact between the wealthy and the poor is frequently uncomfortable for both.
>One could look at poor communities, and, as you said "turn away from such a lifestyle in disgust" and choose enrich themselves.
You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models.
>I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions. Going deeper, they seem to me to be an essential component of civilization, one of the many necessary "glues" of social order.
Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why?
We can have a sensible discussion without condescension.
> You're in a thread about class and you're saying that class distinctions are good......You don't think those people who have experienced the bottom are going to have a reaction to that?
I've "experienced bottom" and I don't really find what I said to be inflammatory or offensive, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves, it's rather quite self-evident.
>You make it sound so easy! But it's not, growing up in a poor community frequently means growing up in poor schools with poor opportunities, no mentors and rare role models.
I'm familiar with how "easy" or not it is - I've lived it. If you graduate high school and don't have a kid before you are married, you're pretty much guaranteed to enter the middle-class.
> Would you say the same thing about racial distinctions? If not, why?
What exactly do you mean? Do I think that racially homogeneous societies exhibit more social order? I don't know, that to me sounds like a question for a social scientist or sociologist. I don't find it to be analogous to what we're talking about here though, as one cannot change their race, but many are socially mobile.
>We can have a sensible discussion without condescension.
Fair.
>I've "experienced bottom" and I don't really find what I said to be inflammatory or offensive, if we're willing to be honest with ourselves, it's rather quite self-evident.
Well no. It may be self-evident when you're honest with yourself but when "we're" honest with "ourselves" it's not at all, hence the downvotes and disagreement in the replies.
>I'm familiar with how "easy" or not it is - I've lived it. If you graduate high school and don't have a kid before you are married, you're pretty much guaranteed to enter the middle-class.
This is the success sequence stuff? Look it's just not very true. Almost the entirety of various 'success sequence' poverty figures can be explained by one thing: maintaining full-time work. Everything else is small or zero. Well maintaining full-time work isn't always easy! There's a variety of circumstances outside ones control which can affect your ability to maintain full-time work.
>What exactly do you mean? Do I think that racially homogeneous societies exhibit more social order? I don't know, that to me sounds like a question for a social scientist or sociologist.
You didn't need a social scientist or sociologist to declare that class distinctions are natural and helpful. Why the trepidation on race?
>I don't find it to be analogous to what we're talking about here though, as one cannot change their race, but many are socially mobile.
Are many mobile in an effortful sense though? Say I have a society where at birth we roll a bingo machine filled with balls 1-5 and we assign you to a quintile. This society would demonstrate perfect intergenerational mobility yet there would be no way to exert effort and change your circumstance - same as race. Now what if instead of a bingo machine we just had a very large 'luck' component to mobility? It's the same deal. It's not just about how many went from bottom quintile to third quintile or better, it's about how it happened.
>This is the success sequence stuff? Look it's just not very true. Almost the entirety of various 'success sequence' poverty figures can be explained by one thing: maintaining full-time work
This isn't true, and a random blog post where the author has difficulty replicating the studies results does not prove it so. There is a mile high pile of literature that shows marriage and high school graduation to be vitally important. It would not surprise me in the least that these two are strongly correlated with full-time employment. The "Success Sequence" has lifted more people from poverty than any social welfare program has to date.
>You didn't need a social scientist or sociologist to declare that class distinctions are natural and helpful. Why the trepidation on race?
I genuinely still have absolutely no idea what you are asking me to clarify, and I'm taking offense at your insinuation that I'm being coy about some matter regarding race. I will gladly answer your question, but what is it that you are asking or need clarification on? Are you asking me if racial distinctions are natural? Yes, race is hereditary, is this not self-evident?
> Are many mobile in an effortful sense though?
I don't know what you mean by effortful, so the best I can answer you is to say that socially mobility is a very real and recognized phenomena in the United States of America.
>This society would demonstrate perfect intergenerational mobility yet there would be no way to exert effort and change your circumstance
As far as I understand you, your underlying premise here is that social mobility is, like a dice roll, pure luck. I think this premise is completely baseless.
>'luck' component to mobility? It's the same deal
It absolutely isn't the same deal. I don't doubt that race makes it more difficult for some people to succeed, but this is completely tangential and I'm finding it difficult to see what, if anything, this has to do with my original statement.
> It's also very easy and PC to venerate the poor out of some misguided sense of pity or moral absolutism.
No one genuinely aspires to be destitute. The poor are seen as noble in some aspects, but that's often a defense mechanism from the extreme wealth on the other site of the spectrum.
> I'm also not entirely, or even in the least bit, convinced that our society, institutions, social structures, and general well-being would be better off WITHOUT class distinctions.
I did not mean to imply that we should therefore demolish all class distinctions. But we certainly need introspection, and unfortunately rich perspectives are popularized by default (see film and social media examples cited earlier).
Just because classes are necessary does not mean our attitude towards classes is healthy.
Class distinction and hierarchy are precisely the sort of social mechanisms that convince people that there exists alternatives to certain modes of living (class aspiration).
What they are going to create a new class? Move up to the next one? Class mobility is a fallacy that was invented to support the hierarchy. Its not an alternative system in any sense.
This is patently false. Social mobility is entirely possible, although it has gotten harder since the 1980's, but that wasn't your claim.
> that was invented to support the hierarchy
The hierarchy doesn't need "support". Class and social hierarchy has been observed in every culture since time immemorial. The radical and unfounded claim is the notion that we can "remove" it in any meaningful sense.
> Its not an alternative system in any sense.
