4 ms·

With standardization comes bureaucracy. I dread what will happen when all this starts to become apparent to the government, and they decide that they need to "

by dfranke 19y ago

With standardization comes bureaucracy. I dread what will happen when all this starts to become apparent to the government, and they decide that they need to "fix" some of the perceived injustices. How long before we start seeing laws regulating founder/investor relationships that look like our current laws for employers and employees? Will investors start being required to submit reports to the government to prove that their investment decisions aren't racially biased?

run4yourlives 19y ago
> Will investors start being required to submit reports to the government to prove that their investment decisions aren't racially biased? Are you suggesting that investors should be racially biased? I'm playing devil's advocate far further than intended for sure, but the laws regarding employment, although bureaucratic are there for very good reasons.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  I think he's suggesting that they could be accused of it. Startups are disproportionately started by men, most of whom are white or Asian. Paul Graham says not to blame on malice what you can attribute to math, but other people might not see it that way. "I'm playing devil's advocate far further than intended for sure, but the laws regarding employment, although bureaucratic are there for very good reasons." What is that reason?
  - run4yourlives 19y ago
    Human Rights trump Economics. That's what our society has decided, therefore employment laws, while imperfect, have good reason. For reference, see 19th century factory conditions.
    - dfranke 19y ago
      So you think that seed and VC firms should be bound by the same laws? If not, why the distinction?
      - run4yourlives 19y ago
        Do I think we should expect seed and venture companies not be racist when deciding on how to hand out money? Of course. I'm not sure we need laws that commit them to be though for the simple fact that it would be very hard to actually enforce those laws. Employers are a completely different situation, and thus are bound to a different set of expectations.
    - byrneseyeview 19y ago
      Economics drives human rights. For reference, see the conditions of the 19th century farms people fled to go work in those factories. See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118134633403829656.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118134633403829656.html?mod=... And I don't understand what you mean about laws being proof that people feel this way. I assume that the proof that people feel a certain way is that they act that way. For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner; if I think the rewards are fair compensation, I will be one. Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions?
      - timr 19y ago
        I don't understand why you keep posting comments that begin with "I don't understand", and then proceed to make an argument about the comment that you profess not to understand.
        byrneseyeview 19y ago
        I've found that sometimes, people refuse to say exactly what they mean because it's so absurd. So they write vague, pleasant nonsense about how "human rights trump economics." What is that supposed to mean? Economics is the study of what people want and how they get it -- how can it be 'trumped' by one set of things people want. It's a malformed argument. I wondered if the commenter would explain exactly what he was trying to say.
      - run4yourlives 19y ago
        Want to know what else those conditions led to? death, disease, revolution, communism, fascism and war. >For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner. Unless of course you're not in the position to make that choice. You are speaking from a position of privilege and assume all share that privilege. It leads to only a half understanding of why we've instituted the systems we have. >Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions? Wow, that's a warped view of freedom. Too many Ayn Rand books to be sure. If you were right in your theory, the nation you live in (assuming you're American) wouldn't exist right now. Think about that a little.
  - davidw 19y ago
    I'll take a stab at this. I recently read one of Milton Friedman's books, and I liked it a lot. His pursuit of freedom is admirable, and something that I can understand. He even suggests that freedom is more important than using government power to attempt to stop racism, for instance by letting people choose not to hire black people (as an example). That got me to thinking though. While I'm attracted to the sentiment of freedom above all else, what I think is missing in his equation is that communities tend to be sort of self-reinforcing. It would be very difficult, if it were accepted by others to not hire black people, to be the first one to do so. Now, laws against that kind of discrimination don't change the way people feel, nor make their racist sentiments go away overnight. However, they do drive those thoughts underground, and break the cycle of "we've always done it that way" by making it no longer acceptable. And with time, that improves the climate and makes it easier for attitudes to change. At least that's one thought that came to mind. I really admire Friedman's purity of thought, but think that perhaps it's a bit naive. It would certainly be an interesting subject to discuss in person with a person of that libertarian mindset.
    - stuki 19y ago
      Just imagine the level of job candidates you could be selecting amongst if you were the only one hiring from a population as big as the black community. In any competitive field, employers are fairly limited in how 'racist' they can be in their hiring practices without setting themselves up for a fall.
      - davidw 19y ago
        Sure, but there are a lot of fields that aren't really that competitive (where you simply hire cheap laborers who basically work about the same), and where the pressure to conform may be higher than the pressure to find an employee that is 2% better than the next guy.
        stuki 19y ago
        Even then, widespread aversion to hiring from one of two equally productive groups creates a big incentive to break the mold. And that incentive will only keep increasing as long as no one steps out. In the limit case, you pretty much have access to an 'unlimited' pool of free labor. This line of reasoning does presuppose a reasonably free country, though.
jsjenkins168 19y ago
The government does not have an interest in impeding entrepreneurs or the formation of new businesses. The goals are usually the opposite, as can be seen with the various govt incentives and programs in place to help aspiring business owners. I dont foresee increased regulation to be a big problem. Hindering the development of new businesses would be shooting the economy in the foot.

