Live data from Hacker News

Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

washingtonpost.com

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty misleading. The median net worth of a member of Congress is about $1 million: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-fo... . You also have to take into account that the average age of Congress is almost 60. I.e. they have been working and accumulating assets for decades. Adjusted for age, the net worth of the median Congressman is at the 80th percentile: http://www.census.gov/people/w…

Yes, being a millionaire politician or doctor makes you wealthy.

It's fine if you believe that, and it's reasonable to point out the huge class distinction between a doctor and a greeter at Walmart, but I just want to point out that your sentence pretty much reduces to "Yes, being a doctor makes you wealthy".

Which, again, fine, but I can't be the only one who thinks we'd be better off if we had more doctors in Congress.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty misleading. The median net worth of a member of Congress is about $1 million: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-fo... . You also have to take into account that the average age of Congress is almost 60. I.e. they have been working and accumulating assets for decades. Adjusted for age, the net worth of the median Congressman is at the 80th percentile: http://www.census.gov/people/w…

Yes, being a millionaire politician or doctor makes you wealthy.

[deleted]

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax avoidance =/= tax evasion. One is legal, one is not.

One of them is breaking the law, the other is working around it – but the intention is the same.

Not in my mind - no one pays more tax than they need to. Are we saying that every person in the country has the same intention as illegal tax evaders?

It's hypocritical to point out someone who is avoiding tax just because they are doing it on a larger scale than you unless you voluntarily pay more taxes to the government than you need to.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#214
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're argument is not that individuals don't owe a debt to society for facilitating the creation of wealth, but that the state functions poorly as a proxy for society? If that is the case, what would function as a better proxy through which society can collect its debt?

I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.

Police and military protecting trade routes from bandits, and pirates.

Roads, and other infrastructure that facilitates trade and communication.

Courts that enforce contracts.

Water rights management to that facilitates the creation of cities (note I'm talking large scale here, not municipal water companies--think the federal government prevents people in State A from draining all the water from a river before it gets to State B)

Public health infrastructure (large scale, like fighting epidemics)

That kind of thing, plus many smaller scale and more intangible benefits that come from living in a civilized society.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#215
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you would have to expound on what is meant by "facilitating the creation of wealth" for me to answer that question.

Police and military protecting trade routes from bandits, and pirates. Roads, and other infrastructure that facilitates trade and communication. Courts that enforce contracts. Water rights management to that facilitates the creation of cities (note I'm talking large scale here, not municipal water companies--think the federal government prevents people in State A from draining all the water from a river before it get…

There has been plenty written on how those things could be privatized (see the writings of Murray Rothbard and Walter Block).

Regarding your earlier comment about "a debt to society", no one is in debt to society for those things, because no one contractually agreed to be in debt. Yes those services exist, and yes they provide real benefits, but the problem is they are not voluntary. Being in debt involuntarily is akin to slavery.

Now, that is the philosophical justification for one who believes in the non-agression principle. Obviously such a belief is more of a hope for a utopia which will never be realized in the foreseeable future.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still the same thing; if the public is deciding where the funding is going then it isn't a private foundation anymore. Now, if the public is deciding by choosing where to put their own funding, in the form of donations, that makes more sense. But in that sense, the millionaires and billionaires creating or donating to charitable foundations are doing the same thing: deciding where to put their own funding.

No, it is not the same thing. A private foundation can continue to be a part of the solution without it being the focus. Krämer's (I checked the name!) point is that the focus in the US is private donations which means that the billionaires have a much higher level of influence on where the money goes. It's not that, say, the Make A Wish Foundation is inherently bad or that donating to them is a bad thing, rather the…

> It's not that, say, the Make A Wish Foundation is inherently bad or that donating to them is a bad thing, rather the possibility that Zuckerberg could decide to give them 95% of his wealth while more critical social services receive none of it that is concerning.

It's his money, so it's his choice where it goes. Beyond that, this is just an argument for higher taxes to take that choice away. If you want to argue against allowing people to have and direct the wealth they've created, then make that argument, rather than assuming it as a premise. Once you've assumed that as a premise, then it starts to sound obvious to deemphasize charity and emphasize government programs; that step isn't the interesting part of the argument. As it turns out, we have multiple countries in the world, with different sensibilities about the relative value and efficacy of public and private work, among many things. The US model, evaluated by European sensibilities, is broken in many ways; the European model, evaluated by US sensibilities, is broken in many ways. Neither of those is as interesting or relevant for evaluating potential changes as a country's evaluation of its own models by its own sensibilities.

Personally, I'd be thrilled to have significantly less of my income directed by government to the causes they care about; I currently donate a significant fraction of my annual income to charity, and if I had the money back that currently goes to a pile of things I mostly don't care about, I'd love to donate even more to charity. I know for a fact that it'd do more good. Changing that would require changing what government is spending the money on, and I'm far more confident that I can change the course of a charitable organization (or choose a better one) than change the course of government.

As it stands right now, I think I could do more good with a pile of cash by setting it on fire than by giving it to government; additional money in government hands has negative utility, and may be used to hurt me and people I care about.

