> Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues

Just because someone has different ideas about what policies would produce better outcomes for society doesn't mean they are a malicious person.

Clearly there is a lot wrong with society and many suspect it's due to structural problems in how society is organized. Even if he's wrong, it's not surprising at all that a successful well-intentioned person who pays a lot in taxes who is otherwise not experienced in policy would have the opinion that the votes of people who pay more in taxes should have a greater weight.

There is no civilization if it's the norm to assume that someone is acting in bad faith if he has opinions different than yours. E.g. Wikipedia would have fallen apart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

▲

slowin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm sure the people who would have their right to vote stripped from them would consider that malicious, and they would be correct. That's not democracy.

▲

bagxrvxpepzn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I'm sure the people who would have their right to vote stripped from them would consider that malicious, and they would be correct.

I don't agree with him but you're incorrect here. To play devil's advocate, if his policy idea resulted in better outcomes for them, e.g. better material conditions, then they may end up preferring not having a right to vote and consider him a good person.

> That's not democracy.

Democracy isn't necessarily the same thing as direct democracy, or "everyone votes." The Ancient Greeks didn't practice democracy this way. In any case, democracy isn't a virtue in itself. If one system is democratic according to your standards but the vast majority of its citizens live in squalor while another system is not democratic according to your standards but the vast majority of its citizens live in prosperity, which system is better?

▲

_verandaguy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Historical precedent (both recent and not) shows that concentrating wealth and then giving those wealthy few an inordinate amount of political power does not end well for those disenfranchised by this system.

It is not reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt on the basis of Lutke and his ilk maybe being benevolent dictators if given largely unfettered access to the levers of power.

	▲	bagxrvxpepzn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Historical precedent (both recent and not) shows that concentrating wealth and then giving those wealthy few an inordinate amount of political power does not end well for those disenfranchised by this system. Historical precedent isn't a rational basis for argument. You don't make stock picks based on precedent. You need to actually examine the causes that result in outcomes to evaluate whether the same outcome would happen again. That said, I have seen good arguments for why weighting votes based on tax contribution would have bad outcomes so I don't agree with him. > It is not reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt on the basis of Lutke and his ilk maybe being benevolent dictators if given largely unfettered access to the levers of power. I have no reason to assume Lutke is a bad actor but maybe you know something I don't. Has he done anything to harm anybody or any group of people? Him being rich doesn't make him automatically a bad or suspicious person. There are many rich people who do good things with their wealth and free time.

▲

slowin 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think most people will agree that empowering the edgelord Shopify CEO is not going to improve most people's outcomes. All you need to do is read his tweets to see that he should have less power (much less), not more.

▲

bagxrvxpepzn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I think most people will agree that empowering the edgelord Shopify CEO is not going to improve most people's outcomes.

This is another logical fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

> All you need to do is read his tweets to see that he should have less power (much less), not more

I'd like you to make a real argument. What specific tweet of his implies he should have less power and why?

▲

slowin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not a logical fallacy. You made the unsubstantiated claim that people would want their right to vote stripped from them. I do not think people want guys like this in power: https://xcancel.com/tobi/status/2081155797640171641

▲

bagxrvxpepzn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> You made the unsubstantiated claim that people would want their right to vote stripped from them.

That wasn't a claim, it was a hypothetical.

> I do not think people want guys like this in power: https://xcancel.com/tobi/status/2081155797640171641

What is it specifically about this tweet that means him being in power would have bad outcomes?

▲

slowin 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd start with some German guy calling native Canadians who are actively civically engaged "useful idiots" and his suggestion that the unemployed and retried shouldn't have a voice in their community.

▲

bagxrvxpepzn 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> his suggestion that the unemployed and retried shouldn't have a voice in their community.

I don't see him making that suggestion. It's pithy so it's hard to really pin down a meaning to the tweet but I think he's saying that these town sessions aren't a meaningful expression of democracy because only a specific section of society is in attendance and one that may not understand key issues relevant to working or young people.

▲

slowin 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Calling people "useful idiots" is pithy?

	▲	bagxrvxpepzn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In this context, I would call it pithy sure. It's concise and direct. He's not explaining further. He clearly isn't calling the other categories he listed (the " Retired, Unemployed, Unemployable") useful idiots, that's why he listed "useful idiots" separately. I don't know to whom he is referring as useful idiots but I don't think it's immoral in itself to use the term "useful idiot."