8 ms·
a16z and certain Sequoia partners specifically supported this during the 2024 election. If haphazard, cruel dismantling of state capacity bothers you, avoid ra
by hkhanna 1y ago
a16z and certain Sequoia partners specifically supported this during the 2024 election.
If haphazard, cruel dismantling of state capacity bothers you, avoid raising money from venture capital firms that supported it.
- delusional 1y ago> If haphazard, cruel dismantling of state capacity bothers you, avoid raising money from venture capital firms that supported it. And maybe (just maybe) raise your voice in _actionable_ support for dismantling the complexes these money ghouls use to wage war against you and regular society.
- codyb 1y agoPeaceful protests, calling your reps, voting, and donating to organizations that have lawyers in the courts and lobbyists on Washington repping your interests are all super helpful relatively low effort steps that have impact when done en masse.
- Mc_Big_G 1y agoRespectfully, I've not seen any of these actions make a measurable difference in the last 10 years.
- otikik 1y agoI have seen not making these actions not make a measurable difference.
- pstuart 1y agoThat is an issue, but it's important to signal to those paying attention that the resistance is there and to not give up. We've entered Civil War II and I fear it will have to get much worse before there's any chance of turning things around. Regardless we can never give up.
- epsilonic 1y agoWhat signals make you so certain that we are in another civil war? Just curious.
- 20after4 1y agoThe national guard rolling into multiple major US cities is serious warning sign.
- pstuart 1y agoIt's practice. Our next October surprise very well may be a false flag attack that will be the pretext for martial law. 10 years ago that would sound crazy but today it's very real. I wish very much to be wrong in my prediction.
- 20after4 1y agoYeah, doesn't sound crazy (and it wouldn't have sounded crazy 10 years ago, at least not to my ear) and I'm afraid you are most likely correct.
- nebula8804 1y agoThe army and national guard had started preparing during the Obama years. [1]:https://youtu.be/JEjU-X57Wrc?t=5815 https://youtu.be/JEjU-X57Wrc?t=5815 It seems sometimes that they have mapped out how things are going to play out years in advance and are ready. After all what is the American government but just a group of fellow countrymen with all the data and resources?
- 20after4 1y agoyeah and the ones with the resources want to make sure they keep the resources and the rest of us get as little as possible.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> I've not seen any of these actions make a measurable difference in the last 10 years I've literally gotten language I drafted written into state and, twice now, federal law. If you pick a hot-button issue, no, you probably won't move your elected. But on issues they didn't even consider to be on their plate? You can get attention. (Better yet if you can convince them you have other motivated voters beside you.)
- miltonlost 1y agoAlso helps when you’re a private equity investor and can bribe I mean contribute to politicians so they listen to you
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> helps when you’re a private equity investor It does. But every single case where I got to draft legislation occurred before I made money and before I’d given anyone any money. (I never gave either of the federal electeds I worked with money.) I called about a bill that wasn’t getting attention. The elected thought it was interesting, but their staff were overworked. (They’re always overworked.) I suggested some edits; they appreciated the free work. In a minority of cases, they introduced those into the working copy of the bill, and in a minority of those cases the bill actually passed. Civic engagement is a power transfer from the lazy and nihilistic to the engaged. In terms of broadly-accessible power, I’d argue it’s one of the fairest.
- lmm 1y ago> I suggested some edits; they appreciated the free work... Civic engagement is a power transfer from the lazy and nihilistic to the engaged. In terms of broadly-accessible power, I’d argue it’s one of the fairest. I'd argue that time to do free work, and especially the ability to do is legal drafting, is something that the upper classes have a lot more access to than others.
- doom2 1y agoUnfortunately, my (Republican) senator doesn't seem to agree with me (a Democrat) on even the smaller issues. Yet he theoretically represents every resident of this state in the Senate, including the ones that didn't vote for him.
- burkaman 1y agoYou don't think any election in the last 10 years has made a measurable difference? Elections are the result of voting en masse.
- adastra22 1y agoIn the gerrymandered district in which I live, no.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoYou’re seriously claiming you had zero competitive elections of consequence where you live? No local elections? Referenda? Competitive primaries?
- adastra22 1y agoSome school district and property tax measures. That’s why I vote (and just for the general principle of it). Even my state and local reps are gerrymandered into lifelong stability.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Even my state and local reps are gerrymandered into lifelong stability Your leverage is in surfacing primary challengers. Even if they win, it’s a drag on time, energy and capital. Elected will pay attention to groups that can petition for and support a primary challenge. Even if they’re gerrymandered.
- adastra22 1y agoThey win with 80+% margins. They don’t even bother campaigning themselves and delegate it to their staff. The party wants it this way and is actively hostile to any primary challenges. I have better things to do with my time than charge at windmills.
- raw_anon_1111 1y agoPeople keep saying this. But the fact is it doesn’t matter. Between gerrymandering, the electoral college, two senators per state, and lobbying, votes don’t matter unless you are in a purple state or a purple district. Most people aren’t. And then we have the Supreme Court giving the President unlimited power.
