Hacker News Reader

Comment by NikolaNovak | Hacker News Reader

I was with you, but no, this is where you lost me:

"If folks are mad about actions that are legal, it makes zero sense to be mad at the actor."

There are people with mindset "I will try to be an overall decent human being and maintain some awareness and empathy of others", and there are the "I will be as much of a selfish asshole as the legal system allows me to, and wreak untold damage in the endless game of whack-a-mole".

I think in fact more of us should be gunning after the second kind :). To paraphrase you, It makes zero sense for me to be OK with fundamentally anti-social, anti-humanity humanoids.

View on HN

I think you're both right, it depends a lot more on the specific situation. For example if Corporation A finds a loophole that allows them to dump toxic waste in the river, let's be pissed at both sides. If Corporation B reacts to incentives in the tax code to build an AI data center, you can be mad at data centers if you believe they poison the earth and waste resources, but you should also be mad at the government who created those incentives in the first place.

I agree, and they're not incompatible:

1. By being upset at a behaviour, we can start the machine / process to amend the laws. The laws are not permanent, universal, absolute, or same as morality/utility. Noticing undesirable behaviour and raising a stink is how the laws get amended.

2. BUT/AND... laws will forever play a game of catchup, particularly in modern fast-paced technology environment. So I disagree with the "Tech exploiters are heroes, be mad at the law that allowed them to create torment nexus" - no, thank you. Let's in fact not worship emotionally-unintelligent semi-sociopathic assholes (pardon my language:) who misunderstood all the Scifi they read as kids - they crave that worship and praise, so let's withhold them please. Same goes for corporations - it's unbelievable how many people shrug their shoulders and go "well the purpose of corporation is to make profit above else" - corporation is not some universal external law, "a corporation" is a human construct and thus also malleable by humans and it's up to us to figure out what equilibrium is optimal :).

Consider also that in the US, corporations have an outsized influence on the law. In your example, Corporation B may not only be taking advantage of incentives in the tax code, but it may have had a hand in creating them as well.

In relationships between people one interacts with directly, I agree: there are "social contracts" that aren't laws that people in the USA generally follow. Knowing about them and not following them makes someone a jerk.

Wreaking "untold damage" sounds like something where a law should exist to prevent it unless there's some incredibly important counter benefit.

Welcome to Hacker News with all the temporarily embarrassed millionaires

That’s the wrong phrase for a group of elite wealthy people who have a higher than average millionaire rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com