7 ms·

That's not a requirement, what it describes is not dishonesty, nor does it use that word. Nor does the phrase you put in quotation marks appear in the essay. Wh

That's not a requirement, what it describes is not dishonesty, nor does it use that word. Nor does the phrase you put in quotation marks appear in the essay. Who's being dishonest here?

blackbagboys 8y ago
In practice, this is what breaking 'rules that don't matter' looks like - you break the rules that don't matter to you, but those rules were probably put in place for a reason.
- hailk 8y ago
  > but those rules were probably put in place for a reason. Assuming that lawmaking systems are altruistic and incapable of folly. In practice that doesn't work
  - blackbagboys 8y ago
    Rules and regulations require trade-offs. The YC types that run these companies notice the inefficiencies resulting from these trade-offs, recognize the opportunity to profit from them and arrogantly assume they have the right to ignore any rule they can't immediately see the harm in breaking; either because they aren't / wouldn't be affected by the negative externalities the rule is mitigating, so they don't understand why it exists, or, more often than not, because they don't really give a fuck about anything other than making money and being big-time shot-callers.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      You're still assuming that all rules are mitigating negative externalities. I find your faith in government amazing, and I'm no libertarian.
      - blackbagboys 8y ago
        Can you offer any recent examples of start-ups routinely breaking the law where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect? Again, all rules involve trade-offs. It may be that those trade-offs or preferentially unfairly benefit some special interest group or otherwise aren't worth the cost to society, but it's not up to profit-seeking hucksters to unilaterally make that determination.
        icebraining 8y ago
        The first example that occurs to me is startups selling medical marijuana in states which have already legalized it (yet they're still breaking federal law).
        blackbagboys 8y ago
        They're in conflict with federal law, but they're following a legal and regulatory framework that was established by their local governments, so there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules. That's not unilaterally deciding to ignore the law. A better example of a start-up in the marijuana space that did do that might be, say, the Zeta Cartel. (obviously, I'm not saying that no one should ever break an unjust law, but I don't believe for a second that we should allow profit-motivated companies to be good judges of what are just and unjust laws)
        icebraining 8y ago
        So you ask me to provide a counter-example to your position, by mentioning a startup which broke the law "where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect", yet when I provide one, it doesn't count because "there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules"? This isn't even a No True Scotsman, it's literally contradictory.
        blackbagboys 8y ago
  - nfoz 8y ago
    As a law-abiding citizen, I do want you to obey the laws, even when you think they are folly. Fix the law, instead of breaking it to your advantage where you don't like it. I want you to adhere to this principle only up to an admittedly subjective bar (e.g. circumventing a tyranical regime). But a lot of the "mischief" being described here is probably well within the threshold.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > Assuming that lawmaking systems are altruistic and incapable of folly. As opposed to assuming all those that will individually assess and decide what rules are worth following won't diverge in "interesting" (read as dangerous and life-threatening) ways occasionally as the inexperienced, the unethical, or the just plain stupid make choices we would all rather as a society they not.
    - hailk 8y ago
      Nope. It's not as black and white. Following the laws to the book, but not being afraid of breaking the law in itself, but being afraid of crossing ethical lines and understanding the cost of breaking the law, willfully accepting what retribution comes back when caught. There has to be some level of human conscience at play in these decision making. There are hundreds of laws that are enforced while ethical lines are being crossed and laws are broken without crossing any. All we can ask as a society is that we train and employ our rationality and conscience.
  - astura 8y ago
    That's not what the person you are replying to said.
- freeopinion 8y ago
  I was just having this discussion with my children. How much sense a rule makes depends on the altitude of the observer. For instance, it makes sense to all people to choose for themselves whether to smoke. It also makes sense to protect people from food poisoning. Does it make sense to disallow the sale of raw milk because somebody might get sick but allow the sale of cigarettes with a big sticker that smoking will kill you? Sometimes the sense of something changes between the small picture and the large picture. So it is with deciding which rules are ok to break.
- Retra 8y ago
  Even when rules are put in place for a reason, you should still be able to break them as long as there is value in doing so and you pay sufficient attention to the underlying reasons for the rule. Reasons are more important than rules, after all. You won't be able to do anything exceptional if you're not allowed to be an exception in any meaningful way.
bshimmin 8y ago
Unless the grandparent comment was edited, it certainly does appear in the essay - it's the paragraph under the heading "4. Naughtiness". (And it's a pretty worrisome paragraph, in all honesty.)
- badcede 8y ago
  I meant the phrase in the first paragraph ("when it doesn't matter, in the eye of the investor"). In fact there's nothing in that first paragraph that isn't false.

That's not a requirement, what it describes is not dishonesty, nor does it use that word. Nor does the phrase you put in quotation marks appear in the essay. Who's being dishonest here?

blackbagboys 8y ago

In practice, this is what breaking 'rules that don't matter' looks like - you break the rules that don't matter to you, but those rules were probably put in place for a reason.

hailk 8y ago
> but those rules were probably put in place for a reason. Assuming that lawmaking systems are altruistic and incapable of folly. In practice that doesn't work
- blackbagboys 8y ago
  Rules and regulations require trade-offs. The YC types that run these companies notice the inefficiencies resulting from these trade-offs, recognize the opportunity to profit from them and arrogantly assume they have the right to ignore any rule they can't immediately see the harm in breaking; either because they aren't / wouldn't be affected by the negative externalities the rule is mitigating, so they don't understand why it exists, or, more often than not, because they don't really give a fuck about anything other than making money and being big-time shot-callers.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    You're still assuming that all rules are mitigating negative externalities. I find your faith in government amazing, and I'm no libertarian.
    - blackbagboys 8y ago
      Can you offer any recent examples of start-ups routinely breaking the law where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect? Again, all rules involve trade-offs. It may be that those trade-offs or preferentially unfairly benefit some special interest group or otherwise aren't worth the cost to society, but it's not up to profit-seeking hucksters to unilaterally make that determination.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        The first example that occurs to me is startups selling medical marijuana in states which have already legalized it (yet they're still breaking federal law).
        blackbagboys 8y ago
        They're in conflict with federal law, but they're following a legal and regulatory framework that was established by their local governments, so there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules. That's not unilaterally deciding to ignore the law. A better example of a start-up in the marijuana space that did do that might be, say, the Zeta Cartel. (obviously, I'm not saying that no one should ever break an unjust law, but I don't believe for a second that we should allow profit-motivated companies to be good judges of what are just and unjust laws)
        icebraining 8y ago
        So you ask me to provide a counter-example to your position, by mentioning a startup which broke the law "where nearly everyone is in agreement that their law-breaking has no negative social effect", yet when I provide one, it doesn't count because "there's a broad consensus where they are operating that it's OK to break those rules"? This isn't even a No True Scotsman, it's literally contradictory.
        blackbagboys 8y ago
- nfoz 8y ago
  As a law-abiding citizen, I do want you to obey the laws, even when you think they are folly. Fix the law, instead of breaking it to your advantage where you don't like it. I want you to adhere to this principle only up to an admittedly subjective bar (e.g. circumventing a tyranical regime). But a lot of the "mischief" being described here is probably well within the threshold.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Assuming that lawmaking systems are altruistic and incapable of folly. As opposed to assuming all those that will individually assess and decide what rules are worth following won't diverge in "interesting" (read as dangerous and life-threatening) ways occasionally as the inexperienced, the unethical, or the just plain stupid make choices we would all rather as a society they not.
  - hailk 8y ago
    Nope. It's not as black and white. Following the laws to the book, but not being afraid of breaking the law in itself, but being afraid of crossing ethical lines and understanding the cost of breaking the law, willfully accepting what retribution comes back when caught. There has to be some level of human conscience at play in these decision making. There are hundreds of laws that are enforced while ethical lines are being crossed and laws are broken without crossing any. All we can ask as a society is that we train and employ our rationality and conscience.
- astura 8y ago
  That's not what the person you are replying to said.
freeopinion 8y ago
I was just having this discussion with my children. How much sense a rule makes depends on the altitude of the observer. For instance, it makes sense to all people to choose for themselves whether to smoke. It also makes sense to protect people from food poisoning. Does it make sense to disallow the sale of raw milk because somebody might get sick but allow the sale of cigarettes with a big sticker that smoking will kill you? Sometimes the sense of something changes between the small picture and the large picture. So it is with deciding which rules are ok to break.
Retra 8y ago
Even when rules are put in place for a reason, you should still be able to break them as long as there is value in doing so and you pay sufficient attention to the underlying reasons for the rule. Reasons are more important than rules, after all. You won't be able to do anything exceptional if you're not allowed to be an exception in any meaningful way.

bshimmin 8y ago

Unless the grandparent comment was edited, it certainly does appear in the essay - it's the paragraph under the heading "4. Naughtiness". (And it's a pretty worrisome paragraph, in all honesty.)

badcede 8y ago
I meant the phrase in the first paragraph ("when it doesn't matter, in the eye of the investor"). In fact there's nothing in that first paragraph that isn't false.