Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Give Back? Yes, It's Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/09/17/give-back-yes-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1/
20 comments
I definitely prefer a system that encourages widespread cooperation over anarchy.
Anarchy is widespread cooperation. In absence of violent rulers, all you can do is to voluntarily cooperate and figure out rules for this cooperation also voluntarily. Any ruler makes voluntarism very constrained and thus you cannot have neither real rules, nor debate about them. Only one-sided declarations aka "laws".
"Forced cooperation" (under democracy/socialism/monarchism) is oxymoron. Like "Yahoo cooperates with NSA". They don't cooperate, they are forced to do what they are told.
"Forced cooperation" (under democracy/socialism/monarchism) is oxymoron. Like "Yahoo cooperates with NSA". They don't cooperate, they are forced to do what they are told.
Since you reject any absolute definition of "force" and "fraud" (me too), you must be a true anarchist. Because any sort of dictated social order implies absolute definition of morality and justice. E.g. in democracy a cop supposedly represents majority in his violence (and thus it's just), or in monarchy a cop represents some god-given King (and thus it's just). In reality though, anyone who points a gun and claims justice, must present a good proof. "Majority voted for it" is not a proof, it's a yet-to-be-proven moral proposition. Usually no one bother with a proof — they assume their morality, take out a gun and go on "solving" social problems.
Example: some people support war in Syria, some don't. Everyone has their argument pro and contra. Solution number 1: those who support it may go and fight/pay for it themselves. Opposing people may pay for protection or just stay on the side. Solution number 2: a bunch of guys forces everyone to pay for it, regardless of their own opinion.
Example: some people support war in Syria, some don't. Everyone has their argument pro and contra. Solution number 1: those who support it may go and fight/pay for it themselves. Opposing people may pay for protection or just stay on the side. Solution number 2: a bunch of guys forces everyone to pay for it, regardless of their own opinion.
> Because any sort of dictated social order implies absolute definition of morality and justice
I don't believe that to be the case. Force or fraud are defined the way they are in a democratic society not because they have absolute definitions, but because that society acting through government finds particular definitions conducive to their collective prosperity. These are operating definitions, not absolute ones.
I do find myself less flexible on the question of who is entitled to dictate operating definitions of "force" and "fraud." I believe that the majority, who is charged with enforcing any definitions of those terms, is morally entitled to pick the definitions. This is my key point of disagreement with Randianism--it's morally wrong to force the majority to conform to particular definitions of "force" and "fraud" that it does not get to define.
I don't believe that to be the case. Force or fraud are defined the way they are in a democratic society not because they have absolute definitions, but because that society acting through government finds particular definitions conducive to their collective prosperity. These are operating definitions, not absolute ones.
I do find myself less flexible on the question of who is entitled to dictate operating definitions of "force" and "fraud." I believe that the majority, who is charged with enforcing any definitions of those terms, is morally entitled to pick the definitions. This is my key point of disagreement with Randianism--it's morally wrong to force the majority to conform to particular definitions of "force" and "fraud" that it does not get to define.
> An end must be put to the inhuman practice of draining the productive to subsidize the unproductive.
A good step in this direction would be omitting Forbes troll pieces on HN.
A good step in this direction would be omitting Forbes troll pieces on HN.
What a fantastic example of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
It's hard to believe this article is not a troll piece.
In the 80s this would be a Captain Obvious article. In the 90s it would have trigged a flame war. But now? I mean, he really thinks that meritocracy rules the world? And the invisible hand is the definitive answer to world's problem. He really thinks that the problem in our society is that there is not enough incentive to be wealthy?!
I might be sympathetic to his viewpoint, but the entire article seems designed to generate outrage.
It feels designed to start a flame war on HackerNews.
It feels designed to start a flame war on HackerNews.
Forbes is nearing the completion of its transformation into a click-bait machine, rather than a real news organization.
Why all the outrage? Does HN not agree with voluntary exchange?
I'm pretty sure that many of the posters belong to the top 5% and the owner probably is part of the 1%.
I'm pretty sure that many of the posters belong to the top 5% and the owner probably is part of the 1%.
The outrage is because objectivism is a fantasy that rich people use to convince them selves they are better than others. Just because I am fortunate enough to be a software developer doesn't mean I think that's fair.
Yet I'd still wager that you wouldn't part with your income if I came knocking on your door and told you that you owe me.
Poe's law? It must be satire. It contains also "modest proposal" and it sounds like one.
But it is crazy enough to be taken seriously. Can't decide.
It does reads like ludicrously exaggerated satire, but the author is Harry Binswanger, who is a board member of the Ayn Rand Institute [1] (and not, as it turns out, the only member of that board that is a regular contributor to Forbes.com.) So, its almost certainly in deadly earnest.
[1] http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=staff_board
[1] http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=staff_board
The Onion has been hitting it out of the park recently.
Is Atlas Shrugged really any good to read?
I first heard of Ayn Rand through the chapter on her in the wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things - this doesn't paint her personality as being particularly pleasant but doesn't touch on her work at all.
I first heard of Ayn Rand through the chapter on her in the wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things - this doesn't paint her personality as being particularly pleasant but doesn't touch on her work at all.
The way the author constructs strawmen of other political stances is pretty funny. In another article he wrote(http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/07/07/capit...), it reads:
>Despite their multiculturalism and relativism, in practice the Left does not treat morality as up for grabs, as subjectively “in the eye of the beholder.” They assert moral absolutes, while still mouthing their official doctrine: “There are no absolutes.”
>Despite their multiculturalism and relativism, in practice the Left does not treat morality as up for grabs, as subjectively “in the eye of the beholder.” They assert moral absolutes, while still mouthing their official doctrine: “There are no absolutes.”
Agree with author. We should give all the millionaires permanent tax vacations, and with that deficit of monies, cancel all government boondoggles such as roads, schools, water treatment plants, and fire departments.
We should do this in a balanced way however, and start eliminating these wasteful services in high-wealth areas (where they are obviously unneeded) until this deficit is resolved. Once that happens, if there are any millionaires left, we can roll this suite of cost controls out nation-wide.
Sure hope nobodies house burns down.
We should do this in a balanced way however, and start eliminating these wasteful services in high-wealth areas (where they are obviously unneeded) until this deficit is resolved. Once that happens, if there are any millionaires left, we can roll this suite of cost controls out nation-wide.
Sure hope nobodies house burns down.
[deleted]
Wait is this satire? I can't tell.
I was waiting for the punch line as well, and then scrolled up to see who the author was. His tagline says, "I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism." So it's safe to say it's not satire.
That shouldn't stop you from finding it hilarious though.
[deleted]
He does say "Here’s a modest proposal".
[deleted]
I think the author just stumbled hilariously onto that phrase without knowing its satirical history.
Why is an article that basically says "I'm a randian objectivist and I think capitalism is just great at the top of Hacker News. So you're an naive idiot who thinks Steve Jobs was a great innovator and probably has never heard of Dennis Ritchie. Why do I care?
What this person conveniently fails to mention is that a lot of that 1% are more Capone or Madoff than they are Jobs or Ford.
PS: don't see Poe's law emerging in the author's replies to comments...
PS: don't see Poe's law emerging in the author's replies to comments...
Yeah and Jobs wasn't exactly the innovator everyone wants to make of him anyway. Ritchie anyone?
At least Tesla vs. Edison makes sense. Ritchie vs Jobs? They're not even related. I'm not even sure they've met each other.
A better comparison might be Jobs vs Douglas Engelbart.
A better comparison might be Jobs vs Douglas Engelbart.
"When you work in a modern factory, you are paid..." exactly market rate salary, period. You don't owe anyone, anyone owes you. (In ideal and free market.)
> I am a philosopher who was an associate of the late Ayn Rand, and am a member of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Ah, no wonder then.
Ah, no wonder then.
[deleted](1)
No one owes to anyone (except in their own dreams).
When people talk about "richest 1% should share with 99%" for the sake of, say, insurance, the reality is different. Some other 1% (government) makes public believe that this 1% will fairly distribute extra wealth from the evil capitalists (initial 1%) to poor teachers and children.
There was never in the history of the world a good insurance scheme (yet) against government that is granted enormous violent power to "fairly distribute wealth". The government forms spontaneously and its adepts then use all possible means to teach masses how moral it is to "contribute" to the government under a gun point. Non-paying taxes = non-patriotism = jail. Etc.
Anyone who seriously advocates wealth extraction and re-distribution must first present to a voting public a way for it to insure that the proposal is executed as advertised. E.g. that the politician needs to lose enormous amount of personal wealth if he fails. Then we can talk about democracy seriously. Until then, it's just manipulation of uneducated public.
When people talk about "richest 1% should share with 99%" for the sake of, say, insurance, the reality is different. Some other 1% (government) makes public believe that this 1% will fairly distribute extra wealth from the evil capitalists (initial 1%) to poor teachers and children.
There was never in the history of the world a good insurance scheme (yet) against government that is granted enormous violent power to "fairly distribute wealth". The government forms spontaneously and its adepts then use all possible means to teach masses how moral it is to "contribute" to the government under a gun point. Non-paying taxes = non-patriotism = jail. Etc.
Anyone who seriously advocates wealth extraction and re-distribution must first present to a voting public a way for it to insure that the proposal is executed as advertised. E.g. that the politician needs to lose enormous amount of personal wealth if he fails. Then we can talk about democracy seriously. Until then, it's just manipulation of uneducated public.
Apparently it's by a real person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Binswanger
> Or if the moral praise showered on Mother Teresa went to someone like Lloyd Blankfein, who, in guiding Goldman Sachs toward billions in profits, has done infinitely more for mankind.
lol, wut?
lol, wut?
"'The community' never gave anyone anything. The 'community,' the 'society,' the 'nation' is just a number of interacting individuals, not a mystical entity floating in a cloud above them."
"Voluntary trade, without force or fraud, is the exchange of value for value, to mutual benefit."
The former is bizarrely reductionist (nobody would say that a human is just a bunch of interacting cells, although that's true in a narrow biological sense). It is also false in the context of the latter.
What is "force" or "fraud"? They are artificial constructs that owe their existence to community. It is community that turns an animal's always-justifiable use of violence or trickery into unjustifiable "force" or "fraud." And the existence of "force" and "fraud" is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the complex series of interactions that amounts creates a community. There is no unjustifiable "force" or "fraud" unless the vast majority of people pretend that those things exist: by teaching their kids that those things are wrong, by fighting them when they arise, etc.
The community gives the 1% everything. There is no wealth creation without the community. Bankers and businessmen and entrepreneurs have no value without a society that creates the environment in which a skinny nerd like Mark Zuckerberg can make billions of dollars selling simplistic entertainment to bored teenagers. Mark Zuckerberg is not the 1% in Somalia. He is a slave to the strongest men with the biggest weapons.
The biggest problem with Randian libertarianism is that it's inconsistent. It claims to reject collectivism while embracing some of the most fundamentally collectivist ideas: that I should as a member of the same society come to your defense when some other human animal attempts to infringe on your "right to property" or "right to life." At least the anarchist libertarians are self-consistent, rejecting that essential bit of collectivism.