As a random thought experiment, I've often wondered how it would work if charitable donations produced a deduction directly from your tax burden, rather than from your taxable income. In other words, every dollar you donate comes straight off your taxes. That would produce some interesting results.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#217
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't necessary to believe that the private sector is well run and wise for that statement to be relevant. All that is necessary is for the private sector to be better run and wiser than the government. In the US, that isn't hard to fathom, although I could probably accept the premise if we all lived in Germany.

Compare the Federal Reserve to many of these subprime "technology driven" lending startups. Who is more professionally staffed? Compare the NSA to Palantir. Compare NASA to SpaceX. Compare the Treasury to Enron. Compare Bell Labs with WorldCom. Your argument isn't as strong as your Econ 101 textbook made it out to be.

> Compare NASA to SpaceX.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to SpaceX.

With the exception of commodity things like their microchips, they've built all of their tech from scratch. They can deliver payloads somewhere between 33% and 66% cheaper than anyone else. Their safety record is really, really good. They're doing things with their launch vehicles that noone else is.

SpaceX is the best goddamn thing to happen to spaceflight since the Cold War Space Race.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#218
post #82
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private companies used to spend money killing, torturing, imprisoning, exploiting, robbing, and oppressing people, until the public stopped them through the means available to them in government. And you're saying this is a bad thing, and the power should mostly rest with private companies? At least with the government, the people staffing the bureaucracies and agencies don't have their (non-existent) bonus tied to h…

> And you're saying this is a bad thing Where did I say that? I'm not the cynic you seem to whom you seem to be responding; I believe that the internet age will empower nonviolence from non-state actors as well as an end to the violence of government. Although we may have needed government to stifle private violence in the past, I don't think we do any longer. > the people staffing the bureaucracies and agencies don'…

> Although we may have needed government to stifle private violence in the past, I don't think we do any longer.

We moved from private jackbooted-thugs-for-hire to public police protection because thugs-for-hire are unaccountable. Sadly, over the past hundred years or so we've forgotten this lesson, lost our vigilance, and have permitted many of our public servants to make themselves largely unaccountable for their actions.

Power and leadership structures naturally emerge in sufficiently large groups of people. This is unavoidable, even in sufficiently large anarchist organizations.

As the Dothan, AL incident has most recently demonstrated, evil people come to power from time to time. All healthy organizations must be able to detect evil people and remove them from power.

In your future where government is no longer permitted to apply force, where is the accountability? Who detects and ejects evil? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Businesses are not built on the charity of the "system". From where does the business get the college-educated workforce so that it can be viable in the first place? The answer is that hundreds of years of prosperity has created a system where enough people are middle class, value education, foster happy and curious children that don't need to work, and can send them off to college for an education because they don…

> From where does the business get the college-educated workforce so that it can be viable in the first place? That's insanity. Businesses pay more for college educated employees exactly because they are worth more, and in doing so they are "paying their fair share". It's not like these college educated employees are donating the extra money they should be making to the companies they work for. They demand higher sal…

> Again, everybody is square in the deal.

Only if you take the surrounding system as given.

The original question was this:

> Put another way, if you founded a company, created thousands of jobs for families and individuals, and made a fortune, why should the state be the one who decides what happens with your money?

And the answer is that the state gets to decide what happens with the money, because if not for people banding together into nations, creating a state, taxing people, and using those taxes to enrich their nation over centuries, eventually reaching a state where a large part of a continent on this planet is occupied by some 300 million people, speaking the same language, using the same currency, having computers, wanting to connect, and therefore creating a niche for a social network to grow so big that its founder could employ thousands of people and amass a fortune.

No deal is ever squared in our society. We are continuously using the amassed production of the past, and paying it forward.

> This thinking is so poisonous and destructive and pervasive that I'm starting to wonder if it is either due to some natural law of human nature or some grand conspiracy to destroy modern society.

You have it backwards. If modern society is destroyed, it would prove the point, because we wouldn't have twenty-something computer-whiz billionaires for a very long time, not until we've rebuilt all of this again.

Re: Why a German billionaire says that pledges like Mark Zuckerberg’s are really bad

#220
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And you're saying this is a bad thing Where did I say that? I'm not the cynic you seem to whom you seem to be responding; I believe that the internet age will empower nonviolence from non-state actors as well as an end to the violence of government. Although we may have needed government to stifle private violence in the past, I don't think we do any longer. > the people staffing the bureaucracies and agencies don'…

> Although we may have needed government to stifle private violence in the past, I don't think we do any longer. We moved from private jackbooted-thugs-for-hire to public police protection because thugs-for-hire are unaccountable . Sadly, over the past hundred years or so we've forgotten this lesson, lost our vigilance, and have permitted many of our public servants to make themselves largely unaccountable for their…

> In your future where government is no longer permitted to apply force, where is the accountability?

I assert that, in a social dynamic characterized by omnipresent personal recording devices, the capacity to share the gathered evidence, and the capacity to deliberate and apply social pressure in response to criminal behavior, that accountability is the natural consequence.

Post reply on HN