One of the beliefs I share with many (though certainly not all) of the regulars on HN is that upmods should be given based on the merit of comment as measured by it contribution to the discussion. That isn't the same thing as whether I agree with the comment, and there are many comments I upmod even though I disagree.
So when it comes to PG's beliefs, I'm sure you can appreciate that I might admire Paul The Man and admire one of Paul's essays to the point of forwarding it around, even though I might disagree with it in part or even in whole.
Being specific, I see compensation as being one of many different ways we try to game people into doing good things. Some people respond to this carrot, some ignore it and are motivated by other things, and some game the system by lying or cheating their way into getting more carrots, like Mark Hurd slashing HP's R&D budget then pocketing millions for raising their profits.
A word like "should" is ambiguous. Does it mean "Should because that is Right with a capital R?" Or does it mean "Should because it is the best way to achieve some larger social goal?"
All that being said, may I offer these two statements and ask you if it is possible for someone to be an S-ist and an H-ist?
S-ists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit
H-ists believe people should be compensated on how productive they are
One of the beliefs I share with many (though certainly not all) of the regulars on HN is that upmods should be given based on the merit of comment as measured by it contribution to the discussion.
So, you're saying that the currency of upmods should be distributed based on the value of what was produced, rather than the time and effort (or, "amount of labour") it took to produce it? ;)
My essay justifying paying programmers a standard hourly wage is right next to the place where I wrote words advocating the practice.
Since I don't advocate that practice, there is no need for an essay on the subject.
I cannot read your mind, but are you making certain assumptions about what I believe based on the fact that I quoted certain sections of the wikipedia article about Socialism?
Please keep in mind that my words in this essay are quite explicit in stating that my beliefs are not Big S Socialism. I state that at the top and the bottom.
OK, but the title is "Hello, my name is Reginald and I am a Socialist" (big S) then you go on to make the distinction. So I am confused about what you are actually advocating here.
FWIW reading the rest of the comments on this page I guess you'd be more like a syndicalist than a socialist.
First of all, I didn't say that I agree with Reginald. I'm just trying to make sure we can draw the line between respecting pg and hero-worship. If that's not where you're coming from, great!
To go back to your previous argument though, I don't view agreeing with pg (or even having read pg) as a pre-requisite to fitting in on HN. Quite the opposite in fact. I think someone who blindly accepts everything that pg writes is likely to not fit in to HN. Perhaps I jumped the gun in assuming that you feel otherwise. In fact, I hope that's the case!
Yeah, I just mentioned that as a way of saying, this point about compensation for input (time spent on something) vs output (the value of that something) has been made in great depth already.
