Live data from Hacker News

They Killed My Lawyer

foreignpolicy.com

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#31
post #25
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of corruption everywhere in Russia. There is no point in trying to find saints or sinners in the story. Rather one should recognize the hypocrisy of kettle calling a pot black.

So are you condoning what happened?

Why does it matter?

He seems to be alleging that the author of this piece is potentially responsible for as much misery and destruction as the people who killed the lawyer in the story, and that this undermines the moral legitimacy of the article.

Whether osipov himself condones what happened is completely irrelevant.

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#32
post #4

>>It is also a story about how Stalinism and the gulags are alive and well in Russia today. It is difficult to convey the depth of my disgust after reading the above sentence from the first paragraph of the article. I share both Russian and Jewish heritages and to my dismay I frequently encounter writings that belittle the history of Holocaust. In comparison, Stalinism and gulags are less known to the Western audienc…

Serious question -

> A death of a single lawyer behind bars or the deaths of numerous enemies of the modern Russian state should never be compared to systematic killing of millions of innocent people.

Could you specify the difference between "numerous enemies of the modern state" and "innocent people"? I was under the impression that most vicious people believe the people they kill/imprison/torture/etc are enemies of the state.

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#33
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, please, let us not start a "not Hacker News" meta-discussion. If you think this post is egregiously off-topic, flag it, don't complain in the thread.

I did flag it, but I am genuinely curious if I am missing some obvious reason why this has 50+ upvotes.

It's about business.

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#34
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you condoning what happened?

Why does it matter? He seems to be alleging that the author of this piece is potentially responsible for as much misery and destruction as the people who killed the lawyer in the story, and that this undermines the moral legitimacy of the article. Whether osipov himself condones what happened is completely irrelevant.

Even if the author is responsible for misery and destruction, which is debatable, it still doesn't mean we should marginalize his accusations or condone the actions.

If everyone is doing it, why does the hypocrisy matter?

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#37
post #9
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an argument about a difference of orders of magnitude. I think it is possible for Stalinism and the gulags to be alive while impacting much less than the millions of people killed during Stalin's reign of terror, though I understand why you disagree.

Morality of killing human lives should not be counted in orders of magnitude -- there is a qualitative difference between killing a man, a family, an ethnicity or a race. Saying that "Stalinism and the gulags are alive today" establishes a false moral equivalence.

A genocide begins with the killing of one man..." -- Kofi Annan

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#38
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, please, let us not start a "not Hacker News" meta-discussion. If you think this post is egregiously off-topic, flag it, don't complain in the thread.

I did flag it, but I am genuinely curious if I am missing some obvious reason why this has 50+ upvotes.

It is also startup-relevant because it illustrates the "Wealth and power" section from Paul Graham's "How to Make Wealth" http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Wealth and Power

Making wealth is not the only way to get rich. For most of human history it has not even been the most common. Until a few centuries ago, the main sources of wealth were mines, slaves and serfs, land, and cattle, and the only ways to acquire these rapidly were by inheritance, marriage, conquest, or confiscation. Naturally wealth had a bad reputation.

Two things changed. The first was the rule of law. For most of the world's history, if you did somehow accumulate a fortune, the ruler or his henchmen would find a way to steal it. But in medieval Europe something new happened. A new class of merchants and manufacturers began to collect in towns. [10] Together they were able to withstand the local feudal lord. So for the first time in our history, the bullies stopped stealing the nerds' lunch money. This was naturally a great incentive, and possibly indeed the main cause of the second big change, industrialization.

A great deal has been written about the causes of the Industrial Revolution. But surely a necessary, if not sufficient, condition was that people who made fortunes be able to enjoy them in peace. [11] One piece of evidence is what happened to countries that tried to return to the old model, like the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent Britain under the labor governments of the 1960s and early 1970s. Take away the incentive of wealth, and technical innovation grinds to a halt.

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#39
post #4

>>It is also a story about how Stalinism and the gulags are alive and well in Russia today. It is difficult to convey the depth of my disgust after reading the above sentence from the first paragraph of the article. I share both Russian and Jewish heritages and to my dismay I frequently encounter writings that belittle the history of Holocaust. In comparison, Stalinism and gulags are less known to the Western audienc…

True, it's not on the scale of Stalinism, but there is continuity. Russia is a corrupt, authoritarian police state and it has been one for hundereds of years, almost without interruption.

I'm sure that the privatisations of the 1990s went horribly wrong. But the idea that the rule of law and democracy make it impossible to right those wrongs is a symptom of that authoritarian tradition.

Re: They Killed My Lawyer

#40
post #20

Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but how is this HN material ?

Please, please, let us not start a "not Hacker News" meta-discussion. If you think this post is egregiously off-topic, flag it, don't complain in the thread.

If something doesn't interest people here it shouldn't get many up votes and not really be seen, obviously for an article to be sitting up the top it must interest a fair section of the community.
Post reply on HN