Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

I don't know about his past with Zuckerberg, but this guy's basically a hero for calling VC-istan out for what it is: a rigged, corrupt mess where one's personal level of power determines which laws one must actually follow and which ones can be ignored.

Consider all the co-funding and note-sharing that goes on among supposedly competing investors. That's clearly anti-competitive activity, but it's never enforced because of the power of the people who do it.

It sounds like his particular lawsuit is without legal ground and will fail, but he deserves major props for bringing public attention to VC-istan's collusion problem.

As I wrote, he's already morally entitled to an EIR position (at the very least, if not a real VC job) from VC-istan for his courage, intellect, and ethical above-board-ness, which are well into the top 5% by VC-istan standards (although that's not saying much).

View on HN

Like most things, we simply hold the rich and the powerful to a different standard. Steve Cohen can rob the American economy blind and even if the multiple teams of FBI agents surveiling him actually catch him and prosecute him, he will be in jail for a few years at most, only to slink back to his billions of dollars in wealth right after that will enrich his family for generations. Meanwhile the homeless guy who did some crack on the corner? 15 years.

I really wonder sometimes if it is actually possible to fail in some of these situations. If you don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else and know there won't be consequences, you're going to crush your competition of not rich people who actually applied for permits and stuff. Because your competition knew if they didn't get them, they would pretty much be shut down, while these other companies basically said "lol laws" and like most companies who do, reaped massive rewards.

I think Aaron Greenspan is (as I am, to a lesser extent) a moral mysophobe. Most people know the world is run by scumbags and human garbage, but they adapt. It just becomes another landscape feature to them, like bad weather or dogshit on the sidewalk.

Then there are other people who see unethical behavior and, for whatever reason, can't "just get over it" like normal people. They end up taking some immensely energy-consuming moral stands that often aren't in their individual interests.

Such people are immensely beneficial to society, but it's not fun to be one.

>Then there are other people who see unethical behavior and, for whatever reason, can't "just get over it" like normal people. They end up taking some immensely energy-consuming moral stands that often aren't in their individual interests.

Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela fall in that category to name a few. It is no coincidence all three suffered similar injustices to the extent they did including subjugation by the Government (Powers that be)not limited to incarceration, but when most would give up their spirit prevailed and they never waivered in their sense of justice.

For every Gandhi, King, and Mandela, there were a thousand others like them who were subjugated or killed without ever seeing any success in creating social change. Don't allow survivorship bias[0] to cloud your logic.

0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

The entire notion of calling a broad class of people whom you seemingly know nothing of beside accusing them of 'running the world' (itself an idea worthy of closer examination) 'scumbags' and 'human garbage' ought to be giving you very, very serious moral pause.

To be powerful in a corrupt society is a sign of corruption is it not?

When you live in a world where the highest levels of society are literally "above the law", torture as policy is considered acceptable, might makes right, and democracy has been for sale for so long that it's newsworthy when a politician refuses sponsorship; it is very hard to make an argument that anyone who pays attention to the news does not have a very clear idea of the moral status of our ruling elites.

It doesn't really matter what you or I think or whether we agree on the moral status of 'our ruling elites'.

We do have, though, concrete empirical evidence of the eventual consequences of casually thinking of and referring to others, any others at all, as 'human garbage'.

The moral status of that line of thought is much more clear - it's noxious and if there's some sort of moral thing we ought to agree on is that it's to be rejected and opposed, wherever it pops up.

[Edit: and to completely Godwin up this thread - if there's a day to take 30 seconds to think about the implications of such rhetoric, today, V-E day, is a good one].

Well, if we're going full Godwin; it might be good for you and all those of us who are US Citizens to reflect on the fact that our country is currently the one running the most notorious concentration camp on the planet and has admitted to running such camps in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Diego Garcia. When the histories of this era are written we probably won't be the good guys; if we ever were.

Sure but then it's not a contest of moral turpitude. Gitmo is probably better than any camp in North Korea, it doesn't make it any less despicable.

Calling VC 'human garbage' is, at the end of the day, just nerd message-board hyperventilating. And it's still completely repugnant and talking about other repugnant things doesn't make it any less so.

I actually never said that VCs were human garbage. Some of them are, some are not. I tend to think that most are not, but that many of the "cool kids" are.

My direct experience (which is not with VCs) is that the VC-darling startups are mostly run by human garbage, which raises questions about who funds them. Does this mean there are probably some horrible VCs? Yes, absolutely. Does it mean that all VCs are that way? Of course not. There are plenty of good ones out there, too.

My feelings about this suit are complicated. Look, Al Capone was nabbed on tax fraud, rather than the harder-to-prove but more vicious shit he did. If the Greenspan suit starts a process that puts an end to VC note-sharing and co-funding and social-proof calls-- against the spirit of the law, but hard to prove on an individual basis-- then I'm all for it.

How much VC funding has Gitmo raised? I must have missed the Techcrunch post about the evil VCs who finance concentration camps.

I'm not sure what most people know, but I think calling the group of people who 'run the world' scumbags is extreme

I kinda think its sad that "just getting over it" is considered normal.

