TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The world is socialist

82 点作者 moonlighter将近 12 年前

31 条评论

glesica将近 12 年前
<i>If you want to go back to the point where we decided to be socialist and try to undo it, you&#x27;re going to have to kill most of the people on the planet who depend on the current system for sustenance. And like it or not, that probably includes you. It certainly includes most of the idiots running around preaching Ayn Rand these days.</i><p>This is my favorite part. So many people who claim, or seem to have taken inspiration from Rand would, in fact, be &quot;bad guys&quot; in Atlas Shrugged. A nice example is Paul Ryan, who has spent his entire life in politics instead of actually creating anything useful. There are also a number of nice examples of people who would almost certainly be &quot;good guys&quot;, but who are Democrats in real life (not that a Democrat can&#x27;t be selfish, but the GOP seems to have claimed Rand lately). Bill Gates is the most obvious example, right down to getting blind-sided by government regulators in the 90s (whether the regulators were right or wrong, legally speaking, is immaterial here BTW).
评论 #6156333 未加载
pron将近 12 年前
Ayn Rand was a strange and interesting woman who, among other things, sexually abused her most devoted fans and manipulated them in horrible ways. She was never considered an important, serious, or good writer, and her works were ridiculed pretty much as soon as people first first laid eyes on them. But, her novels are, to this day, bestsellers, especially popular, as you write yourself, with teenagers. They are meant to spark a feeling of grandeur, which they effectively do as the task is not hard by any means in people of that age.<p>Refuting her claims and observations may be a bit redundant as they&#x27;ve never been taken seriously outside a very specific circle, but since her ideas have been influential inside that circle, and because said circle is not small in the US, where, quite amazingly, Rand&#x27;s works are liked even by some <i>adults</i> (it&#x27;s hard to believe but it&#x27;s true), you can always shoot some more arrows into that corpse, for whatever good that would do. She does make an easy, and fun, target, and there are all those teenagers you can upset, which is always fun to watch. As to those American adults still fond of her works well into their mid-twenties and even beyond, well, it&#x27;s best to keep a safe distance from them. Once you do, you might want to go back for a more sober look at Ayn Rand because she was a fascinating person, and her ideas have influenced some of the more colorful branches of American politics. Here&#x27;s a famous interview she gave Mike Wallace in 1959: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouBZ-YqOnsU" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ouBZ-YqOnsU</a>
评论 #6156740 未加载
评论 #6156456 未加载
johnnyg将近 12 年前
1. Can we agree that both full socialism and full rand style capitalism end in tears?<p>2. Token rebuttals.<p>a. Someone lives irresponsibly, I live responsibly. The sick that comes for us all devastates them early and I&#x27;m told &quot;since we all get sick, they got sick much earlier due to all the crack and booze, they can&#x27;t pay because they were grasshoppering it up while you worked, so now you pay&quot;. This is an extreme example, but I work in healthcare and I think I&#x27;m no stable ground saying that you can substitute cheeseburger for crack and get a majority. Is this how we want to set things up and call it just?<p>b. Snow comes. I get out my shovel and go help my neighbor. I don&#x27;t think doing this flies in the face of Rand. I do it because it is right to do in my gut because I know I&#x27;m fit to do it and they aren&#x27;t. I don&#x27;t think Rand says not to shovel, I think she says it is MY CHOICE to shovel or not and I own that moral choice after I make it. There&#x27;s still a right and a wrong choice.
评论 #6156544 未加载
评论 #6156496 未加载
评论 #6156393 未加载
评论 #6156414 未加载
ef4将近 12 年前
When you attack capitalism by attacking Ayn Rand, you are attacking a terrible straw man.<p>You&#x27;ll notice that people rarely start by attacking the works of von Mises or Hayek or Rothbard, because those guys were actual serious academics who knew what they were talking about.<p>Much easier to poke holes in the eccentric philosophy of one novelist.
评论 #6156370 未加载
评论 #6156339 未加载
评论 #6156583 未加载
jessriedel将近 12 年前
&gt; All these people who are so great aren&#x27;t really that much greater than the average schmuck on the subway. There really isn&#x27;t that much range in the smartness or fitness of human beings.<p>Whelp, you&#x27;ve lost me. The difference in productivity and smartness---as measured by the <i>consistent</i> ability to impact the world---of people is enormous (the additional importance of luck notwithstanding). I&#x27;m not sure why you thought you were going to make progress on these deep philosophical issues with a 400 word blog post, but you&#x27;re even more sunk if you throw in empirical claims that contradict both intuition and the data.
