Hacker News Reader

I think you misread the comment you're replying to.

People are not entitled to ignore all externalities that cause discomfort to others. For example, creating toxic pollution that spreads to people around you and forcing them to pay the cost of cleanup is not OK, but you're suggesting it is? If you were affected by this kind of pollution, would you just shrug and say, "It's OK for them to ignore this externality?"

And the part about not paying for public goods that you use, you seem to have misread as "not using public goods that you don't pay for".

People are upset with the AirBNB guy in the article because he's causing problems for the neighbors, and profiting because he's ignoring regulations. It's profiting off the backs of other people, so he's more like a leecher than any Ayn Randian hero.

> It's frightening to imagine a world in which we force Alice to pay for her neighbor's renovations,

we already live in this world, and you haven't even noticed:

NYC Build it Back program: http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/html/home/home.shtml

"Rep. Michael Grimm wants federal government to earmark $600 million for NYC 'Build it Back' program": http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/rep_michael_gri...

New York Assisted Home Performance Grants: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_C...

low interest housing renovation loans from NYC: http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/1869/housing-renov...

e.g. just in new york there's plenty of publicly (or in the case of assisted home performance, ratepayer funded, e.g. a tax on energy bills) funded housing renovation programs.

> If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of marketshare as a result, she has likely caused discomfort for the employees of her company's competitors. It's frightening to imagine a world in which Alice is forced to stop performing as well because of her competitors' discomfort.

I think that's the exception rather than the rule. People are expected to act competitively in their job in a way that doesn't extend to other spheres of life.

And not so long ago there was a view that there were limits on that competition; one could outdo one's competitor, but it was unseemly to press them to the point where they were forced to fire people or go bankrupt. Workers who were very successful would charge higher prices or spend less time working so as not to outcompete others too severely; companies that were very successful would license technology cheaply, or found ways to spend their money without expanding too aggressively. In the worst case, if you put a competitor out of business you were expected to acquire them on friendly terms. Many parts of the world still operate like this. It may be less efficient than the ultracapitalist way, but it's by no means "frightening".

believe it or not, some human beings try to go through life creating positive externalities, or avoiding creating negative ones... fools and value-judging tyrants, no doubt.

No, you're describing me, actually.

you're confusing me in your attempt to interfere with my karma whoring (or possibly contribute to it LOL).

if you are aware of the externality you're creating, but continuing with the activity because of even greater positive externalities, and/or exercising your rights consistent with how you would expect others to exercise them, then you're not ignoring the externality, you're taking it into account in your social calculations.

If you were ignoring it, and acting for your own benefit regardless of any externalities to others, that would be antisocial.

In TFA, it sort of seems like he is aware of the negative impact on neighbors and illegalities, but feels inexplicably entitled regardless.