That the parent was downvoted (and reading some other posts) shows what I unfortunately have come to expect, which is a low standard of discussion on HN about these issues. There is an aggressive negative reaction to anything that challenges the radical libertarian orthodoxy by suggesting that a social welfare program, especially a European one, could work well.
It's not intellectually honest and not valuable to discussion, and we should raise our standards. I expect that almost everyone reading HN understands the following: If you've drawn a conclusion before seeing the facts, you aren't open to new ones, and you think a complex issue is black and white, you're acting dumb. Also, it blocks innovation when new ideas are evaluated based on their adherence to prior orthodoxies. Finally, knee-jerk reactions have no value. Let's use the same intellectual skills we apply to technology to address other issues too.
While I certainly won't take issue with your last paragraph, aren't you just taking exception to the fact that people disagree with you? You don't really know why the people who down-voted the parent comment did so, and are projecting a certain viewpoint upon those folks. That doesn't seem terribly honest or valuable either. Of course, you could very well be right, but I'm guessing if the down-voting were of an opinion you did not agree with, there'd be less of this "we should raise our standards" talk.
For my part, I would say that the parent made a couple of statements which were weakly-linked to the content of the article, and then ended it with what sounded like a victory lap ("Looks like progressive policies with healthy government regulation always works better than the free market."), which sounded kind of smug given that there seemed to be a few steps of the proof missing.
As an American living in the Netherlands, I've thought quite a bit about the different approaches taken to social welfare here and at home. If anything, my experiences have left me with much less certainty about which strategy is "best". They seem to optimise for different value systems.
> aren't you just taking exception to the fact that people disagree with you? You don't really know why the people who down-voted the parent comment did so, and are projecting a certain viewpoint upon those folks. ... I'm guessing if the down-voting were of an opinion you did not agree with, there'd be less of this "we should raise our standards" talk.
I'm not and your guess is wrong.
First, do they disagree with me? What is my opinion? Aren't you doing what you accuse me of?
You're right that I don't know the reasons for the individual downvotes. However I'm confident in the pattern I've observed in this discussion and others on HN. I think the aggressive, dogmatic responses, the lack of value in many comments, and the voting patterns (including for my comment, for which -2 is way overboard) are obvious.
If you care, my opinion is that I don't know enough about the subject to form one, that without a proposed pension system there is nothing to have an opinion about (i.e., it's too hypothetical), and especially that it would be valuable to me and to our society to have intelligent discussion about it. The signal-to-noise ratio of the libertarian orthodoxy makes it difficult to find any valuable contribution from them, and their shouting down of anyone who disagrees also doesn't help. They may have good points in policy, but the standard of discussion needs to be raised.
It's not intellectually honest and not valuable to discussion, and we should raise our standards. I expect that almost everyone reading HN understands the following: If you've drawn a conclusion before seeing the facts, you aren't open to new ones, and you think a complex issue is black and white, you're acting dumb. Also, it blocks innovation when new ideas are evaluated based on their adherence to prior orthodoxies. Finally, knee-jerk reactions have no value. Let's use the same intellectual skills we apply to technology to address other issues too.