Hacker News Reader

Comment by ikeyany | Hacker News Reader

> Even though I'm a small government, pro-markets kind of guy

There's something at the root of the American psyche that makes us deathly afraid to admit otherwise. Is it a fear of appearing weak, relying on institutions? Is it a fear of being compared to those who are on welfare?

I believe this fear is holding back many of us from discussing solutions in earnest. Social services, and the pervasive hand of the government, has a place in a healthy technologically oriented society in the 21st century. But it must be a place of transparency and low-corruption in order for our institutions to be trusted.

Or we can continue to fervently worship short-term profits over long-term pursuits, and continue to insultingly underfund research.

View on HN

I can't speak for appaters, but for me it's not a fear of appearing weak, but a fear of the power we give government.

>...the pervasive hand of the government...

This is partially what scares me. You mention that our "pervasive" government "has a place in a healthy technologically oriented society" and I agree, but I believe that it is possible to have a government that provides the services we need while have very limited powers.

As it stands most of the gross injustices that are done to the people by large corporations only happen because they have enshrined themselves in the institutions of government so as to give themselves special privileges (local monopolies, anti-competitive practices, etc).

>But it must be a place of transparency and low-corruption in order for our institutions to be trusted.

My ideal government would be afraid of its own people, that way we would not have to trust the government at all, but rather simply get rid of the institutions that did not perform their duties.

Transparency is very important and, as I'm sure many people here understand, as the complexity of a system increases the internal workings become more and more opaque.

So you're in agreement?

Yes, my comment underlines the need for "institutions", but it also emphasizes human nature and the need to make these institutions resilient to being gamed by the greedy.

> Is it a fear of appearing weak, relying on institutions? Is it a fear of being compared to those who are on welfare?

Not even remotely, and it's a little presumptive to assign these motives to people who see things differently from you. I just make an effort to play devil's advocate or try and look at the other side. At the same time I know where my philosophical roots lie. I'm anti-big government because I'm anti-concentration of power. Of course government is capable of doing good. But the more power and money you assign to it, the greater the risk of corruption.

> I'm anti-concentration of power

Where do you think power goes in a free market where the rich/powerful are already at a tremendous advantage? Wealth trickles up.

My view on this is that regulations which promote competition are an appropriate delegation of authority from the people to their democratically elected government.

I'm pro-free markets, and monopolists can do as much damage to them as the government can. Government intervention can be justified if it makes markets more free.

I'm not a Sith -- I don't deal in absolutes :)

> I'm pro-free markets, and monopolists can do as much damage to them as the government can. Government intervention can be justified if it makes markets more free.

Every libertarians failure is to not recognize that left to their own devices the "free markets" naturally always consolidate into oligopolistic cartels or a monopoly with poorer outcomes for the consumer.

The supply and demand sides are not incentive compatible and should thus always be regulated (helps with accounting for the externalities as well)

Your last line pretty much answered your own question.

Most small-government guys (myself included) distrust anything controlled by flawed humans with the power to target and totally ruin an individual at a whim. I personally hate the idea that I could build myself up from nothing and someone could conjure up a story to take my work away from me.

We are just pessimistic when it comes to institutions... yes it can bring great benefit, but you can also lose a great amount. History has shown us many examples of people striving towards utopia and ending up causing unspeakable loss.

And proselytizing our current system isn't setting up a dystopia of its own?

Despite the prevalent challenges and maladies afflicting the republic, calling the current state of affairs dystopian is hyperbole.

I said "setting up" a dystopia. You can't seriously see almost every communication being monitored, the middle class being replaced by cheap overseas/automated labor, and the amount of easily buyable lawmakers to be indicative of a sustainable, bright future?

Your question makes the assumption that our current system qualifies as "small government".

The filibuster is gone.. Trump is able to by executive order deport people and change America's course on the world stage.. Net Neutrality is being destroyed and new laws are being made to promote the big players in the market...

That's not small government. That's big government.

Okay then, I must not be sure what you envision as "small government". Did you have any examples in mind? Any examples that allow for innovation, propel a first world standard of living, and protect the rights of its citizens?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com