2 ms·

Privatizing profit while socializing risk is not a new phenomenon. But it's not all bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes and bitcoin millionaires who run to the SEC

Privatizing profit while socializing risk is not a new phenomenon. But it's not all bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes and bitcoin millionaires who run to the SEC when things go south. It's also rescue services when my backpacking expedition goes wrong, or the fire department when I stupidly start a grease fire. There's a difference between "I want the rules not to apply, except when I do" and "I made a colossal mistake and I hope the apparatus of society that I contribute to can help me," but I'm not sure where it is.

jareklupinski 3y ago
> bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes > rescue services, or the fire department I think it's around "when a life is at stake"
- stinkytaco 3y ago
  Perhaps. But I'm also a big advocate for a social safety net because people make mistakes. I was a pretty poor kid because my parents made some bad decisions. They weren't bad people, but they were immature and unlucky. Without that net, I'm not a productive professional today. I realize this article is abou t the cultural issue, not the political one. From crypto anarchists to VCs, people want to profit of off "disruption", then fall back on the safety net of society when that goes wrong. They have all the trappings of underground with the real benefits of a structured society. I agree, but the metaphor the author is using strays closely to a world really unfortunate people inhabit either through their decisions or someone else's.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> There's a difference between "I want the rules not to apply, except when I do" and "I made a colossal mistake and I hope the apparatus of society that I contribute to can help me," but I'm not sure where it is. Probably exactly around where the rules are. If you made a legitimate mistake, well, shit happens. If enough people are making the same or similar mistakes, it points to a systemic problem, and eventually rules will be changed to mitigate it. From that point on, the bad situation stops being a mistake - it requires one to intentionally disregard safety advice and/or break the law. The society might not be willing to help you with that anymore (or rather, it will still help, but also bill you for it afterwards).

jareklupinski 3y ago

> bank bailouts, Golden Parachutes > rescue services, or the fire department I think it's around "when a life is at stake"

stinkytaco 3y ago
Perhaps. But I'm also a big advocate for a social safety net because people make mistakes. I was a pretty poor kid because my parents made some bad decisions. They weren't bad people, but they were immature and unlucky. Without that net, I'm not a productive professional today. I realize this article is abou t the cultural issue, not the political one. From crypto anarchists to VCs, people want to profit of off "disruption", then fall back on the safety net of society when that goes wrong. They have all the trappings of underground with the real benefits of a structured society. I agree, but the metaphor the author is using strays closely to a world really unfortunate people inhabit either through their decisions or someone else's.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> There's a difference between "I want the rules not to apply, except when I do" and "I made a colossal mistake and I hope the apparatus of society that I contribute to can help me," but I'm not sure where it is. Probably exactly around where the rules are. If you made a legitimate mistake, well, shit happens. If enough people are making the same or similar mistakes, it points to a systemic problem, and eventually rules will be changed to mitigate it. From that point on, the bad situation stops being a mistake - it requires one to intentionally disregard safety advice and/or break the law. The society might not be willing to help you with that anymore (or rather, it will still help, but also bill you for it afterwards).