5 ms·

The logical fallacies here run VERY VERY deep. You've attributed the entire problem to being a "Billionaire"

by mankash666 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago
You may not agree with the argument, but where is the logical fallacy?
- mankash666 9y ago
  Where is the logical connection between being a billionaire & shutting down a publication in a vindictive manner established? ANYONE disagreeing with negative press about themselves will do everything in their power to do so. From politicians to people accessing reputation management services [1], in general, people with shut down negative opinion against them. So, the "logical" fallacy is in attributing wealth to reputation management, when everyone, from the very poor to the very rich, and otherwise powerful behave the exact same way. Disallowing people from becoming billionaires by using punitive taxation is NOT logic. [1]: https://www.reputation.com/ https://www.reputation.com/
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It has a lot to do with it. Only the very wealthy have the means to fund nuisance lawsuits until a publication is forced to shut down (or, for that matter, effectively bend the ear of influential politicians, etc.). The rest of us are stuck with stuff like Reputation Defender, which is not very effective, and in any case does not completely shut down any news organization.
the_cat_kittles 9y ago
im not sure i understand what your saying, doesnt seem to address my main point, which is: it seems unlikely that a very small group of rich people will use their money for public good in a more effective way than if that money were more evenly distributed among people. thats not even a normative statement, where is the logical fallacy?
- mankash666 9y ago
  WHY are you forcing your philosophy of "wealth should be used for the public good" on billionaires. If they accumulated wealth in a legal fashion, they aren't beholden to doing ANY public good. On the contrary, of you requested billionaires to NOT cause harm by using their disproportionate wealth, that'd be a sound argument. For instance, Gawker's takeover by Thiel seems to border on the illegal.
  - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
    wasnt forcing my philosophy, just voicing my suspicion that its probably sub optimal to have billionaires if you are trying to maximize the greater good. not saying thats what you necessarily should do, though i do personally think that.
    - mankash666 9y ago
      What greater good do you speak of? Regardless of how repugnant you find Theil, his investments have led to thousands of great paying jobs directly, and probably tens of thousands of indirect jobs. That my friend, is a great service to society. What you are suggesting is an ultra high tax rate on the wealthy and that's proven over and over to not work out. Italy, France and Spain for instance, have a pivoted to a socialistic society that punishingly taxes the rich to the point of driving the ambitious and successful out of the country. While these countries produced some of the most iconic companies and individuals in the early 1900s, it's no coincidence that a Google, Microsoft, etc hasn't emerged from there. The world's richest man (adjusted for inflation), Bill Gates has donated over $18B in philanthropy. His management of money that can potentially help the needy has been far superior to any elected political figure or government organisation. Don't enable politicians with power over (your) tax money, their only aim is to get reelected - not to serve society. Enables another Bill Gates it Zuckerberg, who've both pledged 99% of their wealth to charity. Heck, enable a Peter Theil to fund the next Facebook and create billions in wealth, jobs and taxes.
      - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
s73ver_ 9y ago
If Thiel wasn't a billionaire, he wouldn't have been able to do what he did. On the other hand, if he wasn't a billionaire, Valleywag might not have been as interested in his personal life.

The logical fallacies here run VERY VERY deep. You've attributed the entire problem to being a "Billionaire"

emodendroket 9y ago

You may not agree with the argument, but where is the logical fallacy?

mankash666 9y ago
Where is the logical connection between being a billionaire & shutting down a publication in a vindictive manner established? ANYONE disagreeing with negative press about themselves will do everything in their power to do so. From politicians to people accessing reputation management services [1], in general, people with shut down negative opinion against them. So, the "logical" fallacy is in attributing wealth to reputation management, when everyone, from the very poor to the very rich, and otherwise powerful behave the exact same way. Disallowing people from becoming billionaires by using punitive taxation is NOT logic. [1]: https://www.reputation.com/ https://www.reputation.com/
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It has a lot to do with it. Only the very wealthy have the means to fund nuisance lawsuits until a publication is forced to shut down (or, for that matter, effectively bend the ear of influential politicians, etc.). The rest of us are stuck with stuff like Reputation Defender, which is not very effective, and in any case does not completely shut down any news organization.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago

im not sure i understand what your saying, doesnt seem to address my main point, which is: it seems unlikely that a very small group of rich people will use their money for public good in a more effective way than if that money were more evenly distributed among people. thats not even a normative statement, where is the logical fallacy?

mankash666 9y ago
WHY are you forcing your philosophy of "wealth should be used for the public good" on billionaires. If they accumulated wealth in a legal fashion, they aren't beholden to doing ANY public good. On the contrary, of you requested billionaires to NOT cause harm by using their disproportionate wealth, that'd be a sound argument. For instance, Gawker's takeover by Thiel seems to border on the illegal.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  wasnt forcing my philosophy, just voicing my suspicion that its probably sub optimal to have billionaires if you are trying to maximize the greater good. not saying thats what you necessarily should do, though i do personally think that.
  - mankash666 9y ago
    What greater good do you speak of? Regardless of how repugnant you find Theil, his investments have led to thousands of great paying jobs directly, and probably tens of thousands of indirect jobs. That my friend, is a great service to society. What you are suggesting is an ultra high tax rate on the wealthy and that's proven over and over to not work out. Italy, France and Spain for instance, have a pivoted to a socialistic society that punishingly taxes the rich to the point of driving the ambitious and successful out of the country. While these countries produced some of the most iconic companies and individuals in the early 1900s, it's no coincidence that a Google, Microsoft, etc hasn't emerged from there. The world's richest man (adjusted for inflation), Bill Gates has donated over $18B in philanthropy. His management of money that can potentially help the needy has been far superior to any elected political figure or government organisation. Don't enable politicians with power over (your) tax money, their only aim is to get reelected - not to serve society. Enables another Bill Gates it Zuckerberg, who've both pledged 99% of their wealth to charity. Heck, enable a Peter Theil to fund the next Facebook and create billions in wealth, jobs and taxes.
    - the_cat_kittles 9y ago

s73ver_ 9y ago

If Thiel wasn't a billionaire, he wouldn't have been able to do what he did. On the other hand, if he wasn't a billionaire, Valleywag might not have been as interested in his personal life.