3 ms·

I mean, seriously. It's hard enough to come up with an innovative technological idea that people actually embrace and to turn it into a viable, sustainable, pro

by jdimov9 11y ago

I mean, seriously. It's hard enough to come up with an innovative technological idea that people actually embrace and to turn it into a viable, sustainable, profitable business. In fact, that's SUPER hard, it's one of the hardest things there are, that's why there are so few people who successfully manage to pull it off. It's also why we reward them so seemingly disproportionately. Through all of this, an entrepreneur is responsible for all sorts of things - industry regulations, business regulations, local regulations, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, investor satisfaction, life/work balance, keeping the environment clean, etc, etc, etc, in addition to the actual product or service and the long-term success of the business. Now you want to also make me responsible for the social norms that I'm disrupting? Thanks, but no, thanks. This is NOT my responsibility. That's what governments are for. Governments are by definition socialist structures responsible for the well-being of the "working class". I am the opposite of socialist. I'm here to disrupt - don't ask me to step on my own toes. I mean, soon you'll be asking me to compensate the bankers that my fintech startup is disrupting...

wfo 11y ago
Outside of extremist hyper-libertarian hiveminds like you find on certain threads on HN, saying "I'm here to disrupt" aka destroy lives and take as much money for yourself as possible or "the government is by definition socialist" (a silly and false claim -- government in the United States is generally wholly owned by wealthy capitalists who provide no value to society other than 'currently having money' and is in the business of socializing risk and privatizing rewards) and demanding that noone ever hold you responsible for the consequences of your actions because "thinking about how my actions effect people isn't in my personal self-interest"... well, it won't endear you or your position to anyone and it isn't convincing, it's just childish and entitled (a rather succinct description of general Libertarian political philosophy in fact). Sure you might not be legally required to be a good person, but if you choose not to be, then you're a bad person, but you've chosen to be so don't whine when people call you on it.
- jdimov9 11y ago
  You seem to have all of your values backwards. Technological innovation CREATES value, doesn't destroy it. It necessarily disrupts the status quo and pisses people off, and that takes courage, but does not make the innovator a bad person. It makes them a very courageous person, worthy of all admiration. On the other hand, you might call a bad person someone who expects that everyone else is obliged to feed him. One who throws "responsibilities" at those who refuse to work for him. One who morally manipulates people into doing what pleases him. I'd call this a bad person, although I personally don't believe that evil exists, so I am more likely to call that person plain stupid.
  - wfo 11y ago
    >You seem to have all of your values backwards. What you seem to mean by this is that I haven't taken Ayn Rand's teen fantasy novels as a central religious text upon which all knowledge, thought, and discourse are based. Sometimes the status quo is better than what replaces it. Uber is removing a cartel and replacing it with a single-company monopoly. Is that good or bad? It's reasonable to argue both sides. In the present time, it looks like it's good for almost everyone. But the consequences of rewriting laws for a particular company so it can gain total control of a socially necessary transportation infrastructure are far-reaching. Technology does not 'necessarily' do anything good or bad. It is a tool and all it 'necessarily' does is create new options for people who happen to have access to it (generally wealthy people). Sometimes those options, if chosen by the wealthy, make life worse for people without access to that same technology (the non-wealthy). Not always of course, but it's something that should be considered. 'Disrupts' is just a weasel-word to spin the accurate description of what is happening, 'destroys', into something that is axiomatically good. In fact it's dishonest to use this terminology; you need to show the particular change is actually good and describe what you mean by good (good for everyone? Good for rich white yuppies with smartphones?) before you are allowed to describe it as good, something many people in tech seem to forget. And in your previous post you rejected the notion that you should ever consider the consequences your actions have on other people in society; now you seem to be trying to weasel your way out of it with some pseudo-religious tripe about how innovators are gods and everyone who destroys is courageous and worthy of "all admiration". I am at this point reconsidering the value of continuing this discussion since when blind religion meets thoughtful consideration, blind religion invariably wins; especially when it's religion fueled by narcissism and a visceral need to justify one's own selfish childishness. But I've written it already so I'll leave it here.
nemo44x 11y ago
This is why the over regulated environment you probably loathe exists. Businesses are simply not able to self-regulate due to their greed and lack of social empathy and therefore the will of the people (government) have to regulate them - possibly into non-existence. You will be the victim of your own hubris when the populist majority brings the pitchforks and sucks you dry. And you should know better - the government mainly exists to subsidize outsized risks and ventures by those with influence - the wealthy. With that - you are trying to destory the existing banking structure so more power to you.
- jdimov9 11y ago
  You talk funny :) I didn't get where you're going with all of this, though.

