Hacker News Reader

We don't know how aware they were of they initial fraud - maybe not at all, maybe more than we've heard so far.

That said, we do know that he committed several additional offences, including the ones described in this article, while under house arrest at their residence. That alone should warrant further investigation and call their conduct into question, along with their standing in the legal community.

Didn't the parent put up a property for bail that they don't in fact own? As I recall, the home they put up for bail is owned by Stanford.

Don't worry; it's documented that money stolen from FTX went to the parents. It's grinding slowly.

You shouldn't be downvoted.

I don't know if it's willful ignorance or what, but most people can't grok the fact that children do not develop in a vacuum. They are in most cases a reflection of their parents' traits and values. Worse for SBF, it is entirely plausible that they had a direct hand in enabling his fraudulent behavior. They were politically-connected Stanford lawyers. It would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of them opening doors and providing cover for their son.

Perhaps an extreme comparison, but I feel the same exact way about adolescent school shooters. We are so quick to absolve and sanctify the parents as if their child's violent tendencies emerged suddenly and spontaneously.

To be (sadly) honest this is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote the comment at the top, but suspected it would have been buried for being so direct. It is gratifying to see some people here with guts to say what they think.

As a society we have now a possibly exaggerated tendency to ascribe any positive contributions by an individual to their environmental circumstances (this is definitely more true where I am in Canada, but it is becoming more true over time in the US), while we have a tendency to assume all the bad things can be blamed on a single leader to absolve everyone else of all responsibility for their supporting roles. A slight correction is in order imo.

His father having some level of involvement in FTX is indisputable, as he was a consultant to FTX. His mother's PAC also received a significant amount of funding from it, which certainly raises questions.

As far as nature vs nurture, consider this navel gazing 2013 essay by his mother ( https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/barbara-fried-beyond-blam... ) essentially arguing that criminal culpability is impossible because free will doesn't exist.

>>*arguing that criminal culpability is impossible because free will doesn't exist.*

OK - WTF?

-

There is a lot of discussion about 'free will' - however, thats around predestination, blah blah -

But to state that '*criminality*' doesnt exist DUE to predetermination is psycho bot BS.

Some people more educated in philosophy or logic or whatever that I may be --- EXPLAIN THIS??

To paraphrase the old TV commercials.

"This is your mind on postmodern thinking. Any questions?"

Just like mate selection in peacocks created elaborate pointless plumage, competition among scholars in fields with inadequate connection to reality allow divergence off into absurd lines of thought which have their own elegant internal consistency but no external purpose. They could just be considered art or entertainment, except for the risk of causing grave harm when someone mistakenly uses them to justify policy without evaluating their consistency with reality or legible human values.

See also the recent HN thread on kritiks in high school debate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36920566

Interesting that the article misscharacterized Nozick as right wing, completely missing the history of rejection of libertarians by both right and left parties and the continued outreach by libertarians to both.

I don't know enough about this to even comment...

Is it of value for you to link to something important? Lacking information on this.

Thanks

A good place to start would be with this text on Rothbard’s leftism, which connects ideas you may already familiar regarding libertarianism with leftism: https://cdn.mises.org/19_1_2.pdf

However the roots go much deeper. Nozick himself was advancing the progressive tradition. One way to understand it is to start by considering how the state was the tool leftist had used through the 19th century to advance individual human rights. Once the state had become totalizing in the way all modern capitalist countries are today, the only way forward to advance human rights further must involve the dissolution of the state since oppression is no longer caused by traditional social mores but rather by the system that replaced those. That’s why you often see weird alliances between rightists and libertarians: the few remnants of reactionary resistance against the state allied with what is at core a radical progressive movement. Leftists are a more natural ally with libertarians but cannot support libertarians as leftist power flows from state authority.

There’s also a more specific history of libertarian plus leftist conference and other collaborations but I’m not knowledgeable on the details, merely that the info is there if you search for it.

