4 ms·

Idk, I think this characterization is a little on the naive-idealist side. Access to people in positions of power has always been an important part of the game

Idk, I think this characterization is a little on the naive-idealist side. Access to people in positions of power has always been an important part of the game. Those gatekeeping peddlers of access and influence can be financiers, politicians or corporate bosses. Often, it's all mixed together. In the west, it's sometimes been considered faux pax to emphasize the political component publicly. That generally doesn't apply to certain endevours, where the idea of doing anything big without such support is absurd. Banking, large scale construction and military industry comes to mind. If you can't get in a room with the big boys, you're not a big part of those. I'm not against idealisation. Like power in the hands of the people, building your fortune by the sweat of thy brow is admirable and attractive morally. As ideals, they can and do shape society and history. But societies and economies are not really built like that, never have been. Power matters.

noway421 9y ago
When gatekeepers are corporate bosses or financiers it's fine, the most they can do is to say no. In case of state and authority, there's much more power imbalance. If something goes wrong, or entrepreneur falls out of favour of authority, it becomes a no-rules game. Prosecution, seize of assets, state sponsored media witch hunting.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Again, I sort of disagree on similar grounds. The clear distinction between private and public is (in my estimation) more of an idealisation of free market economic systems than reality. In practice, money, power and influence at sufficient scale are the governing system. The idealisation is built on (a) very abstract idealised example (like Adam Smiths charming world of bakers and miller's) and (b) real world examples where free market dynamics work well, the way they are supposed to. For example, much of the SV-2.0 world before the money and politics got to the scale it's at now. But even here, connections always featured prominently at certain choke points like fundraising. The world of finance in particular is (I feel like I need to keep emphasizing imo, I do not have absolute proofs and I'm speaking in very general terms) more a part of the "public" governing system than the "private" realm of free individuals. Like I said though, I think these terms are not as clear as many HNers do.
  - cjslep 9y ago
    The quintessential counter example is Putin's Russia in the early 2000's. The oligarchs wouldn't play ball with the state, so Putin put the richest one in a cage on television. The other oligarchs immediately caved to work with the state on severely disadvantaged terms. In a power struggle between money and the state, the state always wins. It has the authority to instantly justify its seizure of the money, whereas the money will have to work in pretty visibly ugly ways to justify why it should seize the authority. This is why you see billionaires that become political officials more often than revolutionaries.
    - rbg246 9y ago
      I don't feel as though this proves some golden rule on world affairs. I think Russia is like this because of their unique past and I think other countries do things because of their own pasts, there is no one rule like gravity that ties human behaviour on a mass scale together across cultures. If anything I find I can turn your argument into reverse by, the reason why you see so many rich politicians in America is because Money is greater than State and this is why billionaires become political officials rather than revolutionaries. But I wouldn't say that because it would rather simplify a complex situation
      - tertius 9y ago
        > there is no one rule like gravity that ties human behaviour on a mass scale together across cultures. Self interest/self preservation is genetic.
        rbg246 9y ago
        I think you are right, self-preservation - the atoms of human motivation and behaviour
      - cjslep 9y ago
        There are places where money is greater than state. That's where countries that have bribes as part of their governmental interactions - money literally circumvents the states' authority. Having a billionaire politician means they're playing ball with the states' rules - they are not circumventing the rules. They may rewrite the rules within a legal framework - but they're still playing ball with the state's power, not hiring thugs on the street to stuff ballot boxes.
alexanderstears 9y ago
Gatekeeping is the reason we wind up with Harvey Weinsteins and Donald Trumps. People working for the civil government have pretty cushy jobs, it's not too demanding to ask that they make it so non-connected people can achieve the same outcomes as connected people. China is China and they can do what they want, but I expect better out of the west.
- an_account 9y ago
  How would that work?
  - zpallin 9y ago
    Adaptive regulation, leaner legal code, and regularly scheduled trust busting.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    I think busting public sector unions would be a good start, making the public employees at-will would be even better. And citizens should have a feedback mechanism - surly DMV clerks and permit granters who don't follow up should hit the streets. We have to incentivize service much more than we currently are.
- tertius 9y ago
  > it's not too demanding to ask You're saying that people should give up power by themselves. This is rare. Democracy works better.
  - alexanderstears 9y ago
    Either they give it up or they can get a new job. We have a lot more government than we need and we get a lot less than we pay for.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I'm all for it if someone has a good way of going about making it happen. But let's play fair... We can't appeal to the western tradition of societal fairness of that kind. It hasn't existed. It's fair enough to want it to become a part of it, but it has to be invented first.

