7 ms·
It’s important to understand that this is a Stanford educated, pampered brat who would taunt people with “stay poor” whenever anyone asked basic diligence quest
by numair 4y ago
It’s important to understand that this is a Stanford educated, pampered brat who would taunt people with “stay poor” whenever anyone asked basic diligence questions. He built his fallen empire on the back of a bogus “governments are bad, people have to be able to stand up to them” BS narrative (that a lot of the HN crowd blindly parrots as well without thinking through the consequences — life isn’t Zero to One).
Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request. If Do Kwon was American, he would be the sort that would support utter trash like RAGE (Retire All Government Employees). People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society.
Then again, the Korean police aren’t stupid. I am guessing they will “protect” him so he can be handed over to the US federal authorities, who haven’t been shy about the fact that they’re looking for him.
Also — if you work in crypto, you want this guy arrested and gone from the scene. These are the sort of selfish bad actors who will shamelessly blow up an industry and blame it on the industry rather than themselves. I can already see Do Kwon becoming the singing voice of why crypto is bad, as a way to save himself.
- Joeri 4y agoI don’t think the disposition of this individual has any bearing on whether the police should protect them from criminal acts of aggression. The police should protect all equally.
- nikanj 4y agoThis reminds me of people who argue that fire departments should be an opt-in service, yet still get angry when their house burns down. Crypto bros spend all their energy slamming the government. Why should they get to enjoy the protections of the government they hate so much?
- setr 4y agoThey can complain all they want; that doesn’t mean a government and its responsibilities to its citizens suddenly vanish. Vice versa, endlessly praising your government does not suddenly grant you greater rights and privileges Well, it shouldn’t anyways.
- monkey_monkey 4y agoCorrect. I think we can discuss the protagonist's hypocrisy, but that's very separate from a government's obligation to its citizens. Also, a similar standard of need to other requests for protection should be applied to this case.
- gmflkgfds 4y agoThe level of police protection you receive should depend on your views of the government? I think some countries have tried this before...
- Chris2048 4y ago> yet still get angry when their house burns down Which people?
- Chris2048 4y agoDo crypto-bros get to opt out of paying taxes for the services you think they should be deprived of? If not, the answer is "because they pay for it".
- golergka 4y ago> people who argue that fire departments should be an opt-in service, yet still get angry when their house burns down Who are these people? Can you please bring up one specific example of a person who (1) expresses those views, (2) lives in an area where fire service is opt-in, (3) didn't opt-in for fire service, (4) had his house burn down and (5) is upset about not receiving help?
- nikanj 4y agoSure [1]. Money quote: "Bell admitted that she was aware of the fee, but never thought it would happen to them." [1] https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/news/10472820/tennessee-fire-department-watches-house-burn-again https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/news/10472820/...
- golergka 4y agoThe article doesn't show that this homeowner supports this system.
- sneak 4y agoEspecially due to the fact that despite any political views they may hold, they are forced to pay taxes for police services like everyone else. GP is arguing that certain taxpayers should not receive the services they paid for, on political grounds.
- IanCal 4y agoIt's entirely reasonable to think both "They should be arrested" and "the police should stop others from attacking them". I'd argue it's much more reasonable to hold both views than only one - everyone for themselves or the rule of law rather than "the rule of law for people I don't like". > People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society. I don't think the "proper civil society" response is that they should be subject to criminal attacks.
- mycroftiv 4y agoTriangulating between these responses which each have some sensible points, we (?) might choose to aim for meaningful and serious consequences (because life is srs bzns) yet still temper our justice with mercy, meaning, and occasionally a touch of humor.
- encryptluks2 4y agoIf the Korean justice system works anything like the US then, as long as someone has money there is no justice.
- Mindwipe 4y agoWell, he doesn't have any money any more.
- encryptluks2 4y agoI'm certain he was at least smart enough to at least convert a lot of his earnings into more stable cryptos.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nmfisher 4y agoThe sad (?) thing is that despite these scummy crypto projects collapsing, people like Do probably still made out like bandits. It's only the "regular" greedy folk who lose everything. I know the world isn't just, but it would be nice to see these shysters getting some form of comeuppance. At least Madoff and Skilling ended up in jail.
- Tenoke 4y ago>Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request. Police deciding whether to protect you based on whether you said “governments are bad, people have to be able to stand up to them” or “stay poor” is absurd. It's sad how much hating crypto clouds people's opinions here and elsewhere. You can dislike crypto without basing every tangentially related opinion on what would be disliked most by a crypto investor without other considerations.