Moving into a new social class impacts your life in every conceivable way, from the way you speak, dress, behave, to the job you perform. On an individual level, it absolutely would resemble "systemic" changes to both one's material and immaterial life.
No, everyone likes work. We call it "hobbies" when its not formally productive and "vocations" when it is. Capitalism, as a system, is awful at allocating this work that people love to the people who love it. They either can't at all, or they are forced to fit it around wasted time, or they have to gamble on trying to build it up from nothing, and often losing their stake and their beloved work.
> Capitalism, as a system, is awful at allocating this work that people love to the people who love it.
It's significantly better at it than the alternatives.
Even UBI. Sure UBI sounds great in principle, you'll be given enough to live on and you can spend your time doing whatever takes your fancy, but in large-scale practice I don't see it working.
Making the majority of the population dependent on the government for their income is not something that has historically worked well.
One, they're not dependent on the government. Only on a society organized to redistribute wealth so as to prevent scarcity, in the broadest sense of the term. Could be anarchic or contributory in a different social climate.
Two, the idea is not that people will goof off all day. Some yeah. Most, no. Most people will find work they like doing and do it. What does go away, however, is the fear of failure, unemployment and poverty. So they will have much better options to search for their most effective niche, rather than leaping in panic upon the first offer.
One, there is no practical way to roll this out across an entire society without government involvement. Businesses and wealthy benefactors can make it work for small trials, but large scale society level in a western democracy? It will need government involvement, and even if you try to do it without them, they will stick their nose in it anyway whether you like it or not.
Two, ideas and reality are very different things. The idea of communism is that everyone is provided for and people give what they can and only take what they need. Sounds great, very altruistic. In reality, it's been a nightmare everywhere it has ever been implemented at a societal level because the idea fails to take in to account human nature. UBI proponents overlook or understate this factor too.
> Capitalism, as a system, is awful at allocating this work that people love to the people who love it.
It's actually pretty good at it. The really fulfilling jobs like nursing or teaching go to those who are willing to sacrifice most other luxuries to do them; those who don't get a fulfilling job get more consumption to make up for it. Enjoyable work is a commodity like anything else.
The utopia vision as I understand it behind UBI is that automation takes care of most / all of the work people don't want to do.
I think the biggest challenge to this utopia vision (assuming automation gets to this point) is more that, frankly, labor is not wealth. Land is land for instance regardless of what is automated or not. Rent seeking for various things is rather common, most of which automation will not touch. I can envision strong resistance to any sort of UBI scheme from this group (some of this group frankly seem to not even care for our current safety nets now).
Before we go through a true "post work" phase, we'll probably go through a phase where service oriented jobs are the norm -- this is also harder to automate away completely, although probably not near impossible like tackling assets and rent-seeking. The main problem here is that this side of the workforce is currently rather undervalued IMHO. So if one wants improvements in the world of work, I personally think putting more efforts here would be better vs. banking on UBI.
Or, with enough automation, the world would be making leaps of progress in a variety of areas of human interest, because everybody is pursuing their true interests.
The idea being that we automate, design away or do without as much as possible of the scutwork and pay the remainder handsomely. Then people can do the things they like - which may well be highly useful, they just aren't what capitalism will pay for.
Yeah, I agree with you there, but it seems to me that power and politics are a fact of life, like the air that we breathe or food that we eat. Maybe we can clean up the air or cook nicer things, but they will always be there.
Part of the problem, I think, is that most people like work. When people sense their hours are spent on fruitless or simple tasks, or they're not valued for it ("low skill" jobs) it's frustrating. Accomplishing things, making progress, solving problems ... these are very satisfying aspects to "work.". But how many jobs offer that regularly?
I have a more aggressive timeline than most on the spread of automation (a catch-all for job replacement, obsolescence, changing labor market). I'm of the opinion there will be a significant shift on our lifetime with whatever social repercussions and accommodations follow. But I don't think people will ever stop "working."
There is nothing wrong with working and liking your work. I have a passion for music and coding, working all day. Problem is that most people need to work for another reason; $$$ instead of passion, to avoid ending up in the streets. That's more like slavery.
I like to work. If I had a choice, I would be using my skills for something more directly beneficial to mankind than what I do now. Unfortunately, that just doesn't pay as well, and I have student loans and other financial obligations to worry about.
After long unemployment period and bad times, I need work, not the social thing, just the activity.
I guess to some, the fact to be doing something is better than the job being interesting, a career, well paying .. (as long as it's not to extreme of course)
btw, I believe that we're wired to like work as a basis for social bonding (if you believe that social bonding was selected to help for survival, and work is basically mutualized survival). So doing something in group is probably always good as long as the group factor is good enough (aka not being slaves)
No. Work is a hobby for me. I enjoy the process of working, progressing, doing something. I don't really have any other hobbies that I wish I could be doing all day. We have to have something to wake up and do everyday, otherwise life is very boring and just a waiting game until the end of our days.
If people don't enjoy their work, their mission should be to keep looking until they find something that suits them. It's worth the effort finding something that you enjoy doing everyday.
Sort of, I’ve washed dishes for a living, bussed tables at an Outback steakhouse, worked as a line cook, stocked groceries at Kroger, and am now a professional software engineer and hobbyist artist.
My favorite gig was probably stocking groceries, as I enjoyed my coworkers and working at night.
Almost all of these jobs have been “truly boring”, but I’ve also been unemployed and completely without direction. That period of my life was very difficult, and I found that work, no matter how boring the job is, afforded me a dignity and purpose that I couldn’t find anywhere else. Of course, others may feel differently, and I understand that.