评论 #6156422 未加载
评论 #6156578 未加载
评论 #6156473 未加载
评论 #6156408 未加载
pearkes将近 12 年前
Ayn Rand&#x27;s philosophy is widely criticized for being contradictory. This seems pretty accurate to me.<p>But I don&#x27;t think modern readers of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>, <i>The Fountainhead</i>, <i>Anthem</i>, et al., are listening to her as a preacher, to apply her ideas to the entirety of their lives, but rather as inspiration for their own philosophy. That is, after all, one reason to read literature that challenges your opinions.<p>That&#x27;s why I read and appreciate Rand. It&#x27;s not because the American Libertarian movement made her a mascot.<p>Take her introduction to <i>The Fountainhead</i> that she wrote in 1968, years after it was published and became successful:<p>&gt; It is not in the nature of man--nor of any living entity--to start out by giving up, by spitting in one&#x27;s own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one&#x27;s mind; security, of abandoning one&#x27;s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man&#x27;s nature and of life&#x27;s potential. There are very few guideposts to find. The Fountainhead is one of them. This is one of the cardinal reasons of The Fountainhead&#x27;s lasting appeal: it is a confirmation of the spirit of youth, proclaiming man&#x27;s glory, showing how much is possible.<p>By posting this I hope to defend Rand in the sense of helping people realize she does more then what the modern political landscape has created for her. I was certainly inspired by her approach to self, as I imagine countless others have been.
评论 #6157427 未加载
aetherson将近 12 年前
We all get hungry, but we buy food from farmers on the market. We all need shelter, but we&#x27;re buy our rent our homes. We all need clothing, but we clothing manufacturers are for profit.<p>There are a variety of good arguments for socialized health care, but &quot;we all get sick&quot; is not among them.<p>This article is banal in the extreme, and I&#x27;m not sure why it&#x27;s on the front page.
评论 #6156372 未加载
评论 #6156362 未加载
yummyfajitas将近 12 年前
This essay is attacking a straw man, not Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was not an anarchist and did not oppose government entirely:<p><a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.aynrand.org&#x2F;site&#x2F;PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand...</a><p>I&#x27;m a having a little trouble believing the author actually read Atlas Shrugged - in it, one of the productive characters (Ragnar, if I remember right) explicitly lists many legitimate functions of government. One of them is maintaining public roads.<p>The author also deliberately fails to acknowledge the difference between public goods (blizzard cleanup) and private goods (medicine and financial services).
评论 #6156695 未加载
评论 #6156575 未加载
tokenadult将近 12 年前
Since almost all the comments in this thread are about Ayn Rand rather than about other details of the submitted article, I may as well share here from Kung Fu Monkey &quot;Ephemera 2009 (7)&quot;<p><a href="http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;kfmonkey.blogspot.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;03&#x2F;ephemera-2009-7.html</a><p>a quotation I may have learned about first here on HN:<p>&quot;There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old&#x27;s life: <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> and <i>Atlas Shrugged.</i> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.&quot;
bdcravens将近 12 年前
These discussions on HN are a bit ironic to me. HN seems to cut across several areas of discussion, and a large one is the startup world (principally the SF one). In general, the culture seems to be very liberal and sympathetic to socialism. Socialism isn&#x27;t necessary mutually exclusive with capitalism, but it tends to be opposed. At the very least, it aims to level out the bell curve a bit, eliminating capitalistic excess.<p>Today&#x27;s startup scene: Talk about capitalistic excess. Everyone&#x27;s running around with MacBook Airs and Pros, iPhones, and iPads. The true &quot;rebels&quot; running Android: they&#x27;re cheerleading for a phone that&#x27;s backed by a mega-corp with a $300B market cap, so from an excess perspective, not much different.<p>The culture wants home runs. 9 or 10 figure exits. Built a photo sharing app or game moving blocks around on the your phone? Is $1B for your company really the best way for society to allocate its resources? VC&#x27;s throw money away everyday on dumb companies that they know will fail; they&#x27;re just keeping skin in the game knowing that if they do, they&#x27;ll inevitably hit some home runs.<p>tl;dr Went all meta on the idea that startup culture that drives HN is capitalistic excess, opposite of socialism<p><i>edit &quot;opposite of capitalism&quot; should have been &quot;opposite of socialism&quot;; some grammar</i>
thelastuser将近 12 年前
I admit, I&#x27;m not sure what the argument is exactly. Nature is chaotic, therefore socialism?<p>I cannot speak for Randians or Objectivists, but an advocate of a private property society does not have a problem with insurance. Insurance is a perfectly legitimate good that can be provided in markets. It&#x27;s the whole pay-us-or-go-to-prison monopoly thing that doesn&#x27;t sit well.<p>Further, many rich business people are rich precisely because of government privilege, including protections of so-called intellectual property. You&#x27;d be hard pressed to name a successful person in modern times who hasn&#x27;t made or at least maintained his riches because of some special privilege.
