Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptonector | Hacker News Reader

There is absolutely nothing wrong (and, really, lots good) with Soros' currency market trades of the 90s and elsewhen.

The problem with Soros (if you're not on the Left) is that he's become the principal funding source for a number of hard-left movements. If you are on the Left, then this is good, while if you're not then this is bad. I won't tell you how you should feel about Soros though -- you figure that out for yourself.

View on HN

Small correction: Soros primarily supports pretty mainstream centrist liberal organizations. Stuff like the ALCU, pro-choice organizations, immigrant rights groups, mainstream minority advocate groups, public health and environmental advocacy groups. It is quite a stretch to call it "hard-left" unless your personal Overton window is so far extreme right that you think Jeb Bush is a revolutionary communist.

He definitely funds causes right wingers and Republicans oppose, but let's get the taxonomy correct here.

He is solidly liberal, not left. Think NAACP, not black lives matter. Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. The Democratic National Committee, not the Democratic Socialists of America.

Interesting that you implicitly concede that BLM is hard-left, or something. I didn't even say a think about any particular group.

Yes, BLM is pretty obviously a left organization and not a liberal one. Though hard-left of course has no meaning and is nothing but a smear phrase designed to suggest "extremist" when the positions we are discussing are not particularly extreme at all. They endorse a variety of pretty boilerplate left positions: universal healthcare, state funded college, union rights, anti-imperialism, divesting from fossil fuels and taking other concrete climate action, complete overhaul of the police system. This is why BLM hijacked a Hillary Clinton campaign rally to humiliate her on national television. It was not because they are on her side.

I personally view small groups of people having such large amounts of power to be undemocratic, whether they be the Koch brothers, or Soros. I may support the same causes he funds and supports, but I'd like it if people like him funding government choices was not possible

Why? Via freedom of association we all can (and do!) pool our money very well, and we have more money altogether than the Soroses and Koches of the world.

In a (simplified and ideal) democracy, 1 person, 1 vote. Allowing someone to contribute more than one "vote" (dollar) each is allowing them to out "speak" other contributors. Why do Soros or the Koch brothers deserve to be able to speak louder than me, just because they can?

The ""1%"" have more than half the world wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-ri...

This is becoming an increasingly serious problem, that contributions from the general public don't outspend rich people who are keen to push an idea.

http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2017/11/19/the-theory-of-th...

(and http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2018/01/26/pro-market-pro-b... )

"It's okay if my vote counts for 100 and everyone else counts for 1, since 300 people are voting".

They're not directly funding government programs or departments are they? They're surely just giving money to politicians who spend it on advertising because - this is the real problem - Americans insist on only ever voting for candidates who spend enormous amounts of money advertising themselves. That's ultimately your fault if you refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't receive funding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com