- monkey_monkey 4y agoIf the police have to provide protection to anyone whose doorbell has been rung, then they're going to be very, very, very busy.
- HL33tibCe7 4y agoIs this comment deliberately facetious?
- monkey_monkey 4y agoNothing facetious about my comment at all. Many people in Korea have faced far worse threats than having their doorbell rung without getting personal police protection. If this is indeed the new standard for getting police protection, the Seoul police force needs to start a huge recruitment drive.
- gmflkgfds 4y ago
- monkey_monkey 4y agoIt's not a false equivalence at all. If anything, it's surprising that there is even a discussion that he needs police protection.
- Tenoke 4y ago
- HL33tibCe7 4y agoI’m sorry but this is an insane comment. We live in a civil society, in which we deal with criminals through the courts and not through lynch mobs.
- encryptluks2 4y agoAnd we've watched as the little guy goes to jail over the littlest offense and as the big guy gets off committing murder because of money time and time again.
- HL33tibCe7 4y agoEven assuming that was the case, the solution wouldn't be vigilantism.
- encryptluks2 4y agoI'm not advocating for murder, but rich people need to be scared of consequences too.
- Jcowell 4y agoI think this is a very important point. When the rule of law continuously fails there needs to be a measure that strikes fear into those that disregard it. I personally call this the French/Guillotine Deterrent.
- BurningFrog 4y agoWhich big guy murderers are you referring to?
- encryptluks2 4y agoThere are many. Ethan Couch if you want a direct example, but that is one of thousands. A poor African American will get 20 years in jail for possession, but a rich white kid will get a year or two for killing someone in a DUI. That doesn't even take into account the corporations that have made decisions that resulted in many people dying but that never faced jail time. Will be interesting to see what happens with Elizabeth Holmes.
- headsoup 4y agoYou say that last part like crypto is mostly good and this is one bad apple. I suggest you don't research too far into the owners of Tether and how much is has propped up the entire crypto market single-handedly. An individual is not destructive to civil society if civil society is healthy.
- actually_a_dog 4y agoThe last 5 years have either proved you wrong or demonstrated that civil society is unhealthy. In either case, something needs to be done.
- oceliker 4y agoIt’s his wife who requested protection, according to the article’s sub-headline.
- sillysaurusx 4y agoGood lord, this thread. Thank you for doing what you can to quietly correct things. Readers: please upvote this. I don’t normally ask, and it’s a breach of etiquette to talk about votes. But there’s a line, and I think calling someone a pampered brat while his wife is requesting police protection is the one.
- Dylan16807 4y ago> there's a line, I think calling someone a pampered brat while his wife is requesting police protection is the one. Those can both easily be true, though? And the theoretical protection is for both of them, right? Unless there's a huge amount missing in the story.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- twirlock 4y ago
- nathias 4y agoWhy would the US federal authorities have anything to do with a Korean businessman that doesn't have to do anything with the US?
- unmole 4y ago> Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request. Why? States have a monopoly on violence for good reason. If a disgruntled speculator decides to do something stupid for revenge, it's much better for the police to deal with rather than a private guard.
- gmflkgfds 4y agoYou advocate for mob violence against American citizens who don't support your political views? I have no words.
- Dylan16807 4y agoThey advocate for a lack of government bodyguarding for anyone that wants there to be no government bodyguards in the first place. At least that's the only mention of politics I see. Doesn't seem like a ridiculous position to me.
- AnonymousPlanet 4y ago> Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request [to protect him] I vehemently disagree on this. Regardless of what you think of a person, no one should be subject to the violence of a vigilantist mob. Anything else is a huge step back into the middle ages. It saddens me to no end that the kind of inhuman sentiment that is displayed in comments like the above is becoming more and more en vogue in modern civilization.
- Dylan16807 4y agoJesus, denying a proactive police guard isn't "inhuman". Try not to exaggerate things for the purpose of feeling righteous.
- gmflkgfds 4y agoMurderers on death row get "proactive police guard" protections in court. How is it not "inhuman" to deny at-risk civilians of one?
- Dylan16807 4y agoExtra police in court are even less necessary in most cases. But tons of people are at mild risk that doesn't warrant paying 1-6 cops' salaries to keep watch.
- bennysomething 4y agoYes but the primary reason given in the original comment was that they didn't like him, not the cost.
- Dylan16807 4y agoThe cost is obviously a factor. If it cost next to nothing, you wouldn't need to block users with insufficient real need, no matter how jerkish. Let protection be as easy as carrying an umbrella.