Well, you could go out and protest in a nice ways, but the media will just make jokes and tell people you believe something you don't. "Just getting over it" might be the sane thing to do.

if you can forget about it and get on with your life -- you (like me) have already got more power/comfort/privilege than most people, who are reminded all the time how much power jerks have to make the lives of those without power miserable.

Oh, I never said I would forget about it. The government is quite able to make everyones live miserable (check the stupid sale tax law).

That's true, the media has become extremely effective at making a big joke out of any sort of movement or counter culture that emerges.

Unless ones views lead them down the path to end up taking the lives of innocent people who have for the most part "just get over it" when it comes to nearly everything in their life, then the media will try to seek every nook and cranny out to try to rationalize the incident in such a manor that there will be those in power who will use it for their own purposes (whatever they may be) ultimately drowning out any deeper discussion on how such a an incident came to be.

You mean the Don Quixotes of modern society?

Why Don Quixote? Why not Sophie Scholl?

> Such people are immensely beneficial to society, but it's not fun to be one.

It is when you win.

If you win. And that's a big if.

This situation is multiplied further, many times over, in developing countries.

Mostly when you post it ends up being the top comment in a thread. I wouldn't have a problem with this except that all (or maybe 99%) of your comments are about the same thing: people in positions of corporate or financial power abusing that authority. I don't even think it's necessarily a problem to say these kinds of things, but I was just wondering if you could also post some random comments about other stuff.

For fun, plug "vc-istan" into HN search.

A rigged, corrupt mess where one's personal level of power determines which laws one must actually follow and which ones can be ignored.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support any of these accusations? Not that I think the VC industry is devoid of problems, but in my experience it is neither rigged nor corrupt, and the people with the most power actually tend to be the most morally conscious people I've ever met.

I think your language indicates some bias here. To play Devil's advocate for a moment, the bankers that manipulated LIBOR did so for quite some time without being caught. Those whom submitted the rates they thought their bank could borrow from other banks at wielded incredible power, magnitudes more than any VC, i.e. contracts worth $300 TRILLION were influenced by LIBOR. It was shown that these bankers acted, most would agree completely immorally, without conscience, artificially influencing the rates to suit their own trader's positions.

He's biased because he doesn't buy into the conspiracy theory without some evidence? Hmm.

No, he's biased because, by his own admission, he's basing his opinions on anecdotal evidence, i.e. those VCs he has met are very ethical people. Whereas we have a ton more data points to prove that power = corruption. Considering the amount of power VCs yield in Silicon Valley, it's pretty much a given that they break the law and get away with it.

Take a look at this amazing book by Glenn Greenwald, it has an overwhelming amount of evidence, examples, and very well thought out arguments:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Je_fc_WjF9oC&printsec=f...

"morally conscious people.."?

What? A banker? Morally conscious? You believe that I got a bridge to sell you.

>> the people with the most power actually tend to be the most morally conscious people I've ever met.

This is also anecdotal too. The people you've met.

Aaron Greenspan has made a name for himself as someone who's accomplished nothing but still holds irrational grudges and is totally incapable of letting go to the point of repeatedly constructing epic narratives in which he's the victim, in the mistaken belief that this somehow reflects on others more than it does him. I can see why you identify with him.

I don't buy into your narrative.

I greatly appreciate the fact that someone is trying to innovate in this space and I wish him success. I don't know or care if he self identifies as a victim like you describe. I just appreciate him for his actions and tenacity.

Tenacity implies honest attempts to succeed. Aaron Greenspan reads as someone who sets himself up to fail in order to reinforce his own persecution complex. Tenacious people adapt and go around obstacles, they don't run straight into them and waste their time whining about it to everyone who will listen.

>>I can see why you identify with him.

Not sure if this potshot was called for.

Just a side-note, making a name via accomplishing nothing is common, various sub-types such as that you hint at above are perhaps further taxonomy ?

Rebels eventually wish to be kings. Some actually get there. Then the cycle repeats.

My worry here is that individuals are paying more attention to specific actors who as powerful as they appear to be are not as formidable as systems they represent.

Its almost rare to see such wounded attitudes from an equally matched adversary.

The other direction is full scale martyr which was also displayed recently .. I'd rather not take the name to avoid pain for those close to the kid.

And what have you done?

True, I'm no one special. That's even what it says if you click through to my profile on here. But at least I don't live my entire life as a self-perpetuating persecution complex, pausing only to write self-righteous screeds about those whom I perceive to have wronged me (or worse yet, file lawsuits).

Why do you live life bullying those who are actually trying to accomplish something?

I don't. When Aaron Greenspan makes the front page of HN for honestly trying to accomplish something rather than whining about how the world is out to get him or suing a who's who of Silicon Valley, I'll be the first to congratulate him.

It's interesting that you have the top comment, MC, and call him a hero, because I was just thinking how much his writing style reminds me of yours.

I was with you until "if not a real VC job". Why would anyone offer him a VC job? Is his investment track record such that it beats the index funds? Or is it the name recognition and ability to get into the top deals (following A16Z's model where only 5-10 companies really matter long-term)?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com