Hacker News Reader

Comment by _verandaguy | Hacker News Reader

I really wish mitchellh wouldn't take funding from some of these people. Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues, and has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate (and in particular your "stake" in the democracy).

View on HN

> Tobias Lutke /../ has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate

He’s just looking at america post Citizens United and wishing he could ull the same shenans in Canada. It’s been working very well for the folks and orgs who can afford it

I also recoiled a bit when I say that Lutke was on the investors list.

Does Mitchell even need to take outside funding?

It's really unfortunate that the same traits that make you great at building a business (within capitalism) also often make you have psychopathic tendencies.

Kind of says something about the system we've chosen to run our societies on, huh?

Now we’re ruled by an oligarchy of psychopaths and everyone’s wondering how this happened

Easy to say this when the original commenter incorrectly described Tobias' comments. He suggested that those who pay more in taxes should have a greater say in how the government is spending the money. This is not a crazy idea on its face; you could say that taken to the limit it would not be a good system to live in (the highest taxpayer dictating what gov't does).

But it does make sense that those who are footing the bill for everything might be consulted a little on the plans to spend.

reading "those who pay more in taxes should have a greater say in how the government is spending the money" and NOT taking that to mean what the OP is suggesting it to mean is naive. Everyone knows what Tobias meant when he said that.

People are only allowed to take funding from investors whose politics align with yours?

They stated their preference, not that there should be a rule to enforce their preference.

"I think this guy is dumb and wrong. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy is going to have outsized influence on a project I'm interested in. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy may profit from a project I'm interested in. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy is using his wealth to do dumb wrong things."

This is a normal and reasonable thought process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com