by dfranke 19y ago

run4yourlives 19y ago

> Will investors start being required to submit reports to the government to prove that their investment decisions aren't racially biased? Are you suggesting that investors should be racially biased? I'm playing devil's advocate far further than intended for sure, but the laws regarding employment, although bureaucratic are there for very good reasons.

byrneseyeview 19y ago
I think he's suggesting that they could be accused of it. Startups are disproportionately started by men, most of whom are white or Asian. Paul Graham says not to blame on malice what you can attribute to math, but other people might not see it that way. "I'm playing devil's advocate far further than intended for sure, but the laws regarding employment, although bureaucratic are there for very good reasons." What is that reason?
- run4yourlives 19y ago
  Human Rights trump Economics. That's what our society has decided, therefore employment laws, while imperfect, have good reason. For reference, see 19th century factory conditions.
  - dfranke 19y ago
    So you think that seed and VC firms should be bound by the same laws? If not, why the distinction?
    - run4yourlives 19y ago
      Do I think we should expect seed and venture companies not be racist when deciding on how to hand out money? Of course. I'm not sure we need laws that commit them to be though for the simple fact that it would be very hard to actually enforce those laws. Employers are a completely different situation, and thus are bound to a different set of expectations.
  - byrneseyeview 19y ago
    Economics drives human rights. For reference, see the conditions of the 19th century farms people fled to go work in those factories. See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118134633403829656.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118134633403829656.html?mod=... And I don't understand what you mean about laws being proof that people feel this way. I assume that the proof that people feel a certain way is that they act that way. For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner; if I think the rewards are fair compensation, I will be one. Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions?
    - timr 19y ago
      I don't understand why you keep posting comments that begin with "I don't understand", and then proceed to make an argument about the comment that you profess not to understand.
      - byrneseyeview 19y ago
        I've found that sometimes, people refuse to say exactly what they mean because it's so absurd. So they write vague, pleasant nonsense about how "human rights trump economics." What is that supposed to mean? Economics is the study of what people want and how they get it -- how can it be 'trumped' by one set of things people want. It's a malformed argument. I wondered if the commenter would explain exactly what he was trying to say.
    - run4yourlives 19y ago
      Want to know what else those conditions led to? death, disease, revolution, communism, fascism and war. >For example, if I think being a coal miner is too risky, I won't be a coal miner. Unless of course you're not in the position to make that choice. You are speaking from a position of privilege and assume all share that privilege. It leads to only a half understanding of why we've instituted the systems we have. >Why do you need a law to deprive me of my freedom to make those decisions? Wow, that's a warped view of freedom. Too many Ayn Rand books to be sure. If you were right in your theory, the nation you live in (assuming you're American) wouldn't exist right now. Think about that a little.
- davidw 19y ago
  I'll take a stab at this. I recently read one of Milton Friedman's books, and I liked it a lot. His pursuit of freedom is admirable, and something that I can understand. He even suggests that freedom is more important than using government power to attempt to stop racism, for instance by letting people choose not to hire black people (as an example). That got me to thinking though. While I'm attracted to the sentiment of freedom above all else, what I think is missing in his equation is that communities tend to be sort of self-reinforcing. It would be very difficult, if it were accepted by others to not hire black people, to be the first one to do so. Now, laws against that kind of discrimination don't change the way people feel, nor make their racist sentiments go away overnight. However, they do drive those thoughts underground, and break the cycle of "we've always done it that way" by making it no longer acceptable. And with time, that improves the climate and makes it easier for attitudes to change. At least that's one thought that came to mind. I really admire Friedman's purity of thought, but think that perhaps it's a bit naive. It would certainly be an interesting subject to discuss in person with a person of that libertarian mindset.
  - stuki 19y ago
    Just imagine the level of job candidates you could be selecting amongst if you were the only one hiring from a population as big as the black community. In any competitive field, employers are fairly limited in how 'racist' they can be in their hiring practices without setting themselves up for a fall.
    - davidw 19y ago
      Sure, but there are a lot of fields that aren't really that competitive (where you simply hire cheap laborers who basically work about the same), and where the pressure to conform may be higher than the pressure to find an employee that is 2% better than the next guy.
      - stuki 19y ago
        Even then, widespread aversion to hiring from one of two equally productive groups creates a big incentive to break the mold. And that incentive will only keep increasing as long as no one steps out. In the limit case, you pretty much have access to an 'unlimited' pool of free labor. This line of reasoning does presuppose a reasonably free country, though.

jsjenkins168 19y ago

The government does not have an interest in impeding entrepreneurs or the formation of new businesses. The goals are usually the opposite, as can be seen with the various govt incentives and programs in place to help aspiring business owners. I dont foresee increased regulation to be a big problem. Hindering the development of new businesses would be shooting the economy in the foot.