I do think that if this current system is the result of democracy + the internet we need to seriously reconsider how democracy works because it’s currently failing everyone but the ultra wealthy.

We need to get the power out of politics.

It has actually been scientifically proven otherwise in crowd theory : in the right conditions (not hard to reach in practice), the crowd is more effective to take a good decision that the top1 best decision maker.

Exemple : a crowd playing chess may beat the top1 chess player, even though the crowd individually cannot beat him.

Nobody really advocates for Direct Democracy. It isn't viable: 'tyranny of the majority' etc.

Most Western governments are Liberal Democracies - where some issues aren't subject to a vote - partly so that the mob can't persecute outnumbered subgroups.

It’s never meant that.

So people can “believe” in Democracy just fine and still think direct voting is bad.

Also, Democracy doesn’t even mean “if a majority of people believe X, therefore X”.

Parts of the US is mature enough to implement a similar system as Switzerland, which has a superior form of democracy.

And what costs are we talking about anyhow? Tax shortfalls for local government? Decades later that has been rectified through other taxes and funding mechanisms and we still get new roads and schools in california. Housing costs increasing? I would say the fact that cities today are zoned within a few percentage points of present population levels (vs zoned for 10x present population levels pre 1970) is the actual source of that sucking sound from the chest.

And that goes to the heart of the matter, that corporations aren't people, no matter what some court or law says. And they should be heavily restricted on speech. (I include spending money on political adverts and similar.)

Humans can commit crimes worthy of the death penalty. Wells Fargo shouldn't exist due to their decade long fraud. Nor should United Health Care, for actively denying humans their health coverage until the humans died. Or countless other cases.

When a company gets "killed", and all assets get assigned to the wronged, I'll start to believe they are humans. Haven't seen that yet. Likely won't ever, in the USA.

Sounds good to me.

You're answering a comment saying money is power by saying that it isn't if it's not used?

Even if the billionaire doesn't pay you, they can pay someone else to force you to do what they want.

Its happened before, over labor disputes and unionization.

A LOT of people died, both in anti-union and union sides.

And thats why we have, well, had, the National Labor Relations Board. It was to make a peaceful way to negotiate worker rights.

Maybe if it did go away completely, and the violence comes back, that people in power would be reminded WHY we had union structure and law in the federal government to begin with. It wasn't for the warm fuzzies.

s/relations/elections/ -- because Elon et. al don't just intervene in the elections of the country they live in, but actually any country he's interested in -- and uses the U.S. as a bludgeon in that effort, see U.S.-U.K. and U.S.-South Africa relations

Republicans have bought/installed the SCOTUS which allowed for favorable decision in Citizens United v FEC.

This corporation dominated landscape is quite awful. Corporations have more rights than woman right now.

We should tax billionaires away.

Graybeard here: took me a while to get it, but, usually these are chances to elucidate what is obvious to you :)* ex. I don't really know what you mean. What does the California state government look like if rich techies had even more influence? I can construct a facile version (lower taxes) but assuredly you mean more than that to be taken so aback.

* Good Atlas Shrugged quote on this: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check [ed.: or share when you're in a discussion] your premises."

Rich people can spend money to influence elections, yes, but how can they do it? through political donations, super-pacs and bribes. Bribes are already illegal. political donations and super-pacs can give politicians the juice they need to get their messaging out, but getting the message across isn't enough to win an election. The people need to vote. Billionaires can spend as much money as they want to support candidates, but a billionaire still only has one vote to cast.

My point is, billionaires can pay for all the political campaigns in the world, but the electorate gets the final say. It's up to us to A) run for office and B) vote for the best candidate (but tell that to the 64% turnout in the 2024 presidential election)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro_Khanna

Based on this warning from Garry to Ro re: wealth tax

https://finviz.com/news/277038/y-combinators-garry-tan-warns...

So this appears to be all about the wealth tax and taken down anyone who supports it.

AIPAC is also mad at Ro so it seems that Garry Tan can find common cause with them:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GRXZqcQiU/?mibextid=wwXIfr

All they can talk about is how they’re all going to leave the state if it happens, but then are more than willing to try to spend more stopping it than they would just contributing their fair share in taxes.