- estearum 1y agoand yet the center of political power oscillates – with real consequences – every two and four years... coincidentally around the time we have elections!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- raw_anon_1111 1y agoAnd those same purple states have decided where it oscillates - like I said. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat in California it doesn’t matter who you as individual votes for for President. If you are in Los Angeles county, it also doesn’t matter who you vote for in the general election as your representative. The primaries matter though. California sends the same number of Senators to DC as West Virginia and half as many as North and South Dakota combined even though they don’t have nearly the population. How long and what strike of luck will it be based on timing that you think this country will see a liberal Supreme Court? Especially since justices nominated by Democrats refuse to leave when a Democratic President is in office? But then again, we are in this mess we are in today because the Democrats were too cowardly to pressure Biden not to run sooner.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Between gerrymandering, the electoral college, two senators per state, and lobbying, votes don’t matter unless you are in a purple state or a purple district I’ve knocked on doors for judicial elections in Manhattan where a single tenants’ association’s turnout out swung every election on the ballot. (In another case, the judge who went to Koreatown with us after a meet and greet swung our eight top to turn out, which was more than the margin for an off-cycle mid-week judicial primary.) There are always elections on the ballot that matter. And civic engagement isn’t limited to voting.
- anthem2025 1y ago[dead]
- TrackerFF 1y agoShould be obvious. If you want a smaller government, you'll need to privatize the tasks / services which government agencies used to provide. Venture capital / private equity / etc. owned companies will stand in line to get those contracts. And with deregulations, "move fast and break things" startups can move even faster. What puzzles me about the SV venture capital crowd, though, is that they're usually a somewhat socially liberal crowd. They enjoy social freedoms which the current gov. would rather see go away...so, talk about selling their soul to the devil.
- nerdponx 1y agoIt often comes down to freedom for me, not freedom for everyone.
- 11101010001100 1y agoalso known as power.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago> What puzzles me about the SV venture capital crowd, though, is that they're usually a somewhat socially liberal crowd. SV workers, sure. But "socially liberal" is absolutely not my impression of SV venture capitalists.
- epistasis 1y agoThere are quite a few socially liberal VCs, perhaps even most. But there are also more libertarians, which is quite common among those who make fortunes managing money rather than building things.
- rektomatic 1y ago>you'll need to privatize the tasks / services which government agencies used to provide Most of what DOGE cut was stuff no one wanted or needed in the first place. Just scroll their twitter feed, cutting this stuff shouldn't be termed as "smaller government".
- Ancalagon 1y agoOr raise the money and spend it frivolously.
- dcreater 1y agoso like the average silicon valley startup right now?
- AceJohnny2 1y ago"right now"?
- nenenejej 1y agoOr to really piss them off, raise money and become ramen profitable and stay that way.
- icedchai 1y agoThis happens more often than not anyway. Overpriced office space, expensive furniture, extra layers of management because we're "structuring to scale the organization", fancy and expensive titles for people who barely do anything. I worked at one place that raised 70 million, then spent 10 renovating a rented space, only to close up barely 1 year later. I had left by that point.
- fancyswimtime 1y agoAction Jack
- icedchai 1y agoYes, except this was real, not fiction. I witnessed it more than once. During the dotcom days, a company I worked for raised 8 mil... then blew 25% on renovations. I still remember getting a tour of the "space", where the new logo (which probably cost 6 figures to design) was unveiled.
- 1y ago
- yonran 1y ago> a16z and certain Sequoia partners specifically supported this during the 2024 election. Support for DOGE before it was implemented is not a bad thing. Ro Khanna (Democrat from Silicon Valley) supported it too. https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/opinion-democrats-can-work-doge-i-know-exactly-where-start https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/opinion-democrats... It is the act of supporting DOGE after the dumb implementation (e.g. 1/28/2025 Fork in the Road letter) that would concern me (which I think a16z has continued to do). In my opinion, Elon Musk approached DOGE all wrong because he is used to running companies where payroll is the #1 expense, and cutting workers is how he has always cut costs at his previous companies when they were strapped for cash (e.g. SolarCity, Tesla). He did’t realize that the US Government is mostly an insurance company, so cutting office staff is a drop in the bucket. A tragedy of his own juvenile ignorance.
- CPLX 1y ago> Support for DOGE before it was implemented is not a bad thing. Of course it is. It shows terrible judgment this was easily foreseeable.
- frollogaston 1y agoWhat was the pitch for DOGE? I get that govt agencies are insanely bloated. I don't get how DOGE intended to fix that even at the start, and the scammy charts they kept publishing weren't giving confidence. Was looking at it optimistically too, cause Musk did debloat Twitter.
- ModernMech 1y ago> Support for DOGE before it was implemented is not a bad thing A reminder that before it was implemented, it was called DOGE. It was never a serious thing, and supporting it may not have been bad, but it was hopelessly naive.