I never liked this argument. Partly because if you take it to its logical conclusion, any sufficiently successful individual would be paralized - which is an obviously wrong conclusion. The more successful you are, the freer you should be.

The solution is to also look at gains, not just losses. Billionaires can kill people with a tweet, but they can also inspire and, yes, save lives with a tweet.

You can be incredibly successful and not be famous. That's fine.

But if your success includes fame then... I like my social leaders to be nice to their own social group and not kill them very much.

If I save six lives, I can then kill six people?

Maybe. But it's hard not to see the parallel between massive risks taken and massive progress made.

It’s admirable that a company can reach a $200 billion valuation in the USA weeks after the CEO tells the SEC to suck his cock. The issue is with investors who aren’t questioning if that’s a sign of lack of ethics.

I would agree that it doesn’t look like good judgement- but shorts are literally betting against him and his company. It’s not obvious to me where that behavior (crowing against his adversaries) crosses a line into being wrong or evil.