Hacker News Reader

Comment by lovich | Hacker News Reader

Sure, but we can still all be pissed about the upper class being beyond consequences that us plebs get.

If I do something to fuck over this many people and harm society this much I’m going to jail. No billionaire is having the same consequences.

Until that changes you are going to have people be willing to back table flipping movements like the French Revolution in a gamble to maybe give consequences to those in charge. Hell that’s more than half the reason we got Trump.

Also I’m going to call out your analysis of the French Revolution as failing entirely as poor. Some of the rich got richer but people wanted the kings head and they definitely got it.

View on HN

> we can still all be pissed about the upper class being beyond consequences that us plebs get

Sure. Light a bonfire. Scream and windmills. And then come to your senses and realises lowering the bar for criminality will absolutely not limits its blast radius to the people you want it to.

> you are going to have people be willing to back table flipping movements like the French Revolution

The rich got richer in the French Revolution! America’s rich want that.

> And then come to your senses and realises lowering the bar for criminality will absolutely not limits its blast radius to the people you want it to.

If you’re already in the blast radius of the current system, why would you care if it expands if you think it might include the people fucking you over in the first place?

I’m not disagreeing that there are problems that could result from this idea. I’m disagreeing with you on the idea that people are crazy for wanting this while there’s this class of people who do whatever they want whenever they want to the rest of us.

Like I pointed out with the French king loosing his head during the French Revolution. The fact that one of those people had consequences is worth it to a lot of people even if it means the rest of the noble class is even more empowered.

They are already beyond consequence generally, more power for them doesn’t change the relationship between the common man and the nobles.

You saw the same emotional situation play out with Luigi Mangiones actions despite having scant effect on the system.

> fact that one of those people had consequences is worth it to a lot of people even if it means the rest of the noble class is even more empowered

Right. This is stupidity. Except in a world with private jets and international wires we’d be in a Bourbon restoration much quicker.

You need to deal with the fact that my theoretical situation doesn’t change.

There’s a boot on my neck either way. The boot squeezing harder doesn’t change the fact that it’s on my neck.

If I see the chance to cut off the leg of one of the people holding that boot down and the only consequence is that I am in the same situation I was in previously, why would I not take it?

I guess I have to preface this with the fact that I know you personally are well off and actually have a material difference in quality of life in this situation.

I am asking you why I should care about your material difference in life when mine won’t change either way?

I don't think "holding rich people to the same standard as the peasants" is equivalent to "lowering the bar for criminality"

In fact, I'd go so far as saying it's much closer to "keep the bar for criminality where it is, but apply it to everyone equally" but personally I'd add a little addendum about scaling up the punishment for crimes by those with greater influence and responsibilities to the people, but that's just me

> don't think "holding rich people to the same standard as the peasants" is equivalent to "lowering the bar for criminality"

Neither do I. But let’s look at the facts and circumstances of this case. Lowering the threshold for criminal guilt to meet it would, I think, expose a lot of ordinary activity to criminal prosecution.

China jails executives, they just sentenced the CEO of evergrande to life, with a death penalty suspended sentence.

They do this despite jailing fewer people in total (not just per-capita) than America.

One could say that this is because Xi is untouchable but I think it's more about the social norms. Americans can't even consider a world where we prosecute the powerful.

> They do this despite jailing fewer people in total

Yup. Putting Meta executives in jail for violating New Mexico privacy rules isn’t following China’s example. Putting them in jail for lying to Congress and targeting teenagers is.

I think you're saying bust them for the real social harms instead of ticky-tack small stuff? If that's the case then I totally agree but american culture needs to handle busting any executive for any harm first.

Not all of them... try talking to Marie Antoinette. A lot of the nobility and church-types didn't do so hot. Wealthy urban bourgeois did pretty good, though.

"Sure, but we can still all be pissed about the upper class being beyond consequences that us plebs get."

HN is mostly the 1%, they just don't think they are the 1%. At least in the US. Outside the US it's often even more crazy, but it's more bi-modal.

In the US, grossing 500k all-in (IE stock + bonus + salary, not take home pay) would put you in the top 1%.

225k all-in would put you in the top 5%.

Watching HN complain about "the upper class" or "the rich" is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

I guess I’m not getting paid enough these days…

225k is below the average all-in offer for a bachelors college grad hired in the bay area at Google.

So maybe?

The sarcasm definitely doesn't change the point, of course - most of HN is the rich, and the upper class, but somehow believes they are not.

I’ve never made 225k in my life. And I still have more in common with someone getting paid 500k a year than I do with the people who appear literally untouchable

You are definitely an outlier on HN my friend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com