Hacker News Reader

Comment by stareatgoats | Hacker News Reader

> Government regulation is one tool in the drawer, but it's not a very good one for causing sweeping societal change

So you at least acknowledge a role for the government in this. Just as I acknowledge that private companies can have a positive impact. Maybe what we both need to do is to isolate the hardline extremists in each camp (people that can only see government solutions in one, and people that can only see private solutions in the other), and find rational solutions to the problem. Which is sort of what I want to accomplish with this thread, sorry if it was over the top provocative.

View on HN

> So you at least acknowledge a role for the government in this.

No.

I mean, "attempt to kill everyone who doesn't agree precisely with me, and take over the whole world and run it precisely the way I see fit" is also a tool in the drawer. Acknowledging the fact that some people choose to take that path, and that it is a tool that this tool-using species uses sometimes, does not in any way signal my acceptance or endorsement of such a choice.

I don't think that everyone that is entirely opposed to government-based solutions to the problem (or even entirely opposed to the concept of a government or a state in general) is a "hardline extremist".

Aha, I see. Well, extremism is a relative term, depending on environment. In certain cryptocurrency circles I'm sure your stance is normal, in society at large it's rather extreme though, as is equating "kill everyone who doesn't agree with me" with government action in any way.

The problem with this line of argument from my point of view is you oppose and obstruct highly needed government action on principle, without providing an alternative solution. The plan to offer billionaires a new start on other planets doesn't count as an alternative, sorry.

But as mentioned before, if you have an alternative solution to the problem of the constantly accumulating toxins in the environment that subtracts government action from the equation up your sleeve, I'm all ears.

I really appreciate that you’re open to a conversation, it made for an interesting thread.

I can offer an alternate solution to accumulating toxins, which may or may not be comprehensive: Property rights.

Pollution is a tragedy of the commons situation. If people owned, not just land, but whatever encompasses the pollution, there would be incentive not to pollute their own property.

So my proposed solution would require defining property in a way that includes ownership of the pollution.

Government enforces property rights, so this does rely partly on government.

Alright, let’s say it was possible to track all pollution to its polluter, and you could assign ownership. Then what? Tax or fine the polluters? Isn’t that basically the same as regulating the polluting industries in the first place?

> Well, extremism is a relative term, depending on environment

Sure, but "hardline extremist" means something in particular, and is not a generic term to refer to any outlying behavior or view.

You can't label someone a "hardline extremist" (with all of the associated connotation that entails) for having reasonable views shared by many millions of others, and then pedal it back with "it's a relative term".

> is you oppose and obstruct highly needed government action

Nobody's obstructing anything, first off, but I absolutely oppose action that's undertaken at gunpoint (or threat of same). There are vastly better ways (from a standpoint of morality, efficiency, and effectiveness) of getting people to act in coordination in their own interests than threatening them with guns and cages, which is the only authority a government has to achieve things.

> I don't think that everyone that is entirely opposed to government-based solutions to the problem (or even entirely opposed to the concept of a government or a state in general) is a "hardline extremist".

It sort of does though... for the purpose of this discussion the spectrum runs from: all-government-regulated to all-individually-accomplished. So basically falling into either extreme of the spectrum (which by definition declines any other mid-point solution) is exactly the definition of “hardline extremist”.

Arguing otherwise seems to me more like you haven’t made your peace with it.

...in my personal opinion such views still have a very valid role to play in the discussion, but any successful solution will lie somewhere in the middle.

> for the purpose of this discussion the spectrum runs from: all-government-regulated to all-individually-accomplished.

I've spotted the issue. This is a false dichotomy. The government is just an abstraction over a group, like any other; literally nobody who is suggesting that government-based solutions aren't good are advocating for individual accomplishment outside of groups.

The government has no hands and no brain; all actions undertaken under color of the state are carried out by "individual" humans.

Nobody's saying that coordination amongst people in large groups isn't required.

If there is a 'spectrum', it's "individuals" vs "groups", or it's "compulsory groups, on threat of violence" (the state) vs "voluntary association" (how almost every other group in our society works - and 100% of the effective ones).

You can't meaningfully threaten world-class, creative, hardworking people into being maximally efficient and effective. You need a carrot, not a stick, and the only solutions the state provides are based on their ability to print cash (already not a problem if you're effective and productive), or a stick.

So what tool would you rather use, rather than our special-purpose tool for collective action?

How is "don't have the government regulate anything and hope that individuals spontaneously organize into a solution with no input" any different than not doing anything at all?

>I don't think that everyone ...entirely opposed to the concept of a government or a state in general is a "hardline extremist".

Oh. Oddly, most people do find anarchy an extreme position.

Government is not an effective tool for societal change in democracies because, by definition, they require society to want those changes. For instance, although homosexuality has been a political issue for decades, gay marriage was never legalized until a majority of the population supported it. Private enterprise provided support for "significant others" long before this happened. Private enterprise is on the leading edge of many changes today: How many genders can you identify as on Facebook? ...how about at the DMV?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com