P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)
GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other.
> P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)
Why?
The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so.
> Why?
I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
Then GDPR does not forbid you to do so, Article 6.1 c)
> 1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:
> [...]
> c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so.
> I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
This might be true, might be false. A good discussion should incorporate different views. And back to topic: I firmly believe this law to be dangerous by itself and not because there is a (more or less) applicable quote by a controversial writer.
True. Your quote from Ayn Rand was actually a reaction from 2 characters discussing how one law make it not possible to respect another. GDPR does make it more complex, and one can argue copyright is not a subject that should infringe privacy. It’s up to debate. Debate that US based startups won’t need to have if they don’t want to.
And it was more a Kudos to quoting Ayn Rand and an upvote!
There are certainly some ideas of merit but supporting politicians that push it seems to inevitably involve benefiting the right who is pushing for many agendas that will personally damage me and mine so I cannot in good conscience do so.
And you seem to be misunderstanding. Left-wing libertarians do not have the same set of ideas as the right-wing ones, you seem to think that there is "libertarianism" and that I am saying that some on the left also stand for those ideas that those on the right, (the only real area of agreement is an anti-war stance).
Left libertarianism is mostly about personal freedom, as opposed to authoritarianism, while still being in favor of social programs, oppose privatization of public services etc. You should read up on it.
See also [1].
"In the United States, the word "libertarian" has become associated with right-libertarianism after Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s.[7] However, until then political usage of the word was associated exclusively with anti-capitalism and in most parts of the world such an association still predominates."
it means about as much as "scripting language" or "strongly typed"
Also, now I want to write a framework called "libtarianism" that includes a pseudo rand generator.
I would've thought so too, until I looked at discussions about unions on here.
Look at all the mentions of "nazi", "fascist" and "hate-speech" in this thread. You can tell when a place leans left because this is a common left-wing conspiracy theory - that the world is full of fascists/nazis, but they're all trying to hide it. They call it 'cryptofascism'.
You clearly know nothing about Rand's philosophy. You would do yourself a favor to correct that error. Even if you ultimately disagree with her, she has very many intelligent things to say and, if you give her a chance, she will challenge many of your preconceptions about morality, ethics, and their postcursors of economics and politics, and raise the level of your discourse significantly.
Of course it's fine for you to dismiss their entire point with derailment even further into meta-arguments because, after all, they started it /s
>Social shaming also isn’t an argument. It’s a demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of people who deserve to be heard; to classify them as so repugnant that arguing with them is only dignifying them. If it works, supporting one side of an argument imposes so much reputational cost that only a few weirdos dare to do it, it sinks outside the Overton Window, and the other side wins by default.
> Nobody expects this to convince anyone... People who use this strategy know exactly what they’re doing and are often quite successful. The goal is not to convince their opponents, or even to hurt their opponent’s feelings, but to demonstrate social norms to bystanders.
[1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentat...
(And yes, the majority view is that Rand is not worthy of any special attention as either a philosopher, political theorist, economist or author. Not more worthy than any other random member of those groups of people.)
...and natural and efficient. ie Not wrong or right. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from.
Lots of things we consider "natural", we also pride ourselves on the ability to choose not to give in to.
Vice versa, there could be things that are "not natural" which--oh wait, no there aren't. To be "natural" is one of those really stretchy concepts that can include anything if you argue it the right way back.
For instance, this discussion is about a copyright bill. Is that natural? Is copyright natural? Is economics? Politics? Rationality?
We also have a word for such terms in an debate: inconsequential.
Not to speak of the idea that anything that is "efficient" must be amoral. In my opinion exactly the opposite is true. Most things which are "efficient" read pretty damn strong on my right/wrong moral compass--either I think they're pretty cool, or I think they're pretty terrible. There's really very few efficient things that make me feel "yeaaaahhh, it's efficient sure, but meh. you do you".
Things that are efficient you need to consider extra carefully exactly because the efficiency can swing the needle on the moral compass rather dramatically!
In your selflessness, perhaps you'll consider espousing my view instead of yours? In return, I promise to dutifully, comprehensively, and correctly represent your view, as you can see I've done here now.
She was born to wealth she didn't earn and saw the confiscation of such when the communists took over Russia.
She forever thereafter decried all taxation for the common good not seeing a substantive distinction between the communists taking all her families shit and a democratically elected government taxing to pay for hospitals and roads.
Her ideal man was a criminal to kidnapped a little girl, extorted her father for money, then took the money and ditched the little girls dismembered body and took the money and ran because he refused to live by societies rules.
She gushed over him before dying dependent upon the social security she didn't want anyone else to have.
Both use cherry-picking and unfalsifiable approaches to history and sociology to construct a narrative in which there are two classes: the noble, heroic people who produce all the value; and the awful, leeching parasites who attempt to co-opt that value for their own use.
The differences between them are rooted entirely in which class each views as noble and value-producing versus which is parasitical.
Problem solved. Shall we talk about the copyright bill, now? :)
All French MEPs of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs but one are right-wing eurosceptics, and for this law[2].
(Aside, the right-wing extremists MEPs were easily recognized during the Zuckerberg hearing, as their questions focused exclusively on the worry that Facebook restricts —“censors”, in their words— hate speech[3].)
[0]: https://twitter.com/MCBoutonnetFN/status/1009429390151901185
[1]: https://twitter.com/Gilles_Lebreton/status/10093895047871078...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_Committee_...
[3]: https://twitter.com/NicolasBay_/status/998979333011197952
It seems that 3 eurosceptics voted yes, one voted no, and two abstained. The bill was actually introduced and mostly voted for by the EPP, which is a centre-right and strongly pro-EU group (Angela Merkel's CDU is part of it).
A non-governmental entity can only, by definition, censor something if mandated by the government.
As with anything, some balance is required. Monopolies exist (and seem inevitable these days) and must be dealt with. But person-to-person, her views and the individual are evergreen.
“In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, she allowed Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.”
Medicare provides health insurance for older Americans who have worked and paid into the system through the payroll tax. Social Security is also funded by payroll taxes. Did Rand “take out more than she put in”, so to speak?
> Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others — the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.
TL;DR: people might as well get back some of the money the government collected from them.
1. https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-...
These are people with no particular horse in any race; there isn't a lot of money in rejecting one 20th century pop philosopher.
I haven't read enough of her stuff to develop my own opinions, so I'm happy to defer to them on the philosophy. I have read enough of her stuff to say that I find it turgid to the point of unreadability; a very dated style. Reminds me of L Ron Hubbard's stuff, which is also just about unreadable (dianetics or otherwise).
Like so many ideologies, the fan club is what most people dislike. If you are capable of taking Rands philosophies with a grain of salt, there are many brilliant concepts to glean.
Such as?
Minitel:It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. --Adam Smith
Except in practice societies require self interest and benevolence and structures designed to promote the latter in order that we can all enjoy the fruits of our respective labor in a functional society.
To make it even worse, such laws don’t “outlaw” some behaviour, but put a high risk on it through civil law. So, it helps multinationals (and a possible malevolent regime) and hurts small companies as well as citizens. To me, it’s hard to believe this is not intended (like so many other (mostly) EU laws.
However, always bear in mind Ayn Rand:
> “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”