Citizenship in a Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_a_Republic

by tomrod • 13 years ago

21 14 13 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

tomrod3• 13 years ago

It appears a lot of people talk about what it takes to make a successful startup and the like. Reading through this today just reminded me of the fight many startup entrepreneurs take every day.

jkeesh• 13 years ago

Thanks for sharing this link. As it related to HN, I think you have to applaud all of the people who go out on a limb and share their work-in-progress side project, new startup, or anything else that they've created---knowing that half of the community will "point out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better."

I still am a relative beginner to the space, and I do find it frustrating when people dismissively point out such "obvious" problems with our project, or things we should be doing, but I think it comes with the territory.

tomrod3• 13 years ago

Yeah! He even refers to the "critics" as such, those on the outside of the arena.

untog• 13 years ago

EDIT: the title of this post has now been changed, to the extent that it loses its entire relevance to HN. It was previously something along the lines of "After a year reading HN, this quote reminds me of the people here"

---

I'm deeply skeptical of any attempts to romanticise "doing a startup".

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"

Running a startup is hard work. No-one disputes that. But if you are in the position to run your own startup you are incredibly lucky. There are a lot of people out there that might be far better entrepreneurs than you, but because they weren't born into a situation that gave them a good education and the ability to take a risk, they never will.

Running a startup is stressful, but don't try to pretend that there aren't enormous upsides. You can do whatever you want, you can work with whomever you want. The industry celebrates failure- think about that for a second. You can try your best, fail miserably, and people will still say that you did a good job. How many other people in the world can do that? The guy earning minimum wage in his factory job, spending all his salary just to keep out of poverty- if he fails, he is fired, and he and his family are screwed. He is the person whose face is much more likely to be covered in actual dust and sweat and blood.

Being in this industry is a position of extreme privilege. Harping on about it as if it's a heavy burden to bear is utter nonsense and only helps the perception of "startup folk" as deeply out of tune with how the rest of the world works.

Mz• 13 years ago

I don't see it as romanticizing it. I met an old guy, last remaining (living) founder of a huge company. In our brief exchange, he remarked on how the company had seen "a lot of bad times" or something like that. After all his success, acclaim, money, etc, he still smarted from the challenges. It still hurt. It still weighed on him.

I think stuff like this is more like a salve for their wounds. Most folks seem pretty scarred by their experiences. Though that isn't peculiar to startups. Still, I get the impression there is something more raw about the experience than a lot of other things.

Just an impression.

avenger123• 13 years ago

Couldn't agree more with your sentiments.

I find it sometimes very frustrating to read about all these people doing start-ups (who I am cheering to succeed - I have nothing against others succeeding, no matter how good their circumstances are) talk about the struggle and the hard work, etc. It's inevitable that either consciously or subconsciously you do a mental comparison between yourself and these people.

Sometimes, I tend to have questions such as "ummm... why am I not/did not follow similar path". I don't dwell to much on it as I catch myself and look at their background. For example, I will use the founder of one particular company (which I won't name). Let's see, father is CEO/founder of a medical company (ie. already no risk of any real failure - dad is available for a start-up capital and a job if things don't workout). He is graduating from Stanford (already higher chance of success, considering the reputation and connections that exist). I watch a presentation with the father and son and I just could not understand how this person felt they were taking a huge risk by doing their start-up versus "getting a job". He mentioned the risk and it really emphasized the vacuum some of these founders live in.

I will gladly give more respect to people such as Mark Cuban and many others like him who have built their companies from the start with real risk and real failure.

I wish the best of success for these people that do have these really good circumstances. Being able to leverage their good fortune to do a start-up is adding value to society but I tend to find it a bit too much sometimes when I read about the struggles of these people that have the good circumstances. I also feel it perhaps leads some people astray who should not do a start-up as the consequences of failure are extremely bad as they don't have the good circumstances to cushion the failures.

xijuan• 13 years ago

I think there is some truth to what you said. But I dislike your example. I don't think born rich is necessarily a good thing nor that everyone wants to born rich. Another thing is that I think most people prefer to not use parents' money. Using someone else's money (even if it is your parents' money) will cause you to lose some control and power. In other words, if you use parents' money very often, then you probably have to listen to your parents a lot..I don't know about others..but I generally don't want to listen to my parents...

saraid216• 13 years ago

Is it solely the "Man in the Arena" paragraph that makes you feel this way, or the entire thirty-five page speech?

How about,

"Money-making, the money touch I have spoken of above. It is a quality which in a moderate degree is essential. It may be useful when developed to a very great degree, but only if accompanied and controlled by other qualities; and without such control the possessor tends to develop into one of the least attractive types produced by a modern industrial democracy."

