9 ms·

It's sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here. If the partners had decided to keep 100% of their carry (as is typical) and used it to buy a bigger house or je

• daenz 14y ago
  > Put away your Ayn Rand books ... and go make some money of your own. Does Ayn Rand have similar opinions? I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that.
  • lhnz 14y ago
    She was against people feeling like they had an obligation to self-sacrifice, but she wasn't against charity as the projection of one's own values [1]. A lot of people misunderstand Ayn Rand. [1] http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html
    • PKop 14y ago
      One of the best interviews I've seen with Ayn Rand, in her own words if anybody cares to read: http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html
      • josephjrobison 14y ago
        It's important to actually see it in context. I may not agree with her whole overall worldview, but there are parts that are good, and reading her actual words in context shows she's not really a lunatic or savage.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • paul 14y ago
    I can't actually see into their houses, so I'm just speculating that they have some Ayn Rand books, but I've noticed a strong correlation between liking Ayn Rand and thinking charity is bad.
  • noahc 14y ago
    The point is that those people who are most likely to have a negative opinion of this are the types that read Ayn Rand and quote her. It's not so much a statement about her beliefs (I could see this going either way, really), but a statement about the people who she inspires.
  • mlinsey 14y ago
    Yes. Rand does not just think that forced redistribution by the state is immoral, but also that private charity is at best morally neutral, and often wrong depending on the nature of the charity (particularly if it is "sacrificial", or is given in response to the needs or shortcomings of the recipient, which in my opinion describes most of the charity in the world today). Her fictional works perhaps lend themselves to a bit of interpretation on this point, but her non-fiction work is quite unambiguous. I know many libertarians are in favor of private charity and consider it a virtue, and many of these same people are also fans of Rand, but they should realize that she disagrees with them on this point.
    • WalterBright 14y ago
      Libertarianism is about people being free to choose what to do with their money. If they choose to give to charity, light cigars with banknotes, spend it on blackjack & hookers, invest in space flight, etc., it's all their right to make that choice. It isn't about the relative virtue of doing this or that.
      • olalonde 14y ago
        Ayn Rand was a harsh critic of libertarianism. That's a bit funny considering how close her philosophy is to libertarianism.
        • xanados 14y ago
          I unfortunately can't find a reference (but I'm hoping someone else can!), but my understanding is that group conflict is often greater between those who have similar ideologies than between those of very different ideologies. For example, Emacs vs. Vi rather than Emacs/Vi vs. Visual Studio or Lisp vs. Scheme rather than Lisp/Scheme vs. everything else.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
• mikeryan 14y ago
  It's sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here. How much cynicism are you seeing in this thread?
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
• xenophanes 14y ago
  By giving half their profit to charity, one could take them as implying that profit is bad, that they don't deserve everything they earned, and that they are appeasing the irrational anti-capitalists (if not siding with them). I don't know anything about this particular case, but in general many businessmen are complicit in bad philosophy, and sometimes even pay to promote it. That's shameful and harmful. Business people trade for mutual benefit. That provides value to society even if they never give a dime to charity. And even if they do give a dime to charity, their actual business activities provide more value, both for themselves and others. Businessmen should be proud. You can find this sort of opinion in the Ayn Rand book _Why Businessmen Need Philosophy_. You might want to read it, and make some effort to reply to its arguments, before dismissing it as wrong enough to dismissively insult in passing.
  • paul 14y ago
    My job is helping people start business, and I do it in large part because I think it's good for the world, so you don't need to preach to me on the benefits of business. The mistake being made by many here is concluding that since business can be good for the world, therefore everything that isn't a for-profit business must be a waste. Not all good things are profitable.
    • javert 14y ago
      you don't need to preach to me on the benefits of business OK... fine. But if you aren't going to fully understand Ayn Rand's work, then you don't need to preach to us about how misguided you think it is. The whole point of discussions like this is to have an intellectual discussion. To dismiss people who disagree with you by accusing them of "preaching" (when they aren't) has no place on HN. (As I'm sure you well know.)
      • _delirium 14y ago
        I like to think I'm fairly familiar with Ayn Rand's work, though I'm by no means an expert. I'm a computer scientist, but my philosophy minor was supervised by one of the few tenured professors who specializes in Rand scholarship in academia (and he is a fan of hers). I don't really see this as far off, though. Rand really did believe that it was unethical to be altruistic. Not because it led to negative outcomes, or was inefficient, but because it was, in her view, inherently unethical to be altruistic. The altruistic sentiment was a character flaw at best. She did approve of philanthropy in some circumstances, such as foundations that were set up to advance their founders' views. But it had to be for reasons other than altruism, and it would ideally take into account whether the recipients were "worthy" of the help, not be Christian-style unconditional charity.
• jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
  it's not foolish. it's just not the most efficient way to spend capital. look at it from the point of view of the LPs. A VCs job is to deploy capital and maximize return to it's investors. they should reduce their management fee and carried interest income, and give them back to the LP, or re-invest them and fund more start-ups/create more jobs. My opinion on this would've been different if they said "I am personally giving 50% of my money to charity in perpetuity..."
  • yesbabyyes 14y ago
    Now usually I don't do this, but: Who are you, jimmyvanhalen, to tell Paul Buchheit about "the most efficient way to spend capital", and how Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz should do their jobs? Since you apparently know so much about it, surely you top Paul's worth easily?
    • daenz 14y ago
      appeal to accomplishment, appeal to poverty, appeal to wealth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
      • paul 14y ago
        Capitalism is a system for transferring money from those who are bad at allocating capital to those who are good at allocating capital. That's the magic of it. It also implies that people like Andreessen most likely have an above average understanding of how to allocate capital :)
        • daenz 14y ago
          Doesn't make it any less a logical fallacy. Andreessen partners could wipe their asses with $100 bills. If someone with less money tells them that's a poor use of money, would you tell him clearly Andreessen knows better because they have more money?
• waterlesscloud 14y ago
  I think some of this is a result of the startup rhetoric about all the companies trying "change the world". If that were actually true, that all the effort and money going into startups was actually focused on changing the world, then wouldn't it naturally be better to reinvest the money into that system? Of course the reality, as we all know, is that it's only sometimes about changing the world, and sometimes it's a game to see if you can do it and win. And since that's the case, it probably is better to channel some of the money to people actually trying to change the world, assuming those organizations are as carefully selected as the startups that generated the money are.
  • larrys 14y ago
    You have to understand though that "charity" is a word just like "education", "religion", "race", "child molester" that is a third rail. People will rarely speak out against the first 4 and nobody, with the exception of a defense attorney or possibly family will ever take the side of a person accused of the latter.
  • paul 14y ago
    Some changes are best made via a for-profit venture, and some aren't. I'm interested in both kinds of change, and that means that I'm involved in both worlds.
    • toomuchtodo 14y ago
      Zuck paid, what, a cool billion for Instagram? Elon spent $800 million, and has an orbital vehicle that can dock with the ISS. And SpaceX is actually profitable. So, yeah, you can be for-profit and change the world. Or be for-profit and help people share photos. Changing the world is a pretty big grey area.
      • paul 14y ago
        It's not yet clear which venture will have a greater impact on the world. People here consistently underestimate the significance of democratizing the media.
• larrys 14y ago
  "sad to see so much misplaced cynicism here" Seems that over the last several years or so there has been an uptick in wealthy people using peer pressure to get other wealthy people to give away their money according to some rule of thumb that one groups thinks is right or fair. Wealthy people always gave away money and pressured others at charity events of course. But I don't remember it ever being so public. I have an objection to this type of peer pressure. Just like I have an objection to Warren Buffet and his "Buffet Rule". It seems that one of the most downvoted comments below is one where "PR" was mentioned. Was this done for PR reasons. No not entirely. But it also wasn't done anonymously either.
  • paul 14y ago
    Would you rather that they compete over who has the largest yacht or the most jets? Think of it as a positive form of conspicuous consumption. Just as a business can be good for both the owner and the customer, charity can be beneficial for both the givers and the recipients.
    • zmitri 14y ago
      I definitely agree. Do you think there's some value in making it easier for companies to promote a "positive form of conspicuous consumption"? Or do you think the action is more of a means in itself? For example, if AZ said "Hey users of instagram (or users of AZ product that just sold), we're going to let you decide which cause some of this money goes to," would that create a delta in value from the original proposition?
    • larrys 14y ago
      "positive form of conspicuous consumption" I don't see spending money on yachts or jets as negative and somehow the fact that "charity" is mentioned that's automatically positive. People earn a living staffing yachts and jets, they are built by companies employing people. That money circulates further in the economy and provides benefits and is paying for someone's health care and college education. So to answer your question "Would you rather that they compete..." I would rather they do whatever they want to do with the money they have earned without some kind of movement played out in the press which makes it looks like donating 1/2 to charity is the noble choice to make.
• sethbannon 14y ago
  Well said. Might we see a similar pledge made by YC soon?
• wr1472 14y ago
  Also, it's their money, they earned it. Let them spend it however they want. For the record I think this is a really positive move.