4 ms·

yeah, he is well known ahole, that's for sure. don't look for any altruism/good intentions in his actions, rather ice cold calculation on how to make profit on

yeah, he is well known ahole, that's for sure. don't look for any altruism/good intentions in his actions, rather ice cold calculation on how to make profit on it in longer term, regardless of consequences

andybak 10y ago
It requires quite a leap to disregard all his public statements and activities, the range of pro-democracy organisations that he has provided financial support for, his advocacy of democracy and the concept of the open society in general, his long-term advocacy for Karl Popper as a major voice in political philosophy and all the other things that point towards a genuine, coherent and consistent belief in the essential qualities a society needs to preserve peace and a functioning civil society. Most of the anti-Soros conspiracies I have heard have been obviously either ideologically driven or transparent pieces of realpolitik. On balance I'd still bet on the man being motivated by altruism even if you conclude he is wrong-headed in the his beliefs or methods.
- james-watson 10y ago
  So riddle me this, if there are no borders demarcating countries, what exactly is the definition of a country? The open borders zealots like Soros never seem to have a clear answer to this.
  - andybak 10y ago
    I'm not sure I believe in radically open borders. I'm certainly not saying I agree with Soros on everything. I'm simply saying that people who believe he has sinister intentions are staking out a fairly extreme position. It comes back to a tendency that I feel more and more is the most pernicious influence of all in the public sphere - the inability of people to believe that those on the other side of a debate are reasonable, rational, intelligent people who are doing their best to solve difficult problems. We (and I include myself here) have a deep-rooted impulse to characterise the other side as either charlatans, crooks or imbeciles. Taking someone seriously who has reached different conclusions to oneself or has a different worldview triggers such cognitive dissonance that we'd prefer to ascribe to them either nefarious motives or else some kind of mental deficiency.
    - james-watson 10y ago
      This isn't a morality issue. Soros is a very clever, rational, and self serving individual. This is currently the model citizen, as we are all supposed to rationally optimize our own individual utility within the free market. Soros is a financial speculator, so he literally makes money off chaos. He made his billions by betting against the Bank of England. Everything he is doing to destabilize Europe and the West makes perfect sense from his point of view. He is simply rationally maximizing his own utility given the tools at his disposal. This isn't immoral, its rationally amoral. Soros is the perfect counterexample to libertarian fantasies of rational self-interest-run societies. Because it becomes very clear very quickly that one person's self interest is another person's dystopian nightmare. Childish good and evil narratives don't apply here. It is just a very clear case of good intentions causing immense harm. When there is profit to be made off chaos, you are economically incentivizing it, and will receive more of it.
      - andybak 10y ago
        Again - you're making quite a leap here. All his public statements are about promoting stability, democracy and the open society. If your hypothesis is that wants to promote chaos to help him profit from speculation there is no way to do that without also ascribing to him direct intentionality on the matter. He can't 'unconsciously' be creating chaos and 'accidentally' profiting. The cause-and-effect feedback look is too tortuous for this to be a rational explanation for his actions. So pick your position. He's either a duplicitous puppet-master with no sincere motivation aside from increasing his own wealth - or he is a sincere believer in freedom and democracy - even if he is deluded or incorrect about the long-term effects of his actions. Note that the second position allows you to believe he still wants to increase his personal wealth - it allows for the possibility that he is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser degree. But there is clear blue water between that and many of the Soros-theories that sound to me like barking mad wingnut fodder.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    open borders is just another way to saying the idea of 'digital natives'. Is that some conspiracy? I don't see it.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Who cares about his motivations? Why should he be able to pour tens of millions of dollars into whatever country or election he pleases to push the voters where he wants them? Why should Rupert Murdoch be able to do similar by buying up media conglomerates? Why should anyone have this kind of power to obviate democracy?

andybak 10y ago

It requires quite a leap to disregard all his public statements and activities, the range of pro-democracy organisations that he has provided financial support for, his advocacy of democracy and the concept of the open society in general, his long-term advocacy for Karl Popper as a major voice in political philosophy and all the other things that point towards a genuine, coherent and consistent belief in the essential qualities a society needs to preserve peace and a functioning civil society. Most of the anti-Soros conspiracies I have heard have been obviously either ideologically driven or transparent pieces of realpolitik. On balance I'd still bet on the man being motivated by altruism even if you conclude he is wrong-headed in the his beliefs or methods.

james-watson 10y ago
So riddle me this, if there are no borders demarcating countries, what exactly is the definition of a country? The open borders zealots like Soros never seem to have a clear answer to this.
- andybak 10y ago
  I'm not sure I believe in radically open borders. I'm certainly not saying I agree with Soros on everything. I'm simply saying that people who believe he has sinister intentions are staking out a fairly extreme position. It comes back to a tendency that I feel more and more is the most pernicious influence of all in the public sphere - the inability of people to believe that those on the other side of a debate are reasonable, rational, intelligent people who are doing their best to solve difficult problems. We (and I include myself here) have a deep-rooted impulse to characterise the other side as either charlatans, crooks or imbeciles. Taking someone seriously who has reached different conclusions to oneself or has a different worldview triggers such cognitive dissonance that we'd prefer to ascribe to them either nefarious motives or else some kind of mental deficiency.
  - james-watson 10y ago
    This isn't a morality issue. Soros is a very clever, rational, and self serving individual. This is currently the model citizen, as we are all supposed to rationally optimize our own individual utility within the free market. Soros is a financial speculator, so he literally makes money off chaos. He made his billions by betting against the Bank of England. Everything he is doing to destabilize Europe and the West makes perfect sense from his point of view. He is simply rationally maximizing his own utility given the tools at his disposal. This isn't immoral, its rationally amoral. Soros is the perfect counterexample to libertarian fantasies of rational self-interest-run societies. Because it becomes very clear very quickly that one person's self interest is another person's dystopian nightmare. Childish good and evil narratives don't apply here. It is just a very clear case of good intentions causing immense harm. When there is profit to be made off chaos, you are economically incentivizing it, and will receive more of it.
    - andybak 10y ago
      Again - you're making quite a leap here. All his public statements are about promoting stability, democracy and the open society. If your hypothesis is that wants to promote chaos to help him profit from speculation there is no way to do that without also ascribing to him direct intentionality on the matter. He can't 'unconsciously' be creating chaos and 'accidentally' profiting. The cause-and-effect feedback look is too tortuous for this to be a rational explanation for his actions. So pick your position. He's either a duplicitous puppet-master with no sincere motivation aside from increasing his own wealth - or he is a sincere believer in freedom and democracy - even if he is deluded or incorrect about the long-term effects of his actions. Note that the second position allows you to believe he still wants to increase his personal wealth - it allows for the possibility that he is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser degree. But there is clear blue water between that and many of the Soros-theories that sound to me like barking mad wingnut fodder.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  open borders is just another way to saying the idea of 'digital natives'. Is that some conspiracy? I don't see it.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Who cares about his motivations? Why should he be able to pour tens of millions of dollars into whatever country or election he pleases to push the voters where he wants them? Why should Rupert Murdoch be able to do similar by buying up media conglomerates? Why should anyone have this kind of power to obviate democracy?