Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by elmomle 1416 days ago
The Amish have the right idea. If the point of helpful technology is to help us to better achieve our goals, the fact that we find ourselves drawn to devices like moths to flames strongly implies that the technology is not helpful. If even well-educated technologists unthinkingly find themselves filling free time with mindless (i.e. without prior prefrontal cortex planning) browsing, what chance is there for other folks? It's not a dignified way to be--we're just big rats pressing glowing levers to get dopamine spikes.
2 comments

There's value to random encounters with ideas and content (sometimes).
It’s like sugar. There’s an evolutionary reason for it from old times when it was scarce. But nowadays it’s all around us and leads to diabetes if not limited.
Conservatism has its benefits, but I didn't see the Amish get rich off the Dotcom boom either.
Really fail to see the value of that comment. I haven't seen any FANG/Startup creators sustain themselves building quality furniture or barns either...

Kind of an odd measure of if their values are a good idea or not

What would a rich Amish even do? The same as they always have. Some Amish around me in Ohio actually got quite wealthy selling oil rights on their land, they put all the money into a general emergency fund for their fellow Amish and continued on.
In Pennsylvania, the Amish are reputed to be quite wealthy (at least by local standards.) Shrewd and thrifty businessmen who often buy properties outright with surprising quantities of cash. I haven't dealt with them personally, but this is what I've heard about them from people who have.
Yes, but then they don't pay tax either, so maybe they have used those extra funds to buy fields etc.
The site posted indicates that they do pay most taxes, except for FICA, for which they have a religious exemption (dear god, don’t anyone tell the Christian Nationalists about this exemption).
Any group that qualifies for the employment tax exemption already knows about it. They have to be in one of several groups that are known to have existed for several decades, and either have their own mutual benefit program or conscientiously object to the taxes for religious reasons. That list includes far right, far left, and moderate adherents.

(Sometimes clergy from mainline or popular denominations will also claim it. There is some grey area in interpreting legitimate conscientious objection.)

> There is some grey area in interpreting legitimate conscientious objection.

A ton of unnecessary gray area, and a violation of separation of church and state to give preference to certain tribes over others based on political influence.

That depends on your view of social security. It may become more of an issue if contributions become a progressive tax (no payroll income cap.)
They’re also permitted to pull their kids out of school after 8th grade (Wisconsin v. Yoder)
Do the Amish have a lot of political influence?