Comment by josephagoss | Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephagoss | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not saying that Government can't do great things, but it should never be the only player in town when it comes to innovation on a large scale. Denying private citizens the ability to have great wealth basically gives the Government a large scale monopoly on far out projects.

These are the types of projects where a single billionaires great wealth can inspire other investors to come along. If Musk couldn't pour millions into his ventures, it's unlikely the average investor would have followed him into space.

In addition, the USA invested in the internet, space and atomic weapons solely for the purpose of war, even the hubble is based on military technologies. I am again concerned that people are arguing for a future that's dependent on the needs of politicians or the military.

Even China was smart enough to see value in the capitalism model. Allow for the ability of great wealth, allow the private citizen to decide how to deploy the fruits of their work and something good might come out it.

Also, the Government has taken over a billion dollars in tax from Mark Zuckerberg, so the Government has plenty to play with. Remember, it's always easier to play with other people's money, hence the inefficiency regarding the use of tax dollars.

I have to agree with your sentiment about there being no check for the government, especially when there are things the government can't do. Still, on one hand, you have Zuckerberg trying to revolutionize education, while on the other hand, you have Soros and the Koch brothers inverting democracy for their personal interests. At least when the government is corrupt, you can vote them out or at worst, have violent revolution. An individual? Ask them kindly to stop? Kill them?

I think I'd feel more comfortable with corporation(s) competing with the government, because then, you could "vote against them with your dollar." Another thing which is done in government labs in the US is having labs/universities compete with each other for funding (although whether this yields good incentives for research is another story, and we're trying to find avenues for innovation that are difficult for the government, and ostensibly, difficult for govt labs too).

Finally, if we do accept this form of oligarchy (where one oligarch is the government we vote for), no doubt will we have entities which disagree with each other, say, Soros or the Koch brothers. Now, then, the rest of us just become the grass at the feet of fighting elephants[0], and I hell don't know how anyone would feel comfortable with that. I suppose the only option you have then for having a voice is to become the next elephant, and while I love hacking/disruption as the next guy, I know statistics too, and I won't delude myself I will become Zuckerberg or even four orders of magnitude near him.

[0] http://www.afriprov.org/african-proverb-of-the-month/27-2001...

> Denying private citizens the ability to have great wealth basically gives the Government a large scale monopoly on far out projects.

Not necessarily. People can still organize, collect wealth and build a large scale project themselves. Or the bureaucrats running companies can organize and together finance big projects. There are many other possibilities.

> allow the private citizen to decide how to deploy the fruits of their work

Assuming these really are their fruits, which is pretty disputable in case of very wealthy people.

> it's always easier to play with other people's money

I agree, and this is actually the reason why one person owning a billion may be more willing to invest to crazy projects than a thousand people owning million each.

Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax to the UK Government in 2014 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34504474).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com