> So 1 million per cubic meter of C02 = a regulation? You mean, because it would be of great burden to business with a high tax?
I guess what I'm saying is that a tax becomes a regulation at the point where you can't afford it anymore. Also you have to realize that a carbon tax is usually on everyone -- not just corporations. In most cases that affects the lowest people on the totem pole more than the higher ups. You have to realize that for certain people, what you say is "disincentivising" is actually materially affecting their ability to live. If you were to try to distribute that disincentivizing evenly across the totem pole, I'd be on board with it.
> He has stated he's in favor of agencies which protect environment, health, water, etc. He wants market-based solutions like a carbon tax where they will work better than heavy handed regulation.
I could theoretically get behind some of that. However it doesn't look like Gary Johnson actually supports a carbon tax:
Perhaps the hard political position libertarians put themselves in is between the "no taxes, no regulation, ever!" conservatives and people who aspire to only have regulatory institutions where it makes sense (perhaps such as yourself). Moreover, at a certain point, it seems like market-based solutions and heavy handed regulations become essentially the same. Imagining an extreme scenario: what if you had a carbon tax of $1M per cubic meter of CO2 burned? It would certainly seem a lot like a regulation at that point.
> I realize I'm a bit biased because I like the libertarian principles: prioritizing individual civil liberties, stopping human rights abuses and unnecessary wars, and streamlining government.
I think those are completely reasonable things to like in his policies. And as a caveat, I don't personally dislike Gary Johnson (the man) himself. I just haven't heard a compelling argument for what he'd do to address corporate overreach, which I (personally) find the biggest problem average Americans face today, whether it is O&G companies destroying our environment or financial institutions causing global financial crises. I'm not saying (by any means!) Trump or Clinton would do any better, but I don't see how rolling back oversight on the private sector really solves the problem. I wish solving our problems was as simple as dismantling our governments but I don't see how that would help us, as it's our only (very flawed) leverage. I think doing so would decrease the little leverage we have. So to answer your concern, I think the reason people don't like Johnson is because he was running for a political office where they believe he would act against their own best interest.
> "Finally what do you really care about: name brand or doing cool work?"
I did a lot of boring, mundane work during my time at some startups as well as interesting work at others. It's either subjective or not informed by enough experience to say that only startup work is cool work and you can't find cool work at a larger company.
You don't have to give $276, you could give $27.6 or even $2.76. I think he was just targeting that amount, since it sounds nice and likely his target audience can afford it. Also I think Kickstarter/Indiegogo would be a bad fit for this -- not only does this organization already have a donation page already set up, but they also would receive a lot less money from making a campaign for that. Lastly, you aren't going to be getting a reward for contributing.
Maybe not your opinion, but giving campaign contributions to bigoted causes would be considered making the world a worse place to many. All of this is morally relative. Maybe 15 years ago he would have just been seen as someone with a politically conservative slant, but we're moving closer and closer to a society that sees him as someone with bigoted views. While I agree that there are unfortunately much more evil CEOs out there than Eich, it's silly to say "oh, well, there are worse guys out there, so let's let the moderately-morally-reprehensible ones go."
Anonymity is definitely a big problem, but there's something to be said for a network that doesn't have a central authority. I don't think the problem with Silk Road was the anonymity, it was more the fact that it was a central authority - once that was taken down, the whole system stopped. As the article says, it's very difficult for the feds to take down a network like this if there's a ton of people using it.
Just out of curiosity, what could this possibly be spent on? Assuming it is going to be used to build out in foreign markets, is this mostly advertising/marketing costs? It already seems like they have a pretty good foothold in foreign markets. I can't imagine with $250M/yr in revenue they really need that $500M for hiring people. Also - how much does this leave the founders with in terms of %?
One speculation I have that might answer my first question is that they're going to spend this on lobbying and legal battles.
If we allow people who we consider morally reprehensible to practice their business without question and profit off of us, perhaps there is something flawed with the business-as-usual approach.* It is only when you take a stand against these business-as-usual mindsets that pervade our culture do things change. We can't always expect perfection by people speaking out, but if we yell and scream at people who are angry and browbeat them into complacence, the problems (Rice's awful track record) are deemed acceptable by society and are likely to repeat themselves.
*By business-as-usual, I'm referring to your statement -- that someone can freely practice business no matter what acts they've committed, or wrongs they've perpetrated on humanity.
If by "target audience" you mean "young people", Girls and Game of Thrones (which are also HBO) both seem to be doing just fine. If instead you mean techies... well, I don't think the target audience of this show is purely people in Silicon Valley. HBO is doing just fine, even with the advent of the internet.
Also the OP mentioned something about not being told his Miranda rights -- keep in mind the police only have to tell you your rights if you're being interrogated.
If they're trying to haul your friend off for something, the best thing you can do is say nothing about it, sadly. Otherwise you'll be brought in for obstruction of justice which will likely be deemed a misdemeanor (as opposed to an infraction, which is sorta bad news for you).
Way to completely ignore what I said. I explicitly said that I don't believe Googlers/ techies are at fault or are perpetrating some great wrong, but rather that this guy's argument of "rich taxpayers shouldn't have to be good caring members of their communities because they pay taxes" is a shitty one.
Let me first start by noting that I am not of the opinion that attacking Google Buses is the right way to go to fight rising housing prices, nor do I believe there should be some class warfare raged.
This being said, why does paying collectively $14.5B in taxes mean that you are exempt from attack if you commit a societal wrong? I think this is extremely backward logic, that perhaps Mr. Malchow by which feels threatened -- the belief of "why would there be a world where you can't pay your way out of being a good member of society?" This being said, I do not believe that Googlers and the like are necessarily perpetrating some great societal misdeed, but Malchow's argument is highly problematic.
> Yes, it's luxury in many ways. But it's also a coal mine of its own sort.
Except you won't die from sitting home in your pajamas.
You will, however, be very to die for a multitude of reasons in a coal mine.
I'm a programmer. Yes, my brain is engaged constantly. But that's fun to me. It's not like I rue the day I became a programmer and I had to perform the terrible labor of sitting around with friends/acquaintances, sip free coffee, and make web apps. However, if you're in a sweatshop, forced to work many hours a day and likely suffer a variety injuries, you aren't doing as well.
I guess what I'm saying is that a tax becomes a regulation at the point where you can't afford it anymore. Also you have to realize that a carbon tax is usually on everyone -- not just corporations. In most cases that affects the lowest people on the totem pole more than the higher ups. You have to realize that for certain people, what you say is "disincentivising" is actually materially affecting their ability to live. If you were to try to distribute that disincentivizing evenly across the totem pole, I'd be on board with it.