4 ms·

I hear what you're saying, and I was initially tempted to feel the same way, until I caught myself. I think your take on this is a function of our indoctrinati

I hear what you're saying, and I was initially tempted to feel the same way, until I caught myself. I think your take on this is a function of our indoctrination into a particular form of capitalist mindset. We don't reward what's of value to society. We reward what can be sold. It's skewed. In addition, there is this idea that we should be cogs in the machine as kind of a de facto life goal. Get an education and go to work for someone else. Want to be an entrepreneur and do more? Well, it will cost you dearly. You either go see the gatekeepers with capital and hope they smile on you, only to end up back in the position where you are essentially working for someone again (your investors). Or, you bootstrap and work your ass off trying to support yourself/family while holding down a day job. BTW, like you, I did the latter. I think this is exactly why we don't have enough people using their talents to contribute something vs. just trying to make cash. Society should encourage this, and if crowdfunding can help more people to pursue their talents/dreams (especially for the good of society), then I am all for it. We need more of this.

nhangen 13y ago
You could be right, but I also wonder if option A, B, or C are great filters for weeding out those that are not ready/determined?
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  I don't know about that. I think we're having a discussion about how things are vs. how they could be. I mean, why is it the mindset that we must endure some arbitrary and unrelated pain in order to pursue our passions? Isn't this part of the problem? Is the need to make a living in a society that values only what is profitable really a meaningful test of one's mettle or determination? Am I more ready to pursue my business/project simply because I hustle and hold down a day job in order to eat? Or, am I simply distracted and spending only half my time pursuing my project, and therefore less efficient and less likely to complete it? Our tendency to believe that one must struggle in the prescribed way to prove one's self is a product of that same indoctrination. It's just how things are now. But, what if more people could make a living pursuing passions and interests that benefit society? I think they would be even more determined, because it is their own passion/cause/etc.
  - nhangen 13y ago
    Because if it wasn't hard, then everyone would be doing it, competition would be greater, and separating yourself would be more difficult.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      Wow. I hear what you're saying, but I don't know why it's desirable to weed people out in such an unrelated, arbitrary fashion. I mean, that's not much different than saying we should line up would-be competitors and beat them with sticks. The last ten standing obviously want it bad enough, and so, get a chance to compete. To your point, competition might indeed be greater, but that would be a good thing. Why would we want to stifle access and opportunity? Everyone would still have to bring their A-games and compete against others who are presumably now also able to focus on their passions. So, with focus and dedication, everyone's A-games just get better. Everyone benefits, including consumers, stakeholders, other beneficiaries, and society. But, what you seem to be suggesting is that we continue to insist that only those who run the gauntlet and/or get by the gatekeepers get a shot. There could be some extraordinarily well-qualified individuals who could launch revolutionary businesses if only given access. To my mind, that's part of the promise of crowd-funding. So, I have to say, it's kind of odd to me that someone in crowd-funding holds the position you're describing. Crowd-funding is supposed to democratize both investing and access to capital. So, "the people" decide what's of value to society vs. the same investor class. But, what you seem to be advocating sounds more like the gate-keeping and denial of access to opportunities that are the current norms. In my mind, it's hard to reconcile the spirit of crowd-funding with that position.

nhangen 13y ago

You could be right, but I also wonder if option A, B, or C are great filters for weeding out those that are not ready/determined?

unclebucknasty 13y ago
I don't know about that. I think we're having a discussion about how things are vs. how they could be. I mean, why is it the mindset that we must endure some arbitrary and unrelated pain in order to pursue our passions? Isn't this part of the problem? Is the need to make a living in a society that values only what is profitable really a meaningful test of one's mettle or determination? Am I more ready to pursue my business/project simply because I hustle and hold down a day job in order to eat? Or, am I simply distracted and spending only half my time pursuing my project, and therefore less efficient and less likely to complete it? Our tendency to believe that one must struggle in the prescribed way to prove one's self is a product of that same indoctrination. It's just how things are now. But, what if more people could make a living pursuing passions and interests that benefit society? I think they would be even more determined, because it is their own passion/cause/etc.
- nhangen 13y ago
  Because if it wasn't hard, then everyone would be doing it, competition would be greater, and separating yourself would be more difficult.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    Wow. I hear what you're saying, but I don't know why it's desirable to weed people out in such an unrelated, arbitrary fashion. I mean, that's not much different than saying we should line up would-be competitors and beat them with sticks. The last ten standing obviously want it bad enough, and so, get a chance to compete. To your point, competition might indeed be greater, but that would be a good thing. Why would we want to stifle access and opportunity? Everyone would still have to bring their A-games and compete against others who are presumably now also able to focus on their passions. So, with focus and dedication, everyone's A-games just get better. Everyone benefits, including consumers, stakeholders, other beneficiaries, and society. But, what you seem to be suggesting is that we continue to insist that only those who run the gauntlet and/or get by the gatekeepers get a shot. There could be some extraordinarily well-qualified individuals who could launch revolutionary businesses if only given access. To my mind, that's part of the promise of crowd-funding. So, I have to say, it's kind of odd to me that someone in crowd-funding holds the position you're describing. Crowd-funding is supposed to democratize both investing and access to capital. So, "the people" decide what's of value to society vs. the same investor class. But, what you seem to be advocating sounds more like the gate-keeping and denial of access to opportunities that are the current norms. In my mind, it's hard to reconcile the spirit of crowd-funding with that position.