3 ms·
I think the reason the original essay was so controversial is that it set out to demonstrate that a society faces a binary choice: * We allow both startups and
by avz 11y ago
I think the reason the original essay was so controversial is that it set out to demonstrate that a society faces a binary choice:
* We allow both startups and inequality.
* We attack both startups and inequality.
This is perhaps most clearly articulated in this quote:
"You can't end economic inequality without preventing people from getting rich, and you can't do that without preventing them from starting startups."
And here strikes the controversy: on average the hacker community has a favorable view of startups while also opposing economic inequality (this is at least my general impression).
Perhaps the optimal solution is a compromise that allows startups and inequality while providing a system that eliminates the most undesirable effects of inequality. There are already systems in place to prevent extreme poverty, to ensure some minimum access to education and healthcare etc.
From the remaining issues the most pressing one is the problem of excessive concentration of political power. A system that weakens the link between money and political influence seems necessary.
- UK-AL 11y agoA large chunk of the hacker community is probably close to libertarian, and that was well known and well criticised. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Californian_Ideology) Well back in the day it was, I don't think an article like this would have been that controversial on hackernews many years ago. A lot of pauls earlier writing has similar stances. As more people have joined, it moved quite heavily to the left.
- ild 11y ago> We attack both startups and inequality. That would've been true if there was no non-profit startups.
- throwawaymaroon 11y agoI don't think society faces that binary choice exactly, I think the reduction to a binary choice is pointless, and I think pg is really bad at knowing when to keep his mouth shut. In the end he's trying to exonerate himself from the 'hunters,' but he's not even making arguments the hunters would understand. It's all directed towards people like him. He's not saying "You shouldn't eat me," he's saying "They shouldn't eat me" to the other prey animals (or those that already don't make much of an issue of income inequality). I don't know why he bothers. Say he's saying something uncontroversial endorsing weakening 'the link between money and political influence' or some such. He should say that instead! He's either deliberately inflammatory or he really has no idea how terrible he sounds.