- TacticalCoder 4y ago> If Do Kwon was American, he would be the sort that would support utter trash like RAGE (Retire All Government Employees). People like him and their mind viruses are destructive to proper civil society. Wait... So if he had pulled the exact same scam while longing for more government employees and a bigger part of the public sector in countries' GDP, then he'd be worthy of police protection? So basically the government should protect people depending whether or not they're pro-government? I want to see that scammer rot in jail but there's no reason, if he go death threat, that public mob lynching is suddenly okay because he's not a leftist.
- 29083011397778 4y agoCalling for government help when things get real, while loudly and publicly stating the government is useless and should be disbanded / retired when times are good is a bad look. Asking someone to stick to their principles or accept they were wrong earlier may not be very kind in this case, but expecting someone to die by the sword they lived by hardly sounds wrong. I'll agree this shouldn't happen in a civil society, but I also wish people were smart enough to recognize that government and rule of law are a prerequisite for civil society.
- soco 4y agoWhat everybody says, and repeatedly gets ignored, is the irony that his plea for protection is directed exactly at those he dislikes. It's about him acting in contradiction to his own principles, not about him getting or not protection. It's about his character. That's all. Even asshats deserve police protection, agreed, but that doesn't make them any more likeable and likeability was the topic here.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoAt the moment are there suggestions that he did anything illegal?
- nabla9 4y ago>Given this context, I do not think the police should honor his request. If I read your argument correctly. It's OK for the police to remove protection from people based on the court of public opinion without due process if they are "bad hombres." If that's true, you are casually suggesting is disregarding the core principles of rule of law and human rights in the society. I find this attitude very disturbing and discussing. Maybe it's lack of understanding or genuine want to abandon principles of liberal democracies, I don't know.
- csomar 4y ago> If I read your argument correctly. It's OK for the police to remove protection from people based on the court of public opinion without due process if they are "bad hombres." Based on numair HN comment. It's funny the dude is angry at another dude because of lawlessness and suggests applying lawlessness to the other dude to teach about lawlessness.
- square_usual 4y agoWhat? So if you criticize society, you're fair game for assassination?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- themitigating 4y agoIf someone needs protection from a genuine threat does it matter what they may have done? The request should be evaluated without bias
- throw0101a 4y ago> RAGE (Retire All Government Employees) New one for me: > As early as 2012, he proposed the acronym RAGE—Retire All Government Employees—as a shorthand for a first step in the overthrow of the American “regime.” What we needed, Yarvin thought, was a “national CEO, [or] what’s called a dictator.” Yarvin now shies away from the word dictator and seems to be trying to promote a friendlier face of authoritarianism as the solution to our political warfare: “If you’re going to have a monarchy, it has to be a monarchy of everyone,” he said. * https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right... > Under his Moldbug pseudonym, Yarvin gave a talk about "rebooting" the American government at the 2012 BIL Conference. He used it to advocate the acronym "RAGE", which he defined as "Retire All Government Employees". Acting as a provocateur, he described what he felt were flaws in the accepted "World War II mythology" alluding to the idea that Hitler's invasions were acts of self-defense. He argued these discrepancies were pushed by America's "ruling communists", who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists". "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they're going to have to get over their dictator phobia."[36] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin#Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin#Dark_Enlightenme...
- WindyLakeReturn 4y agoHow much anti-government rhetoric is a second order effect of the existence of compromises? When people push for something, they rarely get what they want. Even when there is a lot of support, the end result is a compromise with the previous status quo. If you push for minimum wage to be $10 and it is currently $5, with enough support you will see an increase but it won't be up to $10. In turn, people will ask for more than what they actually want. If someone wants a minimum wage of $10, they might ask for $15. So when there is a compromise they are more likely to get what they actually wanted to start with, and maybe even hope for a little more than the minimum of what they wanted. This of course has limits. If you instead were to push for a minimum wage of $100, you won't get enough support to have any impact at all. But exactly where this threshold is located is something only well known in hindsight, if even then. So people who push for completely removal of government positions are likely much more interested in a compromise that still has a great deal of government power left, but are using rhetoric that will hopefully shift the window of compromise to be more in their favor. This is why things like 'defund the police' become supported even by people who can easily predict what would happen if the police really were defunded. Lastly, I am speaking of people who would take positions similar to Do Kwon in general, and not about Do Kwon in specific. I realize that's slightly off topic, but I think it is worth clarifying that not everyone with positions similar to Do Kwon hold such positions for the same reason that Do Kwon does and many of them would be open to reasonable discussions and compromises.