I think that's because of the egalitarian ideas readers of HN subscribe to (is that a big leap of faith?). Bankers getting new fangled tech is watching the f......s who brought the world economy to its knees getting shiny new toys. Hard to be happy about that.
Meritocratic, perhaps. HN is pretty Libertarian, and Libertarianism is the polar opposite of egalitarianism. It's the equal opportunity vs equal outcome divide.
Those successful in the status quo at any point in time are inclined to perceive, or at least portray, that status quo as meritocratic.
This probably shouldn't be surprising.
But the modern American version of libertarianism seems to have become something very different than what I saw of it in the late 80's.
Dude, those were librarians.
For some (not all) libertarians, "equal rights and opportunities" means that a healthy college grad and a schizophrenic homeless person have an equal right to apply for the same job, and if the latter can't get a job or any support and starves to death in the street, society's hands are clean--after all, they had the same opportunity as anyone.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
The libertarian retort is that society's hands are not clean. Whether a homeless person starves without government assistance is a reflection of society. You are not obligated to let it happen just because men with guns don't force you not to, and it is a reflection on you whether you do or not.
And, so the libertarian argument goes, in order for the homeless to be fed with government assistance you need a majority of citizens to vote for programs to help the homeless. But if you have the support of a majority of citizens then they need only vote with their wallets and no government action is required.
More than that, when you put the burden of helping the poor on the government instead of individual members of society then when the government fails to do what is necessary each person need only shrug and claim "I paid my taxes" to be absolved of their inaction in the face of it.
Not all libertarians find democracy to be legitimate.
> More than that, when you put the burden of helping the poor on the government instead of individual members of society then when the government fails to do what is necessary each person need only shrug and claim "I paid my taxes" to be absolved of their inaction in the face of it.
A lot of important things are not well-suited to crowdsourcing and individual choice, though. The canonical example is roads; if enough non-drivers decide they're not interested in paying for interstates that they don't use, then the roads fall into disrepair and everyone suffers--including the short-sighted non-drivers who didn't realize how dependent they are on cheap cross-country shipping for the goods they purchase and consume every day.
Our current social support system has a lot of big problems, but I don't have such a rosy view of humanity that I think individual charity wouldn't be even worse.
Now you're talking about a whole different class of thing. How to fund roads is a completely different problem from how to fund homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
And there is a bit of a conundrum there. A libertarian solution to building roads is: People who own local land will get together and fund roads because it makes their land more valuable, and then to prevent free riding they exclude other local land owners from using the roads unless they contribute.
The main criticism of this (and libertarianism in general) is that now the road building organization is a de facto government. Whoever controls the roads or any other critical infrastructure has a monopoly that allows them to impose any rules they like on everyone else, with no obligation to abide by libertarian principles of governance.
But it has a simple solution in practice: Don't be an absolutist. Have the government build and maintain the roads and similar infrastructure. It can do that without incarcerating millions of people or inducing global financial turmoil through unwise policies.
That's a pretty bold claim. On HN we see the recurring "growing inequalities are bad"-posts whining all the time. Libertarians are not against inequalities in the first place, so I'd say HN is rather not too Libertarian, while there are certainly more Libertarians here than on other communities.
Libertarianism does nothing to equate chances of new born human. All that he is and will be is mostly determined by family he is born into. Example: HN entrepreneurs were mostly born into rich families.
Egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity. I.e. you will not be prevented from becoming rich as fuck, but expect that passing all that wealth of money onto your children will be a bit harder and other children's education will be paid from your taxes.
And the third beast: communism. Equality of opportunity and outcomes.
We believe in meritocracy, egalitarianism and equal opportunity disdain for all bad people after all.