4 ms·

What are all those soldiers risking their lives for? A few considerations: 1) The Internet's first phase was funded with other people's money, fellow American

What are all those soldiers risking their lives for? A few considerations: 1) The Internet's first phase was funded with other people's money, fellow American citizens. 2) Later phases were in large part built by people who wanted to benefit society; they gave away their work for free, and facilitated future innovators by making it open source. How much of the tech industry's fortunes are built on those foundations? Think through all the technology stacks. 3) Much of the society, civilization and economy on which their business dreams depend is the work of people who strove to improve our world without seeking payment for it. The laws, the norms, the schools that educate their employees, the economy that provides paying customers, the roads, the Golden Gate Bridge, the parks, the security, the liberty, the science, the philosophy, the political leaders, the healthcare, the stability, etc. etc. Anyone who says they are self-made and therefore owes nothing to others or to society is either not very smart or not thinking (or insincere). EDIT: Added first line, a more direct response

squozzer 12y ago
Good points. I will do my best to answer. Generally, almost everyone involved in your points was compensated to do something, even if it wasn't the work that became the Internet stack, or if compensation was not their primary goal. My point was actually rather minor - that the military does not function as a top-to-bottom altruistic organization. You went meta and made some good points about society in general. Please indulge my meta trip because I think it might illustrate why Google et al have the "successionist" impulses of which they have been accused. A principle of justice we seem to accept nowadays without too much question is that one shouldn't have to be bound to an accident of birth - e.g. Racial discrimation. Then why should someone be bound to the accident of being born American? A plausible argument there is that the success of something such as Google might be impossible for a non-American company. Neither argument seems eminently provable, but maybe more important questions might be whether one can choose to whom one might share the fruits of one's labors and how much one should share. For example, the Christian Church had a nominal demand of 10%. Certainly that was a lower limit but at least it was publicly known. Modern society doesn't seem to care for such clarity - as best I can determine, the cut seems to be "as much as we want", which is probably a harsh interpretation, given the complexities of our political and fiscal systems. A way to rephrase the who question is - "assuming I have to share my fruits with others, why must it be with the country of my birth? Why can't I pick someone else? Why can't I pick myself?" This isn't an argument from left field, it's not too far from the position of the USA c. 1776, though the Declaration seemed to dwell on the injustices of the British Empire more than on the right to choose one's master.

squozzer 12y ago

Good points. I will do my best to answer. Generally, almost everyone involved in your points was compensated to do something, even if it wasn't the work that became the Internet stack, or if compensation was not their primary goal. My point was actually rather minor - that the military does not function as a top-to-bottom altruistic organization. You went meta and made some good points about society in general. Please indulge my meta trip because I think it might illustrate why Google et al have the "successionist" impulses of which they have been accused. A principle of justice we seem to accept nowadays without too much question is that one shouldn't have to be bound to an accident of birth - e.g. Racial discrimation. Then why should someone be bound to the accident of being born American? A plausible argument there is that the success of something such as Google might be impossible for a non-American company. Neither argument seems eminently provable, but maybe more important questions might be whether one can choose to whom one might share the fruits of one's labors and how much one should share. For example, the Christian Church had a nominal demand of 10%. Certainly that was a lower limit but at least it was publicly known. Modern society doesn't seem to care for such clarity - as best I can determine, the cut seems to be "as much as we want", which is probably a harsh interpretation, given the complexities of our political and fiscal systems. A way to rephrase the who question is - "assuming I have to share my fruits with others, why must it be with the country of my birth? Why can't I pick someone else? Why can't I pick myself?" This isn't an argument from left field, it's not too far from the position of the USA c. 1776, though the Declaration seemed to dwell on the injustices of the British Empire more than on the right to choose one's master.