Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

By your own definition it isn't hypocrisy. You are confusing virtues, morals, principles, and beliefs with rules. They aren't the same thing and shouldn't be conflated.

The argument could be made that patents are not a moral issue but an issue concerning efficient economics. Under that argument reforming patents is about making an industry more productive and useful. This can happen in two dimensions. A single business could benefit. An entire economy could benefit. A leader of a company could view the patent system like this:

My company right now can make the most money currently by registering, buying, and enforcing patents. However if the patent system were reformed we could reduce costs, legal risks and make even more money than we do now. Therefore I will lobby for patent reform. While still doing what I need to be successful as a company now.




I'm not confusing. The original comment was:

If I could legally vote twice because I had a college degree, I would -- even though I would support repealing such a rule.

That's doing in practice the opposite of what you believe, promoting a principle that one is also guilty of violating.

It's also unethical in my view. The ends do not justify the means.


It would be hypocritical to say "Everyone should voluntarily not use their special rights to vote twice" and then vote twice. It's not hypocritical to say "The law should be changed" and then go vote twice.

As in, there is no contradiction or hypocrisy if someone explicitly states their ordered preferences like this:

1) The law states that everyone gets one vote, I vote once.

2) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote twice.

3) The law states that college grads get two votes, I vote once.

Jeff Bezos isn't opposing patents on moral grounds; he thinks that there would be economic benefit to everyone, including his company, to get rid of them. It would be of economic benefit to only everyone but Amazon if only Amazon abstained from having patents.


Saying you would use the rules to your advantage even though you disagree with them is very much hypocritical.

You may not agree with Wikipedia's definition of hypocrisy. That's fine, find another. But practicing the opposite of what you believe fits it perfectly.


Didn't realize skulls could be so thick. This tangent on defining hypocrisy belongs somewhere else.


He's not doing something other than what he believes in if he has a more nuanced belief that you seem willing to allow.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: