Hacker News Reader

Comment by demallien | Hacker News Reader

None of us is an island. Taxes are the money that we pay to make our society civilised, and to provide the services necessary to allow those of talent to rise up above the crowd, instead of those that inherited wealth accreting ever more power. There are exactly zero examples of meritocracies without taxes in history, but plenty of examples of countries with taxes where someone with talent can rise to the top. I know which I prefer.

I wonder if John realises that a reduction in taxes could very well destroy the future of the next Carmack coming up through grade school in a modest neighbourhood right now.

View on HN

The gist of Carmack's statement is that government delivers poor ROI, expands into inappropriate roles and obfuscates how much consumers spend on it. I didn't read "without taxes" or "reduction in taxes" anywhere; I read that Carmack thinks things are trending in the wrong direction.

I wonder if demallien realizes that not reducing the number of carrier strike groups (currently _eleven_) could very well destroy the future of the next demallien coming up through grade school in a modest neighborhood right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#The_U.S._N...

But the government that delivers this poor ROI has produced John Carmack. Who is to say that some of the "inefficiencies" in the system did not lead to John becoming the person he is today?

The results depends on what is being measured. If you're measuring dollars in vs. dollars out, then that is one thing. But if your measuring the "number of John Carmack's produced" then the government is 100% efficient.

It's not unlike someone climbing Mount Everest and then looking back and saying "Mount Everest is easy to climb". From the perspective of the person who has successfully made the climb, it is easy. But you can't apply that perspective to the vast majority who have not made the climb.

But the government that delivers this poor ROI _today_ has produced John Carmack _many_years_ago._ My reading of the linked article is that ROI is trending in the wrong direction.

Systemic inefficiencies or the flying spaghetti monster may have lead to the personage of John Carmack. To me, the article didn't sound like he wants to remove the ladder now that he is up; it sounded like he thinks that ladder is becoming less stable for everyone.

"But the government that delivers this poor ROI has produced John Carmack"

I don't think the man did anything to deserve such an insulting blow.

"Who is to say that some of the "inefficiencies" in the system did not lead to John becoming the person he is today?"

If you are going to argue that it's government efficiencies that "produce" creative, productive men, rather than their parents and their own effort -- I think the burden of proof is on you. Good luck.

"But if your measuring the "number of John Carmack's produced" then the government is 100% efficient."

You are arguing that "as long as there is just one talented, capable person growing up in North Korea, its government is doing a splendid job and deserves all its powers. So much so they would be granted to it voluntarily by the people, even if they hadn't outgunned them in the first place.

"But you can't apply that perspective to the vast majority who have not made the climb."

What's your point here relating to this discussion?

Poor ROI might be better expressed by examining the defense budget itself, particularly when one remembers that the US defense budget is 46% of the military expenditures of the ENTIRE WORLD. http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/10/country-distrib...

Also consider that defense spending is 51% of discretionary spending and almost $500 billion more than any other discretionary spending category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budg...

Imagine if the company you worked for (or started) decided it was going to spend 51% of it's discretionary operational expenditures on a security system and security guards, yet there were furious debates about whether or not to provide health insurance to all employees? Also remember that the likelihood of being a victim of terrorism is less than that of winning the lottery.

> Taxes are the money that we pay to make our society civilised.

I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized. I think it makes sense to have the government help in the enforcement of contracts to some degree, through modest fees and/or taxes.

> provide the services necessary to allow those of talent to rise up above the crowd

I'm sure John C wouldn't advocate throwing orphans and disadvantaged children into a "dog eat dog" world. In a longer essay he would agree with you that children need to be cared for by society and that this requires tax money to some degree. His argument is focused towards how competent adults should be treated. Once a person reaches a certain level of adulthood, giving him/her additional resources through government programs (in the millions of different ways the government distributes money, directly or indirectly) is a very inefficient proposition.

> There are exactly zero examples of meritocracies without taxes in history

At one point there was no state in history in which women could vote. At one point there was no state in history in which slavery was abolished. Sometime you need to buck history to progress.

That said, I don't think it's clear who to cast a vote for to accomplish John C's goals- It's hard to know who the candidates are who "vector in that direction." Even though I agree with the thesis that "less government is usually better" I still end up voting mostly for Democrats, since the Republicans in recent history seem anti-rationalist to me. Rationality is a necessary ingredient.

Just because the Tea Party folks say "let's decrease government programs" doesn't mean casting a vote for them is actually a step towards accomplishing that goal. I'm sure if they got power they would think _their_ government programs would be a fine way to spend money.

> In a longer essay he would agree with you that children need to be cared for by society and that this requires tax money to some degree.

Yes. Actually children could probably be provided for to a large extent with charity. Though I imagine less sexy causes are more in need of public money.

> Actually children could probably be provided for to a large extent with charity.

I wish I wasn't a cynic and could believe that.

>I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized.

That's a businessman's perspective; there are a lot of other players and concerns in society. What about caring for the environment, enforcing better safety regulations, enforcing better work conditions, etc?

> What about caring for the environment...

I'm familiar with the "tragedy of the commons" issue but there just isn't any clear evidence that:

    More government spending -> better environment

What do you think all this government money is going towards? A lot of it is used to run cars and do other things that hurt the environment. Do you think this whole "government stimulus" stuff made the environment better off?

> ...enforcing better safety regulations...

I won't argue with you that the government does a fantastic job creating more regulations of all kinds :)

> ...enforcing better work conditions, etc?

Again, the benefit of government here is tenuous. Sure, some things they do might help, but these benefits need to be weighed against the "opportunity costs" of what else could have been done with that tax money.

The environment is taken care of when it's privately owned. People take care of their own properties. Safety regulations and working conditions are improved via the free market and productivity increases and, to a much lesser extent, by the tort system which punishes unreasonable behavior.

Someone modded you down and ran off, but I wish they'd stuck around to talk about whether the worst safety/environmental hazards have been traditionally associated with governments or corporations.

Those who'd argue "corporations", usually mean big businesses operating in corrupt countries. They are right with their examples, say Shell in Nigeria or where was it -- but Government is usually involved too in these cases.

From a pure capitalist point of view, there will always be isolated instances of short-term enterprises destroying the source of their wealth --- their river, land, fishing or hunting grounds --- but the ones that will logically prevail are those that protect and future-proof their resources for long-term wealth gains, especially when the investment is very high (talk about oil, mining etc.) so that the return on investment will need to be earned over decades. It is not in the interest of the farmer to devalue his land. It is not in the interest of the fisher to exterminate all fish.

It may well be in the interest of global corporations to drain the natural resources of poor countries where the land is granted by the government rather than privately owned and only the short-term monetary gain matters to both parties. But libertarians also make a credible case that Big Corporations would have a much tougher time, and would be a lot smaller, in government-free or minimal-government environments.

> At one point there was no state in history in which women could vote. At one point there was no state in history in which slavery was abolished. Sometime you need to buck history to progress.

There however were places without central government or tax collectors. Like Somalia, or Afghanistan.

...in which you can't trade (because of theft) and no one enforces contracts.

... and there is no enforcement of contracts, and lots of theft, because... no-one paid taxes for the police, judicary, and prison system See the problem?

Money is not a problem in education. Second, his critique was mainly aimed at the federal government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com