ls6将近 12 年前
As I have spent (too) many years living in such a system, let me explain what I&#x27;ve observed in practice.<p>First of all there would be, in principle, differences per culture but it will level down when troubles strike -- then it is universally everyone for himself. The only difference being how big the trouble must be for this to trigger.<p>Generic problems observed in practice:<p>- ownership by everyone means in practice ownership by no one as proven every single day by comparing the same business run by a state or a city or privately -- it is always worse and more expensive<p>- maybe it is strictly separate subject but in socialism somehow people are expected to be equal; since this is obviously a wrong assumption people will be forced to be equal which is never pleasant for the &quot;better&quot; onces (whatever that means); economically it will include taking from richer and giving to poorer (again, regardless whether these differences would be labeled fair or not and whether the reacher earned it by working hard or the poorer was just lazy)<p>So, unless your culture isn&#x27;t aready &quot;trained&quot; in putting the good of the group above individual and, believe me, US population is not, socialsim will not work for you on a long run.<p>P.S. I wouldn&#x27;t write this if this article wasn&#x27;t so painfully stupid -- I&#x27;m not calling the author stupid, only this idealistic view. Socialism is NOT about dishing the same stuff to everyone like a storm or a disease. It is a much more complex system that is incompatible with human beings. Maybe permanently, maybe just not right now. It is not wrong, it is not bad on its own. It just doesn&#x27;t work today for most of us. In addition any stystem that attaches an adjective to the word &quot;justice&quot; -- as in &quot;social justice&quot; -- needs a very, very careful investigation. At least.
nmi32将近 12 年前
I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;ve ever read such a patronising dismissal of objectivism.<p>&gt;It&#x27;s a beautiful story for a person caught between childhood and adulthood<p>I could say the same thing about every religion, I doubt it would get a warm response.
评论 #6156827 未加载
评论 #6156585 未加载
marris将近 12 年前
&quot;Disease is socialist&quot; but most cures come out of commercial drug companies cure them. Weird. I think the reader has a healthy aversion to Rand, but there is <i>certainly</i> a difference between great acts and mediocre ones.
评论 #6156296 未加载
评论 #6156290 未加载
评论 #6156507 未加载
pandaman将近 12 年前
I wonder why some people cannot stop saying how wrong Ayn Rand had been in general and how wrong is Atlas Shrugged in particular.<p>If it&#x27;s a book of lies then why do you care so much? Don&#x27;t you think for the book to have any effect on you it has to be true, at least in your own opinion.
评论 #6156451 未加载
taylodl将近 12 年前
John Galt never made it past adolescence. He ultimately used his talents to make the world suffer, all along possessing the wherewithal to make the world a better place. But HE didn&#x27;t think THEY deserved it. I shudder to think people wanted a John Galt admirer for U.S. Vice President (and were supporting him for that very reason).
评论 #6156632 未加载
评论 #6156427 未加载
trimbo将近 12 年前
I think I must be the only person ever who read Atlas Shrugged and thought it was a very entertaining book, but didn&#x27;t either love it or hate it because of the politics.<p>Is there anyone else out there who just loves the book like I do without applying the politics in real life?
评论 #6156373 未加载
评论 #6156809 未加载
WalterBright将近 12 年前
Socialism is forced cooperation, as opposed to voluntary cooperation.
评论 #6156425 未加载
评论 #6157167 未加载
评论 #6156586 未加载
mindslight将近 12 年前
Why do people get so intensely attracted to Ayn Rand&#x27;s philosophy, even if for just a short time? Because it resonates with their attempting to understanding of the world.<p>The necessary social systems that interlink us all have become overly complex and maladapted in their treatment of individual people, and by stepping back from &quot;must&quot; and asking &quot;why&quot; one begins to see this everywhere. But the only blessed means of change is democracy, and nuanced intellect doesn&#x27;t win mob consensus - vague feel-something arguments do.<p>So the idea of taking one&#x27;s ball and going home becomes very attractive - even if it&#x27;s just a single croquet ball - because it&#x27;s the final option available to avoid supporting the broken game. And morally, systems <i>should</i> be setup to make this base case as easy as possible, even if it initially increases costs for the remaining players, for if the system is truly beneficial then it is still in most people&#x27;s interest to participate.<p>But the mob has no concern for individuals, so our social systems lack this capability. Going against the grain is tiresome and unproductive, so most people eventually conform to what is demanded of them. And once you&#x27;ve given in, you&#x27;re likely to stop dwelling on the faults of the systems you support and instead view them in a positive light for what they do accomplish.
dmfdmf将近 12 年前
I have it on good word that Rand was pro health insurance.
