HN user

zygimantasdev

282 karma
Posts7
Comments48
View on HN

I think your point about a choice of taxes is very close to my argument of involuntary taxes. While I agree there are some things that you must contribute to have law and order - there are other things I don't want to subsidize. If my town lacks sidewalks, cars drive too fast and etc. - why should you pay for other towns problems first? Because somebody needs more votes from that other town they get to take my money against my will?

Also, for example, I don't like some study programs and I really like some of them. Problem is - I can't choose which ones to subsidize for students. If that's the case - I wouldn't subsidize any of them, but I am forced to do so. Even if I think its harmful.

I think this problem arise/will arise in many different places: North vs South Italy, Catalonia vs Spain, young people to carry aging population and etc.

I think your goal is impossible. Even in soviet union that wasn't the case. The best specialists (let's say top surgeons) will always have more influence. If you know that your survivability rate is 50% higher at one surgeon hands than the rest - won't you pay/do whatever you can to survive?

If you are taxed involuntary - isn't that stealing? Well technically by law it is legal and enforced for everyone, but it still is stealing. For example: if everybody is under the immoral law and some people are better than others at avoiding the immoral law - is it morally okay for those people to avoid that law?

Edit: by involuntary I mean if person can't choose. Not talking about businesses

I guess we grew up with stories which gave us +5 resistance to socialism. Stories about how in almost every group were people who would report you if you talked about some "threat" to union. Stories about how everyone was living in socialism and they were building communism. Once communism is built - nobody needs to even walk in streets - you will have conveyor belts everyone taking everywhere. Stories about how in the west capitalists were using everyone as slaves and how you as a citizen had power to control. Stories how streets were empty and you had to wait for car for 8 years to buy it (price was insane too). Everyone was stealing from factories, selling "behind table" and etc.

On the top post on that link:

"Red Hat urges the FSF board to seize the opportunity during its current leadership succession by appointing a president and members of its board that are more diverse, including from a national, racial and gender perspective."

at least in my country's constitution discrimination based on race/gender is forbidden (No person should be limited by law or granted privileges based on his sex/race/nationality/... . Statement like this is exactly that. I imagine other countries have similar laws - how are things like that acceptable?

Well, for me it seems two ideas are mixed up here. Non profits can do exactly that - instead of focusing on profits they can maximize other "stakeholders". Corporations with goal to maximize profits are not going away, because investors will not invest into non profits expecting return on investment

Imagine a signature like this:

function oneDividedByX(x: Double): Double

oneDividedByX(2) // 1/2

oneDividedByX(3) // 1/3

and so on.. Except with zero. With zero you get an exception, however nothing in function signature mentions about such result. You only expect a double

In Either case - it solves the problem, because the signature would be like this:

function oneDividedByX(x: Double): Either[ComputingError, Double]

As for throwing exceptions - it can be done in pure way, but catching exceptions cannot

Sure, I agree about scope of the process - if we consider all particles in universe part of economy discussed- exchanges are zero sum. However, I was appealing to the parent's basic survival and self worth zero sum economy where humans making money will mean others losing. That is simply not true, simple natural resources, ideas, innovations are making our economy non zero sum.