4 ms·

The ACLU, in the past week, received as much $ in online donation as it has over the past six years. Cash talks and bullshit walks. Tell me, if you're a free-

by ajamesm 10y ago

The ACLU, in the past week, received as much $ in online donation as it has over the past six years. Cash talks and bullshit walks. Tell me, if you're a free-market conservative, why YC or the ACLU should disregard such a resonating and clear message from the market.

beaconstudios 10y ago
one opinion: there's nothing wrong with YC supporting the ACLU or even openly opposing Trump, but consider any Trump supporters (either public or private) that they currently work with. How can they be sure that they won't be discriminated against if YC has taken a stance against their political beliefs? And for those supporters who were planning on applying to YC, how can they know that YC will treat them neutrally? If YC wants to be politically oriented, they can and should, but it strikes me as something they should be open about.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  I don't think there's any neutrality in the process and we shouldn't pretend there is. Participating in YC is assenting to American capitalism and working to enrich YC investors, which is a political act. Cooperating with Peter Thiel is a political act. Expanding the labor supply in markets with unions is a political act. Disrupting healthcare is a political act. Employment under H1B visas is political. YC can admit [your candidate here] supporters and say 'we won't discriminate based upon your political affiliations or your vote' but they will absolutely discriminate against each other's political aims because of the political ramifications of the any work done by technologists.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    > Participating in YC is assenting to American capitalism and working to enrich YC investors, which is a political act. With a number of layers of indirection, maybe. Capitalism is a system of economic organisation and is not inherently political. The wide variety of both left-leaning and right-leaning capitalist countries speaks to that. what I mean when I say political is overt politics. You can argue that "the personal is political" or "everything is political" but there's a considerable difference in granularity between agreeing to work with a libertarian or trying to improve the healthcare industry, and donating money to an anti-Trump cause. Donating to the ACLU is an act of political affiliation given their recent spotlight, whereas simply agreeing to work with Thiel or employing a H1B worker is an economic act in the frame of capitalism.
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      If capitalism is not political because it's just a system of economic organization, then it's not political to dismantle capitalism and institute a socialist economy. Economic systems are SO radically political that people used 'socialist' as a slur against Obama. McCarthyism. CIA overthrow of democratically-elected socialist governments. Not political? Not to pick on Peter Thiel, but he's a convenient and recent example. He donated $1.25M to Trump. He wouldn't have had $1.25M to donate to Trump if people didn't earn that money for him. You can cast it as wishy-washy, indirect, etc. but at the end of the day that check cleared.
      - beaconstudios 10y ago
        socialism is a political system that demands a particular economic system - a planned economy. A planned economy in itself is not political, in that it's a specific way of organising labour. A barter or gift economy are also economic models, neither of which are inherently tied to a political system. "Socialist" as a slur for Obama was in reference to the political act of taxation and wealth redistribution. Neither of these things are capitalist, and the term "socialist" has a somewhat different meaning to the original political system, when it comes to American politics. American "socialism" is more akin to social democracy i.e. a capitalism-driven welfare state. At least, that's my understanding. McCarthyism was political, nothing to do with economics. The CIA interfered with other countries' political process (i.e. staging a coup). The whole idea of capitalism is that people join together in free association to trade for mutual benefit. The responsibility ends there. If I buy your goods and then somewhere down the line you decide to use that cash to buy a weapon and kill someone, I am in no way responsible for that because it is a separate transaction that I did not enter into. Ergo, trading with Thiel is not a political act that can somehow be ratified retrospectively. It is an economic act. If your agreement was "I'll trade with you on the condition that you donate the profits to Trump", then it becomes political. From my perspective, the distinction is pretty clear to be honest.
        astrange 10y ago
        > If I buy your goods and then somewhere down the line you decide to use that cash to buy a weapon and kill someone, I am in no way responsible for that because it is a separate transaction that I did not enter into. That argument might work until you try to convince any other person. If you're buying cocaine from FARC, what did you expect them to do? Similarly all the profound libertarian arguments on this thread will last up until they need $500k for cancer treatment and end up an indentured servant to a future billionaire hedge-fund AI.
Eridrus 10y ago
> The ACLU, in the past week, received as much $ in online donation as it has over the past six years. That's pretty depressing.
- grzm 10y ago
  Or very encouraging that many people are becoming more involved.
lol214365 10y ago
>Why should they disregard a market signal in regards to a NON-profit? Really makes you think...

