4 ms·

Everyone is free to pick their fight, sure, but when people have accumulated great power there is great responsibility, no? And if these people come from a phi

Everyone is free to pick their fight, sure, but when people have accumulated great power there is great responsibility, no? And if these people come from a philosophical and cultural and political monoculture, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious about them. FWIW, I feel the same way about the energy execs and crooked politicians--except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him. Who, exactly, voted for these millionaires? Nobody.

sulam 9y ago
So if the next election goes the other way, you're going to be supportive of the Chris Saccas of the world and discount the Gary Cohns and Steven Bannons? (note I purposefully am picking two very divergent points of view from within the Trump administration who happen to be multimillionaires). At the end of the day, I personally care about actions and how they stack up against my personal ethical and moral compass. You are obviously free to use whatever method you want to decide if someone is doing good in the world. And yes, Sacca is free to spend his money however he likes. I also support Rebekah Mercer's right to spend her money on vicious attack ads. I don't have to respect her for it -- regardless of who won the election -- and you don't have to respect Chris Sacca. Regarding monocultures -- circumscribe a set tightly enough and everyone comes from a monoculture. I don't think Sacca is any less exposed to divergent viewpoints than the Mercer's are, to use a relevant example. And finally, just to respond to your overarching argument that Sacca has some responsibility to use his money in a particular way. He may believe so, and that wouldn't make it any more your business how he does it. And if he chooses to spend it on wine, art, and yacht collecting because that's what he wants to do with it we can both believe he can do better (Larry Ellison, if you're reading this: you can do better) -- but the society we live in hasn't made us the arbiters of good billionaire behavior, more's the pity. :)
- angersock 9y ago
  So, if Bannon and Cohn were to go and start rabble-rousing about the "resistance" and the "despotic democrats" (and Lord knows folks did plenty of that when Obama took office), I'd be similarly annoyed. My overarching argument is not quite that Sacca has a responsibility to use his money in a particular way--it's more that I find it distressing that powerful people (that arguably should know better) seem to have gotten caught up in the zeitgeist of the times and aren't being more conservative (in the "wait, let's stop and think about what we're actually advocating and how that could play out") and open-minded (in the "wait, maybe these other points of view are simply different and not always wrong"). I feel the same way about folks on the other side--they just tend not to show up on HN as much.
s73ver 9y ago
"except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him." More people voted for Not Trump than voted for Trump.

sulam 9y ago

So if the next election goes the other way, you're going to be supportive of the Chris Saccas of the world and discount the Gary Cohns and Steven Bannons? (note I purposefully am picking two very divergent points of view from within the Trump administration who happen to be multimillionaires). At the end of the day, I personally care about actions and how they stack up against my personal ethical and moral compass. You are obviously free to use whatever method you want to decide if someone is doing good in the world. And yes, Sacca is free to spend his money however he likes. I also support Rebekah Mercer's right to spend her money on vicious attack ads. I don't have to respect her for it -- regardless of who won the election -- and you don't have to respect Chris Sacca. Regarding monocultures -- circumscribe a set tightly enough and everyone comes from a monoculture. I don't think Sacca is any less exposed to divergent viewpoints than the Mercer's are, to use a relevant example. And finally, just to respond to your overarching argument that Sacca has some responsibility to use his money in a particular way. He may believe so, and that wouldn't make it any more your business how he does it. And if he chooses to spend it on wine, art, and yacht collecting because that's what he wants to do with it we can both believe he can do better (Larry Ellison, if you're reading this: you can do better) -- but the society we live in hasn't made us the arbiters of good billionaire behavior, more's the pity. :)

angersock 9y ago
So, if Bannon and Cohn were to go and start rabble-rousing about the "resistance" and the "despotic democrats" (and Lord knows folks did plenty of that when Obama took office), I'd be similarly annoyed. My overarching argument is not quite that Sacca has a responsibility to use his money in a particular way--it's more that I find it distressing that powerful people (that arguably should know better) seem to have gotten caught up in the zeitgeist of the times and aren't being more conservative (in the "wait, let's stop and think about what we're actually advocating and how that could play out") and open-minded (in the "wait, maybe these other points of view are simply different and not always wrong"). I feel the same way about folks on the other side--they just tend not to show up on HN as much.

s73ver 9y ago

"except in the case of at least Trump, there is at least a mandate of government granted by the people that voted for him." More people voted for Not Trump than voted for Trump.