How about,

"In short, the good citizen in a republic must realize that he ought to possess two sets of qualities, and that neither avails without the other. He must have those qualities which make for efficiency; and that he also must have those qualities which direct the efficiency into channels for the public good. He is useless if he is inefficient. There is nothing to be done with that type of citizen of whom all that can be said is that he is harmless. Virtue which is dependant upon a sluggish circulation is not impressive. There is little place in active life for the timid good man. The man who is saved by weakness from robust wickedness is likewise rendered immune from robuster virtues. The good citizen in a republic must first of all be able to hold his own. He is no good citizen unless he has the ability which will make him work hard and which at need will make him fight hard. The good citizen is not a good citizen unless he is an efficient citizen."

How about,

"The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impractical visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the embittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcoming, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him when he does work! Moreover, the preacher of ideals must remember how sorry and contemptible is the figure which he will cut, how great the damage that he will do, if he does not himself, in his own life, strive measurably to realize the ideals that he preaches for others. Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized. We should abhor the so-called "practical" men whose practicality assumes the shape of that peculiar baseness which finds its expression in disbelief in morality and decency, in disregard of high standards of living and conduct. Such a creature is the worst enemy of the body of politic. But only less desirable as a citizen is his nominal opponent and real ally, the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better forever the enemy of the possible good."

How about,

"Individual initiative, so far from being discouraged, should be stimulated; and yet we should remember that, as society develops and grows more complex, we continually find that things which once it was desirable to leave to individual initiative can, under changed conditions, be performed with better results by common effort."

How about,

"Of one man in especial, beyond any one else, the citizens of a republic should beware, and that is of the man who appeals to them to support him on the ground that he is hostile to other citizens of the republic, that he will secure for those who elect him, in one shape or another, profit at the expense of other citizens of the republic. It makes no difference whether he appeals to class hatred or class interest, to religious or antireligious prejudice. The man who makes such an appeal should always be presumed to make it for the sake of furthering his own interest. The very last thing an intelligent and self-respecting member of a democratic community should do is to reward any public man because that public man says that he will get the private citizen something to which this private citizen is not entitled, or will gratify some emotion or animosity which this private citizen ought not to possess."

For my part, while there are a few sections I find questionable, I largely like the whole thing.

n3rdy2• 13 years ago

Oh yay, another post like this.

> Running a startup is hard work. No-one disputes that. But if you are in the position to run your own startup you are incredibly lucky. There are a lot of people out there that might be far better entrepreneurs than you, but because they weren't born into a situation that gave them a good education and the ability to take a risk, they never will.

Nobody is born into a situation that ~20 years later destine them to run a startup.

The type of person who takes charge of their life, also takes charge of their education, you cannot learn some of the skills it takes to be a self made person.

Risk appetite isn't something predetermined at birth, and it isn't learned from someones environment. You can develop the ability to take risk from surrounding yourself with successful people, just as easily as you develop it from having nothing left to lose, and realizing how much you've been overestimating your worst case scenarios.

> Running a startup is stressful, but don't try to pretend that there aren't enormous upsides. You can do whatever you want, you can work with whomever you want.

If what you want to do is work and focus on success, then you can do whatever you want, but there are plenty of moments where you will want to be doing something else. This is called self-discipline, its just like the discipline normal people are subjected to, if you ignore it, you lose your job, or your startup fails.

> How many other people in the world can do that?

Not as many as I would like. There are organizations like Kiva that aim to give those less fortunate an opportunity, and hopefully more pop up that make it even easier.

> The guy earning minimum wage in his factory job, spending all his salary just to keep out of poverty- if he fails, he is fired, and he and his family are screwed. He is the person whose face is much more likely to be covered in actual dust and sweat and blood.

He can also get another factory job. Try failing a startup and just starting another, its going to be a lot harder than pounding the pavement and submitting resumes.

> Being in this industry is a position of extreme privilege. Harping on about it as if it's a heavy burden to bear is utter nonsense and only helps the perception of "startup folk" as deeply out of tune with how the rest of the world works.

Anyone harping on it as a burden has the wrong attitude, and frankly I would be surprised if they lasted.

It is definitely not extreme privilege. These companies don't just start themselves and adopt whoever has the winning ticket. You have to have a good idea, and you have to be willing to act on it.

Many people have good ideas, and could grow a successful business out of their idea, but they have the wrong ideas about what is stopping them, so they never try. These people come from the same communities as any startup founder. The difference is a founder dares to challenge the beliefs that have been crammed down their throat, even if everyone around them insists its a bad idea.

scotch_drinker2• 13 years ago

All success is largely dependent on luck and culture. Where you are born, who your parents are, etc. Being in a position where you can take charge of your life is also largely dependent on the same luck and culture. I think this is what the parent is stressing.

wooster• 13 years ago

Original title: "After a year of reading HN, this is how I view the successful entrepreneur"

New title: "Citizenship in a Republic"

tomrod3• 13 years ago

Huh. It really makes no sense why I posted this after the title change. What gives?

Citizenship in a Republic

Related Stories