评论 #6156275 未加载
评论 #6156280 未加载
Vektorweg将近 12 年前
found this quote in the german wikipedia:<p>“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: &#x27;The Lord of the Rings&#x27; and &#x27;Atlas Shrugged&#x27;. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” – John Rogers
dollar将近 12 年前
All of the typicsl straw man arguments about roads and healthcare are nonsense. Rand believed that any way society chose to organize itself to benefit its members was perfectly acceptable, as long as that organization was rooted in individual freedom of choice, and not extracted from individuals with violence - the tyranny of the majority.
jeffdavis将近 12 年前
The article conflates social institutions with government (and possibly conflates the various levels of government) which is a common theme among many political ideas.<p>On the &quot;Right&quot;, people often conclude that, because their religion is good, it should be enforced by the federal government. In reality, people can (generally) practice their religion freely through their church so long as the government policies aren&#x27;t too overbearing.<p>On the &quot;Left&quot;, people often conclude that, because charitable giving and safety nets and community projects are good, those things should be enforced and run by the federal government. In reality, there are many social institutions and mechanisms by which those things might happen (families and communities do many of these things already, and local governments can do many more), and the federal government is only one option and may only be suitable in specific circumstances.
kamaal将近 12 年前
Rand is always popular among people, who get cheated. Kind of people among whom resentment(Bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly) is high. If you look at it closely these are generally the kind of people who do everything right, and then only find some not even 1&#x2F;10th the worth take away fruits of their work.<p>These are generally the kind of hard working working people who get cheated due to office politics, or an unfair boss, or the people who score less marks because the teacher wanted to reward her otherwise favorite pupil.<p>One of the top reasons why people want to have their own business is because &#x27;working for others&#x27; ultimately leads to a situation where you do all the work, while not getting nearly the atom worth the due rewards you deserve. Its not selfish or arrogant or even wrong that such people ultimately take things into their own hands and refuse to put up with being treated unfairly.<p>When I first read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The philosophy of it looked straight obvious and something that I myself have gone through.<p>Rand&#x27;s philosophy is not the case, but rather a effect of a deep rooted malaise where some people find it perfectly fine to cheat. And expect the person to be fine being cheated.<p>On a side note, I attended a Start up conference a years back here Bangalore. At the end there was open panel discussion as to what makes a better career option &#x27;Start up or a Job at a Megacorp&#x27; a middle manager from representing a mega corp called start up founders are impatient, greedy and selfish. This is how bad the situation gets when you put up with unfair treatment, the person cheating thinks it&#x27;s perfectly ok to treat you unfairly. And more, it is unfair to him that you refuse to get cheated.<p>Want to prevent the Rand philosophy from spreading, do something that triggers its flow and adoption at the first place. But we all already know that&#x27;s not going to happen.
demachina将近 12 年前
Pretty flawed writing on Dave Winer&#x27;s, like this part right here:<p>&quot;Ayn Rand&#x27;s philosophy might have worked in an agrarian society when people lived far apart, and couldn&#x27;t pool their resources.&quot;<p>Agricultural coops were some of the earliest, most intense and long lived Socialism in the U.S. in fact some of them are still going. Building grain elevators, pooling expensive machinery, getting fertilizer and seed in bulk and at a reasonable price, shipping crops to market and trying to avoid getting screwed by middlemen, are things were Socialism had its place.<p>Atlas Shugged was written for and about railroad barons, industrialist and to a lesser extent Wall Streeters.<p>Classic Dave, say something that has no basis in fact, and hope no one calls him on the B.S. because he&#x27;s Dave Winer.
rogerthis将近 12 年前
Everyday I wonder if people still read Alexis de Tocqueville&#x27;s Democracy in America.