noway421 9y ago

When gatekeepers are corporate bosses or financiers it's fine, the most they can do is to say no. In case of state and authority, there's much more power imbalance. If something goes wrong, or entrepreneur falls out of favour of authority, it becomes a no-rules game. Prosecution, seize of assets, state sponsored media witch hunting.

dalbasal 9y ago
Again, I sort of disagree on similar grounds. The clear distinction between private and public is (in my estimation) more of an idealisation of free market economic systems than reality. In practice, money, power and influence at sufficient scale are the governing system. The idealisation is built on (a) very abstract idealised example (like Adam Smiths charming world of bakers and miller's) and (b) real world examples where free market dynamics work well, the way they are supposed to. For example, much of the SV-2.0 world before the money and politics got to the scale it's at now. But even here, connections always featured prominently at certain choke points like fundraising. The world of finance in particular is (I feel like I need to keep emphasizing imo, I do not have absolute proofs and I'm speaking in very general terms) more a part of the "public" governing system than the "private" realm of free individuals. Like I said though, I think these terms are not as clear as many HNers do.
- cjslep 9y ago
  The quintessential counter example is Putin's Russia in the early 2000's. The oligarchs wouldn't play ball with the state, so Putin put the richest one in a cage on television. The other oligarchs immediately caved to work with the state on severely disadvantaged terms. In a power struggle between money and the state, the state always wins. It has the authority to instantly justify its seizure of the money, whereas the money will have to work in pretty visibly ugly ways to justify why it should seize the authority. This is why you see billionaires that become political officials more often than revolutionaries.
  - rbg246 9y ago
    I don't feel as though this proves some golden rule on world affairs. I think Russia is like this because of their unique past and I think other countries do things because of their own pasts, there is no one rule like gravity that ties human behaviour on a mass scale together across cultures. If anything I find I can turn your argument into reverse by, the reason why you see so many rich politicians in America is because Money is greater than State and this is why billionaires become political officials rather than revolutionaries. But I wouldn't say that because it would rather simplify a complex situation
    - tertius 9y ago
      > there is no one rule like gravity that ties human behaviour on a mass scale together across cultures. Self interest/self preservation is genetic.
      - rbg246 9y ago
        I think you are right, self-preservation - the atoms of human motivation and behaviour
    - cjslep 9y ago
      There are places where money is greater than state. That's where countries that have bribes as part of their governmental interactions - money literally circumvents the states' authority. Having a billionaire politician means they're playing ball with the states' rules - they are not circumventing the rules. They may rewrite the rules within a legal framework - but they're still playing ball with the state's power, not hiring thugs on the street to stuff ballot boxes.

alexanderstears 9y ago

Gatekeeping is the reason we wind up with Harvey Weinsteins and Donald Trumps. People working for the civil government have pretty cushy jobs, it's not too demanding to ask that they make it so non-connected people can achieve the same outcomes as connected people. China is China and they can do what they want, but I expect better out of the west.

an_account 9y ago
How would that work?
- zpallin 9y ago
  Adaptive regulation, leaner legal code, and regularly scheduled trust busting.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  I think busting public sector unions would be a good start, making the public employees at-will would be even better. And citizens should have a feedback mechanism - surly DMV clerks and permit granters who don't follow up should hit the streets. We have to incentivize service much more than we currently are.
tertius 9y ago
> it's not too demanding to ask You're saying that people should give up power by themselves. This is rare. Democracy works better.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Either they give it up or they can get a new job. We have a lot more government than we need and we get a lot less than we pay for.
dalbasal 9y ago
I'm all for it if someone has a good way of going about making it happen. But let's play fair... We can't appeal to the western tradition of societal fairness of that kind. It hasn't existed. It's fair enough to want it to become a part of it, but it has to be invented first.