I think you are asking for clarification?

(If not, I’m not seeking to argue the fundamental point you appear to be making that “if you fund defense you cannot be moral.”)

In the order you present:

>mission
Im taking “moral” to mean “for a purpose of doing good.” Assuming the “doing good” is a combo of opinion on what is helpful and some feeling (such as empathy or a sense of honor), my experience with founders who sell to defense that they are moral people.

It’s possible to genuinely disagree about what “doing good” is without assuming the other person is immoral.

>nation-state
On this we fully agree. However, I’ve not seen any other form of group identity escape this dilemma. I would be genuinely interested to learn of it.

>making a buck
I get that this seems like a strange thing to say. But go to any industry and try to sell a 7 figure deal. Very quickly you will find there are “in group” tests, the tests are significant, and there are certain “sacred cow” values you must ascribe to. “Making a buck” is the job for everyone in business so it’s a poor purity test.

Here’s another way to think of it: if you are buying from a vendor who’s only motivation is to “make a buck,” how can you trust they won’t stick you with a problematic product after they’ve gotten the money? Government purchasing is a massively complicated process precisely to address this issue, but it is still the social fabric between buyers and sellers that is determinant when selecting speculative, new vendors (aka buying from startups).

Respectfully, we are both making unsubstantiated claims here. I’m sharing my personal observations.

>American Dynamism
Politics has an outsized role today in the fortunes of companies. There are actually very few VCs with a footprint in defense and many suffered significant paper losses due to public reactions to it.

SWEs have a huge influence on what gets funded. If you can’t recruit tier 1 tech talent, you can’t build great tech companies.

In this case, a VC has built a media company and is going out making the case for investing in American Defense knowing that it will cost them relationship capital with a very large amount of the tech sector.

The reason I’m engaging with you on all of this is that, on HN at least, I think it matters to “pierce the veil” on founder motivations. “Making a buck”is a simplistic, dismissive take on why people found companies and I don’t think our community should accept it as a reasonable assertion. They are far less risky ways for talented people to make money than founding a startup and very few get such a fortunate outcome.

Let me give you a real example - a founder friend of mine helps the Pentagon replace gas powered equipment with EV powered ones.

Enabling the US to have a more mobile & resilient supply chain is a benefit the founder believes in. He considers himself a patriot.

But it’s not the company’s mission. The mission is to take on climate change. The US military is one of the greatest contributors to factors driving climate change, so it’s an important customer in terms of both mission and of course revenue.

If you’ve concluded that money is the only motivation people have for being in a business you disagree with, this probably isn’t a discussion you’ll get much value out of.

My guess is, you think it is wrong that VCs are taking a moral stance that building defense capabilities is something tech companies should be doing. Leaving no room for their humanity is one way to attack that.

But I am no longer willing to accept that tactic. I think it is more dangerous than any other. If we refuse to see the humanity of the people we disagree with, we’ve already set the stage for wanton destruction after our time here on this planet. History is full of such examples.

Apologies if I’ve been ungenerous or missed your point here. I’d be grateful to learn what I’m missing.