That's Wyoming in a nutshell.

"Do you know how much money I have?"

"Yeah, but we still don't like you, and saying that makes us like you less."

It's a really weird mix of respect for wealth/property (when you're a good neighbor) and disrespect for wealth/property (when you're an asshole).

E.g. see what happens when a millionaire pisses off the fishing community by ignoring laws and harming river habitat

I mean it definitely was enough money to convince the county to prosecute after being prodded by the private land owner.

Apparently he was right about money being important:

> Officers said they would submit reports to the county attorney who, documents say, subsequently ordered a deputy to charge the men, which happened on Oct. 4.

Meanwhile we are being told, even on this forum, that income inequality is no big thing and one shouldn't be envious, it's unseemly. Where is the revolution?

Did you miss the part where having all of that land and money didn’t let him get his way?

> In the video, Bakken and Miller tell Grende, who had called to report the four hunters were trespassing by “corner crossing,” they would not cite the men for either trespassing to hunt or criminal trespass

They also lost in court. It was a ranch manager trying to intimidate people with wealth, and it didn’t work.

Subsequently:

> Officers said they would submit reports to the county attorney who, documents say, subsequently ordered a deputy to charge the men, which happened on Oct. 4.

Not only did they lose in court -- they further cemented this ruling as a matter of settled law.

Given that this forum skews toward the winning side of the income inequality game, its not really surprising to find that sentiment overrepresented here.

That’s why this article about money not winning is on the front page. The cognitive dissonance to attack boogeymen is mind boggling

> That’s why this article about money not winning is on the front page.

No, its not. Its also not inconsistent with it being on the front page. Even if one assumes that the reason that it is on the front page is class sympathy with the party who prevailed on most of the issues, and not any other reason…”disproportionate” is not “exclusive”.

I’ve never accused HN of being a unitary hive mind (in fact, if you go through my posting history, you’ll see that’s an idea that I frequently mock.)

That doesn’t mean, though, that it is a representative – demographically or ideologically – slice of the population, either, and the ways it isn’t ideologically reflect, largely, the ways it isn’t demographically.

That’s a lot of word diarrhea to say that it being on the front page is not representative of anything and that you have the secret actual guide to HN ideologies.

Pray tell, what is your source for the boogeyman you are attacking since it’s not what is popular?

I thought it was on the front page to show how brilliant land management plan is ridiculous in implementation.

I mean, the little guy won this particular case, so I’m not sure what you’re on about …

Always remember: if it can be used against them it will be used against you!

The law, in its infinite wisdom, lets both rich men and poor men alike cut corners.

There is no winning side you have been conned.

"Where is the revolution?"

You know of any revolutions that solve inequality? All the ones in known history simply change who the winners and losers are and maintain inequality.

Inequality absolutely exists and "revolutions" that claim to fix it in fact... don't. Socialism/Communism/etc all fail spectacularly to solve the "issue" of inequality.

>You know of any revolutions that solve inequality? All the ones in known history simply change who the winners and losers are and maintain inequality.

right, well obviously the revolutions solves the inequality for the previous losers.

French Revolution?

Have you been paying attention to French politics lately?

And incidentally, are you familiar with the atrocities committed during the revolution? The “vertical deportations” of the Vendée region might add some much-needed nuance to what I can only surmise to be your whitewashed, simplistic interpretation of the French Revolution.

People excitedly waiting for revolution often have no idea what a revolution actually is. If they did, they’d be aware that the most fervent revolutionaries are among the first to be executed when the establishment is overthrown. They’d also have some awareness of how the old power structures are often replaced with equivalent ones.

A revolution is a failure mode, not an end to be pursued. Read more history.

> Have you been paying attention to French politics lately?

To be fair, the last revolution in France was 150 years ago, things change quite a bit in 150 years.

> your whitewashed, simplistic interpretation of the French Revolution

You seem to be equally biased, if on the other side. Events as large as a revolution are complex enough that it is hard to fit them into a manichean assessment.

It’s hardly “biased to the other side” to point out the missing half in someone’s reasoning.

There is no missing half in pointing out that the French revolution solved some inequalities. For all the blood and failure it had, some changes it introduced proved to be irreversible, such as the introduction of a constitution, and the people becoming a significant political player that has to be acknowledged when ruling.

And I would say that reading someone talk about some positive outcomes of an event and immediately feel compelled to call their views simplistic and whitewashed shows some bias.

Which ended when Napoleon declared himself a hereditary monarch.

The American Revolution barely averted a military dictatorship, because Washington turned down the offer from his officers. How many times has that happened in history? Only once that I know of, which makes Washington the greatest American President.

I place Kennedy at #2, for avoiding nuclear war with the Soviets.

Ha ha, I love it. Are you going on a comedy tour soon?