by ajamesm 10y ago

beaconstudios 10y ago

one opinion: there's nothing wrong with YC supporting the ACLU or even openly opposing Trump, but consider any Trump supporters (either public or private) that they currently work with. How can they be sure that they won't be discriminated against if YC has taken a stance against their political beliefs? And for those supporters who were planning on applying to YC, how can they know that YC will treat them neutrally? If YC wants to be politically oriented, they can and should, but it strikes me as something they should be open about.

ajamesm 10y ago
I don't think there's any neutrality in the process and we shouldn't pretend there is. Participating in YC is assenting to American capitalism and working to enrich YC investors, which is a political act. Cooperating with Peter Thiel is a political act. Expanding the labor supply in markets with unions is a political act. Disrupting healthcare is a political act. Employment under H1B visas is political. YC can admit [your candidate here] supporters and say 'we won't discriminate based upon your political affiliations or your vote' but they will absolutely discriminate against each other's political aims because of the political ramifications of the any work done by technologists.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  > Participating in YC is assenting to American capitalism and working to enrich YC investors, which is a political act. With a number of layers of indirection, maybe. Capitalism is a system of economic organisation and is not inherently political. The wide variety of both left-leaning and right-leaning capitalist countries speaks to that. what I mean when I say political is overt politics. You can argue that "the personal is political" or "everything is political" but there's a considerable difference in granularity between agreeing to work with a libertarian or trying to improve the healthcare industry, and donating money to an anti-Trump cause. Donating to the ACLU is an act of political affiliation given their recent spotlight, whereas simply agreeing to work with Thiel or employing a H1B worker is an economic act in the frame of capitalism.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    If capitalism is not political because it's just a system of economic organization, then it's not political to dismantle capitalism and institute a socialist economy. Economic systems are SO radically political that people used 'socialist' as a slur against Obama. McCarthyism. CIA overthrow of democratically-elected socialist governments. Not political? Not to pick on Peter Thiel, but he's a convenient and recent example. He donated $1.25M to Trump. He wouldn't have had $1.25M to donate to Trump if people didn't earn that money for him. You can cast it as wishy-washy, indirect, etc. but at the end of the day that check cleared.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      socialism is a political system that demands a particular economic system - a planned economy. A planned economy in itself is not political, in that it's a specific way of organising labour. A barter or gift economy are also economic models, neither of which are inherently tied to a political system. "Socialist" as a slur for Obama was in reference to the political act of taxation and wealth redistribution. Neither of these things are capitalist, and the term "socialist" has a somewhat different meaning to the original political system, when it comes to American politics. American "socialism" is more akin to social democracy i.e. a capitalism-driven welfare state. At least, that's my understanding. McCarthyism was political, nothing to do with economics. The CIA interfered with other countries' political process (i.e. staging a coup). The whole idea of capitalism is that people join together in free association to trade for mutual benefit. The responsibility ends there. If I buy your goods and then somewhere down the line you decide to use that cash to buy a weapon and kill someone, I am in no way responsible for that because it is a separate transaction that I did not enter into. Ergo, trading with Thiel is not a political act that can somehow be ratified retrospectively. It is an economic act. If your agreement was "I'll trade with you on the condition that you donate the profits to Trump", then it becomes political. From my perspective, the distinction is pretty clear to be honest.
      - astrange 10y ago
        > If I buy your goods and then somewhere down the line you decide to use that cash to buy a weapon and kill someone, I am in no way responsible for that because it is a separate transaction that I did not enter into. That argument might work until you try to convince any other person. If you're buying cocaine from FARC, what did you expect them to do? Similarly all the profound libertarian arguments on this thread will last up until they need $500k for cancer treatment and end up an indentured servant to a future billionaire hedge-fund AI.

Eridrus 10y ago

> The ACLU, in the past week, received as much $ in online donation as it has over the past six years. That's pretty depressing.

grzm 10y ago
Or very encouraging that many people are becoming more involved.

lol214365 10y ago

>Why should they disregard a market signal in regards to a NON-profit? Really makes you think...