3 ms·

pg must be thrilled that this site has now devolved to the point where we talk longingly about putting entrepreneurs up against the wall.

busterarm 13y ago
Well, there's healthy and unhealthy entrepreneurship. I'm sure patent trolls consider themselves entrepreneurs too. If someone is a greedy asshole at the expense of others, I have no problem advocating putting them up against the wall.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Well, there's healthy and unhealthy entrepreneurship. And how does a "class war" distinguish them?
  - busterarm 13y ago
    Sorry, I left my tea leaves and tarot cards at home. But French nobility continued through the Revolution into the 19th century and there about ~230 remaining noble families (present day) of which at least 130 were titled and had their titles officially restored in 1852. So in the most notable instance of class war at least, not everyone got the axe. The point you're asking me to respond to is a separate discussion entirely.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      So pg should be content to take his chances come the glorious revolution? I still don't get why you'd have a "boner" for indiscriminate killing of the successful, even if it's "merely" a random subset thereof. You say in another comment that you're just being "cheeky", but frankly I find your and michaelochurch's comments deeply disturbing. If it's just dorm room BS, perhaps you could find a more appropriate forum.
      - busterarm 13y ago
        "indiscriminate killing" means both the successful and the unsuccessful. You're confusing a lot of things here. I mention this in another comment but in no way is anything that I'm saying targeted specifically at people involved in tech startups, in fact, despite how I think many would think of themselves they've all got the same lot as the rest of us. tl;dr: tech entrepreneurs are not the 1%.
        twoodfin 13y ago
        tl;dr: tech entrepreneurs are not the 1%. Again, how do you expect the "class war" for which you have a "boner" to distinguish between entrepreneurs and "rent seekers"?
        busterarm 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking It's pretty obvious what they do and how they do it. If you think entrepreneurs have a lot of overlap here, I'd hate to think of what you consider being successful in business, because you'd have to either not be looking or be a sociopath. I already mentioned patent trolls as an obvious example of rent-seeking behavior here. You're fixated on the mechanics of how a class war happens, which isn't even worth discussing because that's predicting the unknowable. Maybe you seem to think it only happens in the way you picture it in your head? When you have a society that denies quality health care to the majority of its citizens, has a militaristic police force and imprisons large and biased proportions of its population, YOU ALREADY HAVE CLASS WAR. It's happening right now and you don't even realize it.
        ahomescu1 13y ago
        > When you have a society that denies quality health care to the majority of its citizens How does it "deny quality health care"? Not giving it away for free isn't "denying"; if you have money or good insurance, you get quality health care. The harsh reality is that health care costs money (in other words, resources), so it can't be free and plentiful.
michaelochurch 13y ago
Saying that a violent revolution is better than a 1918-style flu pandemic is hardly endorsing the concept. Also, the upper class is not "entrepreneurs"-- most of them are well-connected influence peddlers, which makes them the farthest thing from entrepreneurs-- nor is it the same set as "rich people". (Not all upper class are rich, not all rich are upper class.) The upper class is a closed social network that happens to have a stranglehold on most of society's resources, but there are rich people entirely outside of that network, and not all people in that network choose to become rich (although most do, because it doesn't take them much work). Is overthrowing the upper class, violently, desirable? No. I'd rather see them peacefully and gracefully decline into irrelevance. They even get to stay rich. It's their belligerence-- that they keep taking more each year-- that gives cause to kill them. It's not what they have, it's the risk (likelihood?) that they'll take more each year, leaving less for the rest. Is overthrowing the upper class morally acceptable? Yes. This is a problem for us to solve, and it may come down to our generation. Violence should be a tool of last resort, but they are already using it against us (if you live in the US, you know about our health insurance system) so we'd already be in second-strike territory. I have absolutely no moral problem with the violent overthrow of the global elite-- they've already earned it several times over-- but in terms of practicality, desire, and preference, if a nonviolent solution can be had, I'd rather it be that.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  It's their belligerence-- that they keep taking more each year-- that gives cause to kill them. OK. Name some names. Who has cause to be killed by your standard solely because they "keep taking more"?
  - busterarm 13y ago
    While they're both the low-hanging fruit and not even remotely on the same "level" we're talking about here, slumlords would be a pretty good trial run. In fact, some folks in New York have recently gotten the ball rolling on that one.
busterarm 13y ago
I also think I should point out that I think your comment points out a couple of biases both about this community and who we think are the wealthy elite in this country. I think those that have struck rich through entrepreneurship are the extreme minority and the numbers we've seen back it up. In fact most founders lately seem to be either the working-poor or at parity with salaried developers working for established business. Regardless, as a group, they are in no way the kings and policy makers in our society and are barely significant stakeholders. I think it's much more likely that the "rich and powerful" who influence the direction of our society all engage in primarily rent-seeking activity.

busterarm 13y ago

Well, there's healthy and unhealthy entrepreneurship. I'm sure patent trolls consider themselves entrepreneurs too. If someone is a greedy asshole at the expense of others, I have no problem advocating putting them up against the wall.

twoodfin 13y ago
Well, there's healthy and unhealthy entrepreneurship. And how does a "class war" distinguish them?
- busterarm 13y ago
  Sorry, I left my tea leaves and tarot cards at home. But French nobility continued through the Revolution into the 19th century and there about ~230 remaining noble families (present day) of which at least 130 were titled and had their titles officially restored in 1852. So in the most notable instance of class war at least, not everyone got the axe. The point you're asking me to respond to is a separate discussion entirely.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    So pg should be content to take his chances come the glorious revolution? I still don't get why you'd have a "boner" for indiscriminate killing of the successful, even if it's "merely" a random subset thereof. You say in another comment that you're just being "cheeky", but frankly I find your and michaelochurch's comments deeply disturbing. If it's just dorm room BS, perhaps you could find a more appropriate forum.
    - busterarm 13y ago
      "indiscriminate killing" means both the successful and the unsuccessful. You're confusing a lot of things here. I mention this in another comment but in no way is anything that I'm saying targeted specifically at people involved in tech startups, in fact, despite how I think many would think of themselves they've all got the same lot as the rest of us. tl;dr: tech entrepreneurs are not the 1%.
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        tl;dr: tech entrepreneurs are not the 1%. Again, how do you expect the "class war" for which you have a "boner" to distinguish between entrepreneurs and "rent seekers"?
        busterarm 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking It's pretty obvious what they do and how they do it. If you think entrepreneurs have a lot of overlap here, I'd hate to think of what you consider being successful in business, because you'd have to either not be looking or be a sociopath. I already mentioned patent trolls as an obvious example of rent-seeking behavior here. You're fixated on the mechanics of how a class war happens, which isn't even worth discussing because that's predicting the unknowable. Maybe you seem to think it only happens in the way you picture it in your head? When you have a society that denies quality health care to the majority of its citizens, has a militaristic police force and imprisons large and biased proportions of its population, YOU ALREADY HAVE CLASS WAR. It's happening right now and you don't even realize it.
        ahomescu1 13y ago
        > When you have a society that denies quality health care to the majority of its citizens How does it "deny quality health care"? Not giving it away for free isn't "denying"; if you have money or good insurance, you get quality health care. The harsh reality is that health care costs money (in other words, resources), so it can't be free and plentiful.

michaelochurch 13y ago

Saying that a violent revolution is better than a 1918-style flu pandemic is hardly endorsing the concept. Also, the upper class is not "entrepreneurs"-- most of them are well-connected influence peddlers, which makes them the farthest thing from entrepreneurs-- nor is it the same set as "rich people". (Not all upper class are rich, not all rich are upper class.) The upper class is a closed social network that happens to have a stranglehold on most of society's resources, but there are rich people entirely outside of that network, and not all people in that network choose to become rich (although most do, because it doesn't take them much work). Is overthrowing the upper class, violently, desirable? No. I'd rather see them peacefully and gracefully decline into irrelevance. They even get to stay rich. It's their belligerence-- that they keep taking more each year-- that gives cause to kill them. It's not what they have, it's the risk (likelihood?) that they'll take more each year, leaving less for the rest. Is overthrowing the upper class morally acceptable? Yes. This is a problem for us to solve, and it may come down to our generation. Violence should be a tool of last resort, but they are already using it against us (if you live in the US, you know about our health insurance system) so we'd already be in second-strike territory. I have absolutely no moral problem with the violent overthrow of the global elite-- they've already earned it several times over-- but in terms of practicality, desire, and preference, if a nonviolent solution can be had, I'd rather it be that.

twoodfin 13y ago
It's their belligerence-- that they keep taking more each year-- that gives cause to kill them. OK. Name some names. Who has cause to be killed by your standard solely because they "keep taking more"?
- busterarm 13y ago
  While they're both the low-hanging fruit and not even remotely on the same "level" we're talking about here, slumlords would be a pretty good trial run. In fact, some folks in New York have recently gotten the ball rolling on that one.

busterarm 13y ago

I also think I should point out that I think your comment points out a couple of biases both about this community and who we think are the wealthy elite in this country. I think those that have struck rich through entrepreneurship are the extreme minority and the numbers we've seen back it up. In fact most founders lately seem to be either the working-poor or at parity with salaried developers working for established business. Regardless, as a group, they are in no way the kings and policy makers in our society and are barely significant stakeholders. I think it's much more likely that the "rich and powerful" who influence the direction of our society all engage in primarily rent-seeking activity.