While Nozick was not traditionally right-wing, he was arguing for a pretty minimal state that’s not compatible with left, liberal, progressive ideas.

Minimal state is absolutely compatible with leftist philosophy! Anarchism itself is a leftist movement. What’s incompatible isn’t ideology, its praxis. Mainstream leftist movements rely on state power to further their goals. That said there’s still a ton of great leftist movements today that attempt to sidestep statism.

It is not an unpopular and I am sure parents are under scrutiny as well if the law enforcement is doing its job at all.

If there is any hesitation in going after the parents of an accused individual, it is that.. they are parents. The sins of a child are not those of the parent and vice-versa, at least in my book. We have our own scorecards as it were.

But.. if there is proof of wrongdoing? No problem.

NOPE.

If you are in the middle of a scandal of any of these scales - EVERY SINGLE PERSON you've ever come in contact with should be under scrutiny.

And, as an example, when your father is in prison for financial and real-estate fraud, your father in law has decades of fraud cases against them, multiple impeachments, indictments, etc...

Caught on setting up back-channel comms

Accept $2 billion dollars from a foreign government, and basically walking through the USG as a ghost (as is hunter)... you need to be brought down.

Jared should be considered PRIME in such a case - such as Kushner is.

-

Edit:

I was not arguing against you.

EDIT

@A4ET8a8uTh0

No, I am saying that the defacto needs to be a scale of frauds that literally is public knowledge and everyone knows what the F it is.

So if you're a Holmes, or a SBF or even a QWEST (Recall them (that was tax fraud - not actual product fraud) Aside from the fact that they setup a national fiber infra along the tracks, and then had it basically siezed by cerberus, such as MAI-west and PAIX....

Uh, I would love yo talk to others who know much about internet cabling infra that was done through late 1980s and such before I forget it as I get too old.

Aside:

Look at the vids of the fires in Maui and you see some where they show pole-lines where there isa serious wave/flux in the lower cables (the ones with the round junction tubes -- and then the 4/6 wires at the top if the pole....

The ones that are super FN wobbly are FIBER (perhaps some coax, not sure on that) - but those splices are lower as no electricitry risk to work on them.

But they are heavier. So more pront to force wind to swathe them out.... thus coms are down.

We need all cell towers to have underground.

Anyway - this disaster has ressurrected a F ton of my former infra design exp....

Would love to discuss.

(And where did PAIX connect to back in the day?)

Do you see me arguing against charges where there is evidence something is up? No.

What I am saying is that any normal parent will protect their kids.

This feels like the approach organized crime takes where they go after everyone you know regardless of culpability. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be investigated if there is evidence pointing to the fact, but it’s very believable to me that they never questioned it.

SBF seems like the sort of person to flaunt their “success” to side skirt questions. For those around him, I think they believed it more than anyone, because the world was revering him an undisputed genius. His parents pride, and background, probably put blinders on any signals of nefarious activity. They were also watching billionaire investors dump money into FTX assuming they weren’t total fucking idiots… but they were.

Smart, wealthy people, are often children of luck more than ability and unable to discern between to two because their entire existence inextricably interweaves the two. Look no further than the demigod status American oligarchs have despite being examples of capitalisms inefficiencies (there’s no cream to skim in perfect capitalism which is the real source of their immense wealth).

I've noticed the effect too. My friends and family are all just glad Epstein got what was coming to him - blissfully ignorant of the rest of the conspirators who didn't.

It probably shouldn't be surprising that the good old fall guy spectacle works though - Lee Harvey Oswald was a resounding success.

> I hate how we talk about high level financial crimes (Trump org, Biden Org, Holmes, SBF, etc - and we fail to ever look at their children, parents, siblings, etc in their bubble for similar investment windfalls, or donation channels/ammounts.

Who is “we”? If you mean prosecutor, do you have a source that they fail to look at the networks of those they are prosecuting?