Don’t like it? Great, leave - but stop trying to buy elections.

Sorry, but the state just confiscating 5% of someone's net worth (unrealized or not) is absolute madness, and rightfully opens up questions about slippery slope, how "temporary" they claim this to be, and so on.

It's not surprising they are leaving the state or using their resources to try to stop it.

https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality/

This is not a normal state of affairs.

For example: https://nypost.com/2026/02/01/us-news/stunning-number-of-cal...

I would love to see that discussed

The ultra-rich are taking too great a share of every nations wealth. And they keep taking more.

Taxes are the only option to redistribute wealth.

Or are you talking about enabling strong unions and anti-monopoly laws with teeth to reverse the growth?

As I doubt Garry's in favour of that either.

“If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects”. -- Louis Brandeis

(it's not the working class)

I mean, I kinda agree with him about most of the centrist stuff. But really, Gary? This is what you need to be spending your money and time on?

https://finviz.com/news/277038/y-combinators-garry-tan-warns...

I know a dog whistle when i see one, didn't have to read much further but did anyway.

Now I can refer to this list to let me know who, and what, to vote against...

I really, really hate that our future has ended up in the hands of people like him, Andreessen, Thiel, Musk, etc.

I used to hold a lot of respect for Paul Graham and his essays, but I've realized his stances on things are pretty elementary, and largely come back to his ego or wealth management. People like Graham and Tan don't seem to really care about human flourishing, and they certainly don't seem to have any coherent vision of the future. Graham, like Andreessen, was technically good enough during a veritable tech gold rush, and Graham's lieutenants like Tan and Altman were lucky more than anything--just in the right place at the right time versus having started anything of value.

I am *absolutely* cynical and jaded when it comes to tech nowadays, so no need to call me out there. These people remind me of the high modernists, that tech will solve all problems, and we don't have to care too much as to how we solve those problems. Just handwave, and AI will solve all problems. But I think how we solve problems matters, and the entrepreneurship meritocracy that Tan and Graham allude to does not exist, and it never did.

I just find it abhorrent that while 15% of American households are food insecure, a company like Anthropic spent millions on a superbowl ad just lamenting OpenAI's ad strategy. Or that the Trump administration dropped a FTC case against Pepsi and Walmart for colluding to price out grocery competition. Or that Facebook and Google have been shown to have pushed for apps to addict people to their slop content. Or that tech capex this year alone rivals the Louisiana Purchase or the amount America spent on building out the railroads[1].

We're not solving the right problems because capital is entirely disconnected from the every day reality of Americans in this country. But by all means, let's aim to replace 50% of white collar workers with AI and handwave that prices will come down.

[1]: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-spending-tech-companies-compa...

You had your chance, it is gone now.

I’m no fan of Garry’s, but this doesn’t seem like a hit piece to me.

Campaign financing, U.S. style, is just legalized bribing. In any healthy democracy it would be illegal. In the U.S. is just the way things are.

Money will go into politics. Nobody can stop this, and it should be out in the open and traceable.

Obviously, no bribe at all is the best, but is this happening anywhere?

The will to fight for what one believes in - I think we can all agree that is an admirable human trait that would result, for those who do follow his views, in him being labeled as a hero and defender of people's rights.

Bravo, Garry.

> But the operation is also a media venture: Garry’s List started with a blog pillorying public-sector unions as “special interests,” attacking the ongoing teachers’ strike, and denouncing the proposed billionaire tax.

- Public sector unions are special interests. This is a plain fact.

- The current teacher's strike in San Francisco, even if it succeeds, will only push the district into insolvency, prompting a state takeover. The state will then cut much more aggressively. Maybe this would be a good thing though, although probably not what the union intended. Advocates of the strike are literally demanding the district spend its reserves on a couple years of raises.

- I'm certainly no billionaire, but the proposed tax will do nothing more than push the extremely small and mobile group of billionaires to take their business elsewhere. It's unlikely to raise tax revenues over the long run.

This is often claimed but has yet to be shown to actually be true. Billionaires want to live in the nicest places with the best amenities just like everyone else.

But let's pretend for the moment that it is true. Good. Billionaires are not a net positive influence anywhere.