Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Libertarianism is entirely self-serving. I am rich and have property, so my ideal government is one whose only job is to create property registries and allow their enforcement with violence. Ideally, the poor people are taxed (not me of course) to fund a government violence force to enforce the rules on the poor people, as is the case in the USA.

Communism is similarly self-serving. I own no property, and so my ideal government has no concept of property and assigns resources to everyone.

 help



How is communism self-serving when, you said it yourself, the main concept is assigning resources to everyone?

If "assigning resources to everyone" is a net gain (IE the voter doesn't have resources), then yes it is self serving.

What if the voter has lots of resources, but soon they'll likely lose them due to external factors, so they vote for communism?

What if the voter has very few resources, but soon they'll likely gain lots of resources, and still vote for communism?

What if the voter prefers a social safety net to having lots of resources, because they're really afraid of ending up broke?


What if my grandmother was a bicycle? None of these change the fact that voting for a system to move resources from others to yourself is self serving.

You can debate whether it's justifiable or not, but it is self serving by definition.


Pretty much everything is self serving using that definition. Clean up trash in a park? Self serving. Donate money to the poor? Self serving.

I think you misunderstand me -- perspective matters. If you have 12 cookies, and I have 2 cookies, and i say "it would be more fair if we each had 7 cookies", then i pretty transparently just want you to give me 5 cookies.

"Clean up trash" and "Donate money to the poor" are not as unevenly beneficial. Also "Donate money to the poor" is a far cry from "Seize money and give that to the poor".


> and i say "it would be more fair if we each had 7 cookies", then i pretty transparently just want you to give me 5 cookies.

But under the context of "government has no concept of property and assigns resources to everyone" it is not you (or any single person) that decides that, it's the contextual Communist government saying and doing that. Just because it benefits random governed person does not make it directly self serving.

The nuance is, in this version of Communism, the Communism itself it is not self serving it trys to equalize -- Libertarianism, in this context, enforces self serving ideals


> But under the context of "government has no concept of property and assigns resources to everyone" it is not you (or any single person) that decides that,

Under every version of Communism, it's "the government" that decides that, and those government officials seem to be much better dressed then everyone else.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: