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

Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

notesfrombelow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 138 posts

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#31

Post by [deleted] »

Avicebron wrote: post #29
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person who coined the "Property is theft" quote (Proudhon if I recall) clearly made a distinction between capital-p Property and personal possession. And I think most regular people do, too. I don't necessarily think of my stocks and bonds in my retirement funds in the same category as my toothbrush, suit jacket, or even my house or garden or whatever. Classical liberalism and its descendants want to blur the dis…

> my house sits on here was acquired mainly by force from its prior inhabitants two centuries ago. This argument can be used for practically any piece of earth, it's nonsensical to fixate on it. The issue has always been that capital (and it's quiet sibling power) can compound itself endlessly absent any checks against it. Societal unification against power and wealth consolidation should be the same as it would be a…

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#32

Post by DonHopkins »

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #26

As a democratic socialist, I find this article fails to back its claim that equity is theft. Workers at startups get equity; this is why they work so hard. Would a worker cooperative be better? Possibly, but there is little incentive for the person with the capital to risk their wealth if they don't get a stake that is commensurate to the risk they are taking. I think if anything, startups are a massive improvement o…

You're saying Peter Thiel is a Beholder?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beholder_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons...

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#33

Post by cmrdporcupine »

Avicebron wrote: post #29
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person who coined the "Property is theft" quote (Proudhon if I recall) clearly made a distinction between capital-p Property and personal possession. And I think most regular people do, too. I don't necessarily think of my stocks and bonds in my retirement funds in the same category as my toothbrush, suit jacket, or even my house or garden or whatever. Classical liberalism and its descendants want to blur the dis…

> my house sits on here was acquired mainly by force from its prior inhabitants two centuries ago. This argument can be used for practically any piece of earth, it's nonsensical to fixate on it. The issue has always been that capital (and it's quiet sibling power) can compound itself endlessly absent any checks against it. Societal unification against power and wealth consolidation should be the same as it would be a…

I'm not fixating on it really. My point is just that classical liberal arguments about free exchange and the market and property don't hold up to historical scrutiny.

My point is you can't form an ethical framework around property as intrinsic right because really property is less "theft" than it is power, so you end up at the end of the argument having to actually defend might makes right as your world view. (Which is why I see the logical end point of radical libertarianism as being a kind of fascism.)

Capitalism is an incredibly efficient machine. All that is solid melts, etc. etc. It is beautiful in its own way. I agree about the compounding. I suspect we mostly agree generally.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#35

Post by sumuyuda »

omarhaneef wrote: post #11

At the heart of this article is the claim that buying equity is a form of theft. That is an extreme claim (in the sense of surprising, remarkable, unusual, and one that needs a lot more support than ordinary claims). It is inadequately defended here. The argument that it violates fair exchange is tautological.

I think the main argument that it is theft, is that they contribute nothing to the continued surplus generated after their loan was repaid. So they effectively steal the profits like a parasite.

Why should they get ownership of the business? When you get a mortgage for your house, the bank doesn’t permanently own part of your house after you pay it off.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#37

Post by Anon1096 »

sumuyuda wrote: post #35
omarhaneef wrote: post #11

At the heart of this article is the claim that buying equity is a form of theft. That is an extreme claim (in the sense of surprising, remarkable, unusual, and one that needs a lot more support than ordinary claims). It is inadequately defended here. The argument that it violates fair exchange is tautological.

I think the main argument that it is theft, is that they contribute nothing to the continued surplus generated after their loan was repaid. So they effectively steal the profits like a parasite. Why should they get ownership of the business? When you get a mortgage for your house, the bank doesn’t permanently own part of your house after you pay it off.

For one, in a mortgage the loan is secured by the house. But more importantly: you can get simple loans for startups too! Banks provide loans that are personally guaranteed (ie if the business goes under the founder is still on the hook). But if you want more money or something that is limited in liability then your pool of people willing to give money is much smaller and they usually want a stake in the business as a condition.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#38

Post by renegade-otter »

It's like accusing a pig of being a pig. Pig gonna do what pig does. What DOESN'T work is legally-enforced "norms" that we the people decide everyone has to follow.

Businesses are "people" now, according to the US Supreme Court, so it's our job to make them face consequences if they refuse to behave like actual "humans" bound by laws. But it's only if we elect representatives who are not corrupt grifters.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#40

Post by palmotea »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #33
Avicebron wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my house sits on here was acquired mainly by force from its prior inhabitants two centuries ago. This argument can be used for practically any piece of earth, it's nonsensical to fixate on it. The issue has always been that capital (and it's quiet sibling power) can compound itself endlessly absent any checks against it. Societal unification against power and wealth consolidation should be the same as it would be a…

I'm not fixating on it really. My point is just that classical liberal arguments about free exchange and the market and property don't hold up to historical scrutiny. My point is you can't form an ethical framework around property as intrinsic right because really property is less "theft" than it is power , so you end up at the end of the argument having to actually defend might makes right as your world view. (Which…

> My point is you can't form an ethical framework around property as intrinsic right because really property is less "theft" than it is power, so you end up at the end of the argument having to actually defend might makes right as your world view.

Personally, I'm thinking the whole point of libertarianism is to obscure a genuine belief that might makes right on behalf of some people who have a lot of might, and sell it to a bunch of rubes.

> (Which is why I see the logical end point of radical libertarianism as being a kind of fascism.)

That's especially clear with things like "anarcho-capitalism," where it's obvious that the kind of social relationships its proponents go on and on about at book-length are impossibly unstable and wouldn't last a nonosecond before decaying into something like feudalism.

Post reply on HN