aero142将近 12 年前
Sometimes I feel like there are two different versions of Atlas Shrugged out in the world and different people read different ones. I just don&#x27;t understand how someone can read the book I read and think that &quot;snowplow drivers&quot; is a complete rebuttal. The book has a lot of themes and I don&#x27;t agree with all of them but lets hit a few that I took away.<p>Rand is best viewed as a reaction to the abuses of Russian Communism. Atlas Shrugged is extreme in the opposite direction but offers some good critiques of collectivism as she saw it practiced. Communism was always at the point of a gun, so one of her primary complaints was the the use of force by the incapable to demand things from the capable was immoral. So, it&#x27;s immoral to force those who have snow plows to plow your road just because you have a gun.<p>Using a snowstorm is a funny example because I think that is exactly one of her main points. Nature doesn&#x27;t care about your feelings or what you think you deserve. You will either use you mind to find solutions to problems or you will die. If you choose not to think for yourself, you don&#x27;t have a right to take from those who do just because you have a gun. So, to answer the article&#x27;s question, &quot;Who is supposed plow the streets during the snowpocalypse?&quot; Whoever the hell has a snowplow and has the ability to drive it. Probably in exchange for money. That&#x27;s some crazy talk right there. Did I just blow your mind? It&#x27;s not &quot;a detail she never seemed to have gotten to&quot;, it&#x27;s just a stupid question. You don&#x27;t plow streets with Rearden metal. You plow it with a snow plow. Rand&#x27;s point was that streets didn&#x27;t get plowed by moochers and people who claimed they &quot;deserved it&quot;. It got plowed by every great person that designed a combustable engine and metal and manufacturing processes and ultimately applied their mind to the challenges of nature(snow storms) and created an f&#x27;ing snow plow. The point is that it is the human mind is what makes the world work, not whining about your &quot;rights&quot;.<p>As for &quot;great individuals&quot;, yes, I think she over sold it a bit. However, very focused productive people applying their minds to problems have more influence and leverage today than ever before. She also spends a lot of time talking about &quot;teaching men to think&quot;. So she talked a lot about everyone using their talents to create things, not just the John Galts. There are lots of characters who play bit parts in Atlas Shrugged that are respected in the book. Same for the fountain head. Lets talk about the exceptional though. No Bill Gates may not be francisco d&#x27;anconia, but he did have a big influence on the world. Now he is using his money to have an even bigger influence. Just for fun, and in the spirit of Rand, think about the difference between how Gates is spending his money, vs the way the Government has spent it. Compare the way a person that earned his money is spending it vs &quot;looters&quot; that took it from others. Plus, Gates seems less John Galt than someone like Von Neumann or Newton.<p>I just get really sick and tired of people knocking down Rand strawmen. No, she didn&#x27;t offer the solution all the hard problems of balancing individual liberty and collective action, but if you read it with some context and think about it for yourself, you may find that she did offer some good ideas about the perils of collectivism and the potential of human ability. If you are curious about Rand, go read Fransico&#x27; Money Speech, <a href="http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;capitalismmagazine.com&#x2F;2002&#x2F;08&#x2F;franciscos-money-speec...</a> and skip this stupid, pointless blog post.
wissler将近 12 年前
The heart of the matter is this question: should the community violate the consent of the individual or not?<p>Coming at it from the utilitarian point of view (for sake of argument -- I am not a utilitarian[1]), does it really need to be argued that every humane person should naturally wish to respect individual consent to the fullest extent possible? The only remaining question should be to determine to what extent this is possible. Is there a way to get the road clearing paid for without violating the consent of those who don&#x27;t care if it&#x27;s cleared or not?<p>It turns out that we can form systems whereby this is possible. For example, take a home owners association (HOA). It violates no consent to have contracts that stipulate that you must pay a yearly fee (or &quot;tax&quot;) to join the HOA. So there you go, the snowplowing problem is solved, all without any violation of consent.<p>If you&#x27;re creative, it turns out that you can solve all of these dilemmas, without resorting to government fiat, which of course can only be implemented by being willing to point a gun at your neighbor&#x27;s head. No humane person would prefer this, ergo actually humane people would seek more creative solutions.<p>[1] <a href="https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;leanpub.com&#x2F;reasonandliberty</a>
评论 #6156573 未加载
评论 #6156539 未加载
评论 #6156509 未加载
Allower将近 12 年前
And this is where we see the clowns who don&#x27;t understand economics. Snow removal is handled by the folks who have a greater vested financial interest in having roads clear. And if you seriously can&#x27;t imagine a nation with private roads, than you simply haven&#x27;t tried very hard.
评论 #6156502 未加载
mumbi将近 12 年前
I like the part about how nobody is great.
评论 #6156403 未加载
INTPenis将近 12 年前
Valar Morghulis.