by jdimov9 11y ago

wfo 11y ago

Outside of extremist hyper-libertarian hiveminds like you find on certain threads on HN, saying "I'm here to disrupt" aka destroy lives and take as much money for yourself as possible or "the government is by definition socialist" (a silly and false claim -- government in the United States is generally wholly owned by wealthy capitalists who provide no value to society other than 'currently having money' and is in the business of socializing risk and privatizing rewards) and demanding that noone ever hold you responsible for the consequences of your actions because "thinking about how my actions effect people isn't in my personal self-interest"... well, it won't endear you or your position to anyone and it isn't convincing, it's just childish and entitled (a rather succinct description of general Libertarian political philosophy in fact). Sure you might not be legally required to be a good person, but if you choose not to be, then you're a bad person, but you've chosen to be so don't whine when people call you on it.

jdimov9 11y ago
You seem to have all of your values backwards. Technological innovation CREATES value, doesn't destroy it. It necessarily disrupts the status quo and pisses people off, and that takes courage, but does not make the innovator a bad person. It makes them a very courageous person, worthy of all admiration. On the other hand, you might call a bad person someone who expects that everyone else is obliged to feed him. One who throws "responsibilities" at those who refuse to work for him. One who morally manipulates people into doing what pleases him. I'd call this a bad person, although I personally don't believe that evil exists, so I am more likely to call that person plain stupid.
- wfo 11y ago
  >You seem to have all of your values backwards. What you seem to mean by this is that I haven't taken Ayn Rand's teen fantasy novels as a central religious text upon which all knowledge, thought, and discourse are based. Sometimes the status quo is better than what replaces it. Uber is removing a cartel and replacing it with a single-company monopoly. Is that good or bad? It's reasonable to argue both sides. In the present time, it looks like it's good for almost everyone. But the consequences of rewriting laws for a particular company so it can gain total control of a socially necessary transportation infrastructure are far-reaching. Technology does not 'necessarily' do anything good or bad. It is a tool and all it 'necessarily' does is create new options for people who happen to have access to it (generally wealthy people). Sometimes those options, if chosen by the wealthy, make life worse for people without access to that same technology (the non-wealthy). Not always of course, but it's something that should be considered. 'Disrupts' is just a weasel-word to spin the accurate description of what is happening, 'destroys', into something that is axiomatically good. In fact it's dishonest to use this terminology; you need to show the particular change is actually good and describe what you mean by good (good for everyone? Good for rich white yuppies with smartphones?) before you are allowed to describe it as good, something many people in tech seem to forget. And in your previous post you rejected the notion that you should ever consider the consequences your actions have on other people in society; now you seem to be trying to weasel your way out of it with some pseudo-religious tripe about how innovators are gods and everyone who destroys is courageous and worthy of "all admiration". I am at this point reconsidering the value of continuing this discussion since when blind religion meets thoughtful consideration, blind religion invariably wins; especially when it's religion fueled by narcissism and a visceral need to justify one's own selfish childishness. But I've written it already so I'll leave it here.

nemo44x 11y ago

This is why the over regulated environment you probably loathe exists. Businesses are simply not able to self-regulate due to their greed and lack of social empathy and therefore the will of the people (government) have to regulate them - possibly into non-existence. You will be the victim of your own hubris when the populist majority brings the pitchforks and sucks you dry. And you should know better - the government mainly exists to subsidize outsized risks and ventures by those with influence - the wealthy. With that - you are trying to destory the existing banking structure so more power to you.

jdimov9 11y ago
You talk funny :) I didn't get where you're going with all of this, though.