fidgewidge
People in that environment quickly realize that their bosses can't tell the difference between someone who is hard working, motivated and skilled, and someone else who is a lazy incompetent bullshitter. Indeed they'll probably prefer the latter, especially if that person is the Right Sort Of Person. Nor will they listen to the right people, and often they have no idea even why they employ developers at all except that they are expected to be innovative in some abstract way. At some point this realization dawns and the devs discover that they can just ... not work ... and nothing happens. Nobody notices, nobody cares. The salary keeps rolling in. At first they may think, OK, I'll use the extra time for something work related, like taking online courses. The article mentions Coursera. They first take courses that seem maybe relevant, then they move on to skills their employer doesn't need but might look good on their resume. Then they exhaust the potential for using work time for learning and if they can get work-from-home, may start to just spend time taking care of the house, watching TV or sleeping.
I've seen this happen to a friend. His motivation is gone years ago. His project is nearly a sham that loses money hand over fist and likely and always will, his bosses don't care because he's there to tick the box labelled "we are innovative", decisions get made based on ideology first and what makes sense second, and yet he is very well paid. So, he just enjoys it, whilst dreaming about maybe leaving and doing his own company.
https://conservativehome.com/2022/07/16/our-next-tory-leader...
Their attempt at justifying this bizarre claim is that maybe 2 million people applied to live permanently in the UK but don't actually live there. Literally the first criteria for applying to the scheme is that you live in the UK and the purpose of applying is that you want to continue living there. This reasoning is idiotic on its face and just makes the ONS look even worse, even if we didn't already know that their population statistics were hugely inaccurate from other sources.
It'd really very odd to see Americans insist that they should have the right to take a service, get the money back for it from the business i.e. get the service for free, and then go back and get service again! That's pretty unfair towards the business.
It's pointing out that the left hates libertarianism and Peter Thiel, leftism is literally the opposite of libertarianism, and so you would expect a left wing news outlet to try and trash Thiel and libertarians whether or not the argument makes any sense or whether it's actually their fault. It's a bias warning.
Funny how so many of the replies are shocked by this idea when virtually every single story posted to HN from a right leaning outlet is flooded with comments of the form "you can't trust this story, it comes from a right leaning outlet" and the post itself will often be quickly flagged to death. What goes around comes around.
Until about 2020/2021 a lot of the case for this had to be built on things like mismatches between expected electricity/water consumption and population claims, but since Brexit and the vaccine rollouts there is now far clearer evidence.
For Brexit, the government claimed there were 3.7 million people from other EU countries living in the UK and the actual number who came forward to apply for residence was 2 million more than that.
COVID made the problem even clearer. In some age groups more people came forward to be vaccinated than theoretically existed in the country at all. The government claims 9% of the population is unvaccinated but an opinion poll run by the BBC yielded 25%, a likely more accurate figure. The ONS recently had to admit in writing that their vaccine effectiveness numbers were meaningless garbage (and always have been) because if you take them at face value, vaccines are magical elixirs of invulnerability that make you much less likely to die for any reason at all including things that aren't health related, like workplace accidents. The ONS pretends it must be because they missed some confounding factor despite adjusting for some crazy number of them, in reality the explanation is simpler: because the population estimate is far too low, they think there are far fewer unvaccinated people than there really are, and thus the calculated death rate is far higher than it really is. The size of the vaccinated population is known to a higher degree of accuracy and thus the death rate in that group is actually accurate, creating this apparently nonsensical effect.
After 10 years they tried to do a new census, but did it in the middle of lockdowns and the resulting figures were massively out of line with other known figures:
https://www.cityam.com/census-2022-london-population-funding...
"CLF, a group of 12 local authorities, stressed that the figures were “skewed”, with Westminster missing 30,000 residents (15 per cent of the population.)"
So the chance to repair the data was flunked. Although the ONS is in denial, in the past the government has taken some steps towards admitting this. The official population size was downgraded to "experimental" (lol) and could no longer be classified as "national statistics".
A government that can't even count how many people exist on an island is in no position to accurately measure the output or productivity of those people, a far more subjective and complex set of statistics to compute. In reality nobody knows how the British economy is doing. At best they can measure a subset of it.
I don't think either are actually implemented in practice at the moment, although you can argue that certain aspects of certain politicians or their agendas lean libertarian, and that some societies have in the past been a lot more libertarian than they are today.
The primary difference is this: anarchists of any kind, ancap or not, see no role for the state whatsoever. Libertarianism requires a state to exist, but has a very clearly defined set of roles for it such that anything outside those roles is considered more properly the role of the private sector. At a minimum, the state is expected to implement:
- [Border] defense (armies, navies, passports)
- A violence monopoly within their territory (police, courts, jails, laws against murder, abuse, etc). Yes, this doesn't always sit easy with the US specific gun culture, but the "out" is to say you can own a gun only for self defense, hunting and overthrow of an out of control state, which doesn't infringe on this principle.
- Contract law (civil law courts, ability to levy financial penalties)
- Property rights (land registers, stock markets, bond markets and other financial infrastructure, also quite often IP rights)
- Sufficient taxation to fund those things and subsequent state functions
- Anti-monopoly enforcement
And a bunch of other things that are less well agreed on, but in some interpretations might involve attempts at limiting externalities.
So a libertarian state still has a relatively extensive civil service, it would still have a parliament or congress, tax authorities and so on, but it's smaller and more tightly focused than a non-libertarian state. It is actually implementable in the real world, today, without violating any of the known basics of human nature or government. Libertarians accept that some current roles of the state have evolved for sound reasons but propose that those roles can be done equally well or better by the private sector (e.g. instead of bank bailouts you have narrow banks). We know such countries can exist because they have also existed in the past, for example the early US government was much closer to this ideal than the current one.
Ancaps on the other hand propose a theoretical society that has no government at all yet is also peaceful and prosperous. No such society has ever existed, not even anything close to it, and there are many obvious open questions with no known answers. It's very different.
It’s a very rich and complex story about many different people
It's about "a barely populated settlement with one paved road" that was taken over by anarchists. Not surprisingly they ended up living in tents, as anarchists are wont to do.
I edited out a comment in my original post asking why some people insist on lying about libertarianism but then took it out, thinking it was overly harsh. Now I wish I'd left it back in. I don't believe you're arguing in good faith, the misrepresentations in that post are just so blatant.
WHO: "wearing a mask can provide a false sense of security, say experts, leading some to become less vigilant in more important hygiene measures, such as hand washing. Additionally, removing a mask so it no longer covers your nose, or touching the outside of the mask can make it less effective."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/who-should-wear-a-fac...
And they were right! Masks didn't work, it can be clearly seen in graphs of case numbers. But they later reversed that position. To say now that it was all misinterpretation of the never-wrong scientists is revisionist history. Their words were plain and we have the receipts.
This can be true, and the Fed's move can be the right one, and it can still be case that the system has been dishonestly socialized by the back door and that this will have terrible long term consequences. It can also be that the Fed's fears were overblown and that in fact letting SVB and a few other similar banks fail would not wreck the entire system.
Equity and debt holders have been completely wiped out.
Only those who were bag holding at the moment of collapse. There will have been plenty of equity and debt holders who profited from SVB's risk-taking behavior and got out in time to realize that profit. The lesson bank equity holders will learn here is not that banks need to be more careful. It's that you can set up a bank, drive custom and profit with hyper-risky tactics, and as long as you sell your stake before the fraud collapses you'll not only get away scott free but nobody will even care because the large numbers of angry people who might organize politically to get justice will all be bought off by taxes on everyone else.
"Once upon a time, a group of libertarians got together and hatched the Free Town Project, a plan to take over an American town and completely eliminate its government ... They built a tent city in an effort to get off the grid. The bears smelled food and opportunity."
Nobody who knows anything about libertarians and is trying to accurately represent it would write that, because the whole reason it exists as an independent thing from anarchism is that libertarians do not want to eliminate the government. They have very clear ideas about what exactly the government should do and that role is much less expansive than in a socialist country or even in America of today, but it's not literally nothing and it certainly doesn't involve living in tents. That's much closer to the Occupy Wall Street crowd in behaviour than libertarians.
The above scheme requires far less government regulation as well, but it does need some, mostly an extension of the idea of theft to encompass fractional reserve banking.