Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#131

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

mola wrote: post #105
tchaffee wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One person deciding where all that money is invested is a sort of economic dictator. Trying to live on Mars is polluting our planet. If you don't agree with that use of resources, it's not a benevolent dictatorship.

This. The problem is a dstribution of power most of all. If power is concentrated in government, it's as bad if it's concentrated with an individual with his own private police force. Private espionage force etc. All this strawman about the failures of absolute equality are just slight of hand to ignore the very obvious problem with a world where a single person have the power of a state. The state legitimacy should…

What if the people want slavery?

Or is this vaunted flat democracy only allowed when the result aligns with your morals?

It's called tyranny of the majority

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#132

Post by tchaffee »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #131
mola wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The problem is a dstribution of power most of all. If power is concentrated in government, it's as bad if it's concentrated with an individual with his own private police force. Private espionage force etc. All this strawman about the failures of absolute equality are just slight of hand to ignore the very obvious problem with a world where a single person have the power of a state. The state legitimacy should…

What if the people want slavery? Or is this vaunted flat democracy only allowed when the result aligns with your morals? It's called tyranny of the majority

Can you quote where they suggested a flat democracy? Looks like you are putting words in their mouth, also known as creating a strawman.

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#133

Post by anemoiac »

Aunche wrote: post #113
anemoiac wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A more redistrutive society would have the exact same number of greedy assholes as we do today Are you sure? Doesn't culture impact human behavior? Won't a society that encourages getting ahead at all costs produce a different social environment (with its own distinct behavioral incentives) than one with alternative priorities?

>Won't a society that encourages getting ahead at all costs First of all, this is a anticapitalist meme that has no basis in reality. In American Factory , you can argue that the Chinese workers are encouraged to "get ahead at all costs". They likely share the same work ethic as Americans 100 years ago when they were similarly blase about safety, but this certainly isn't the case today. Today, we use marathon as a ve…

I wasn't implying that more redistribution would create more altruistic citizens, but that a more redistributive society (or any departure from the status quo, really) might alter the behavioral incentives that exist today. The desire to "get ahead at all costs" doesn't exist because Americans simply love hard work and competition - it's a result of social + economic incentives. If you reduce the "cost" of not constantly striving (for example: improve the social safety net, the average American's work-life balance, etc.), those incentives shift.

We seem fairly well-insulated against the reality of the "Average American's" life here on HN, but it's not as comfortable as US GDP-per-capita might suggest. The way out of stressful financial insecurity, at least for most Americans, is the (necessarily) selfish pursuit of individual advancement. Likely no one will fault a low-level employee competing for a promotion that would enable them to afford a more reliable car, however Machiavellian their approach, but those same tendencies will look very different when exhibited by someone with a 9-figure net worth.

I don't think today's "greedy assholes" are anything more than people responding to existing incentives. You want fewer greedy assholes? De-incentivize being a greedy asshole.

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#134

Post by anemoiac »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #129
anemoiac wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A more redistrutive society would have the exact same number of greedy assholes as we do today Are you sure? Doesn't culture impact human behavior? Won't a society that encourages getting ahead at all costs produce a different social environment (with its own distinct behavioral incentives) than one with alternative priorities?

influence is not control. This is a typical problem with technical people, where they're used to perfect authoritarian control. Some children are going to see a puppy get run over and at a very young age and it's going to affect them in ways we can't even fully understand. One child may grow up just fine, the other may find themselves doing bad things 10 years down the road because it started them on a path due to wh…

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that influence doesn't influence? That human behavior is an incomprehensible black box?

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#135

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

tchaffee wrote: post #132
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the people want slavery? Or is this vaunted flat democracy only allowed when the result aligns with your morals? It's called tyranny of the majority

Can you quote where they suggested a flat democracy? Looks like you are putting words in their mouth, also known as creating a strawman.

implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated.

In this case if power isn't in the government it's in the hands of the people. That's a flat democracy.

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#136

Post by tchaffee »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #135
tchaffee wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you quote where they suggested a flat democracy? Looks like you are putting words in their mouth, also known as creating a strawman.

implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. In this case if power isn't in the government it's in the hands of the people. That's a flat democracy.

> implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated.

But you would do well to ask, because you got it totally wrong.

The commenter said that they are against this type of libertarian idealism. Because the result is that it isn't a flat democracy. Instead folks like Musk end up with huge amounts of power.

Specifically you need to understand what they said here:

"If power is concentrated in government, it's as bad if it's concentrated with an individual with his own private police force."

The implication is that the commentator wants power evenly distributed. The opposite of your wrong accusation of the commenter wanting power concentrated in a majority. Nowhere was flat democracy mentioned. You invented that line of thinking.

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#137

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

tchaffee wrote: post #136
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. In this case if power isn't in the government it's in the hands of the people. That's a flat democracy.

> implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. But you would do well to ask, because you got it totally wrong. The commenter said that they are against this type of libertarian idealism. Because the result is that it isn't a flat democracy. Instead folks like Musk end up with huge amounts of power. Specifically you need to understand what they said here: "If power is concentrated in government, it'…

flat democracy in this case means no power concentration and everyone votes on everything.

as opposed to what the US currently has, which is a representational democracy where power is concentrated at the government level with people electing others to represent them (and to wield more power than they, themselves, do).

----

If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy).

Which goes back to what I said initially. What if the people want slaves? What if they want segregated schools? Because at one point the majority actually did want these things.

People who argue for things like this imagine that only good will come from it. Not only is that not true, we have precedent that it's not true.

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#138

Post by tchaffee »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #137
tchaffee wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> implication and conclusions don't need to be explicitly stated. But you would do well to ask, because you got it totally wrong. The commenter said that they are against this type of libertarian idealism. Because the result is that it isn't a flat democracy. Instead folks like Musk end up with huge amounts of power. Specifically you need to understand what they said here: "If power is concentrated in government, it'…

flat democracy in this case means no power concentration and everyone votes on everything. as opposed to what the US currently has, which is a representational democracy where power is concentrated at the government level with people electing others to represent them (and to wield more power than they, themselves, do). ---- If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly di…

> If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy).

You're wrongly inferring that. No need to assume stuff when you can just ask the other person.

> they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy).

That does not describe a system where power is evenly distributed. Because of the already widely known problems you mentioned. Lots of folks learn this stuff in high school.

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#139

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

tchaffee wrote: post #138
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flat democracy in this case means no power concentration and everyone votes on everything. as opposed to what the US currently has, which is a representational democracy where power is concentrated at the government level with people electing others to represent them (and to wield more power than they, themselves, do). ---- If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly di…

> If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). You're wrongly inferring that. No need to assume stuff when you can just ask the other person. > they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). That does not describe a system where power is evenly distributed. Because of the already…

How does one evenly distribute power without giving the same level of power to everyone?

When you answer that you cannot do so, you're admitting to asking for a direct democracy.

"Oh, but what about this adaptation that ..." puts more power into certain hands than another. Maybe it's flatter, but it's not even.

It's sort of like saying people can fly. The second you add the requirement that it be actionable (aka, grounded in reality) is the same second you conclude people need something external to assist rather than flapping their arms really fast.

you can't get around that no matter how much you'd like to.

Re: Former WSJ reporter says law firm used Indian hackers to sabotage his career

#140

Post by tchaffee »

P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #139
tchaffee wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone tells you power concentrated in the government is bad and power should be evenly distributed, they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). You're wrongly inferring that. No need to assume stuff when you can just ask the other person. > they're talking about a flat democracy (aka direct democracy). That does not describe a system where power is evenly distributed. Because of the already…

How does one evenly distribute power without giving the same level of power to everyone? When you answer that you cannot do so, you're admitting to asking for a direct democracy. "Oh, but what about this adaptation that ..." puts more power into certain hands than another. Maybe it's flatter, but it's not even. It's sort of like saying people can fly. The second you add the requirement that it be actionable (aka, gro…

> How does one evenly distribute power without giving the same level of power to everyone?

One attempt at this would be representational democracy.

> When you answer that you cannot do so, you're admitting to asking for a direct democracy.

No one gave that as an answer.

Post reply on HN