5 ms·

A libertarian using the power of government to crush free speech is pretty hypocritical if not unethical.

leroy_masochist 10y ago
Being able to use the courts to sue for defamation is pretty widely accepted as legit by most if not all strains of libertarianism. It's actually a clear example of a valid case in which governmental authority is necessary.
- djrobstep 10y ago
  Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."
  - darawk 10y ago
    Either way, his position is not hypocritical.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    That's right-wing libertarianism. Libertarianism was first formulated by a French anarcho-communist named Joseph Déjacque in the late 1800's, who lambasted Proudhon (of "property is theft" fame) for not being sufficiently focused on liberty. Right-libertarianism on the other hand was basically an attempt at reformulating the theories of Ayn Rand and von Mises to something that would allow a common from on many issues with liberal groups on the left.
- kedean 10y ago
  It is, but that's not what Thiel is trying to do. He is backing an unrelated lawsuit in an effort to squash them. The action that he had a problem with, them outing him, is in no way illegal, so he got into a proxy war against them. That is unquestionably unethical. The ethical thing for him to do would be to come at them head on in the public arena.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Especially when you champion yourself as taking the moral high ground. "The right to face your acccuser" as opposed to "having them bankroll your opponents behind the scenes".
qrendel 10y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted for this. One of my bigger criticisms of Thiel would be that he seems to have a very hypocritical sort of "libertarianism" - e.g. founding Palantir, basically another spy agency for the US gov. But hey, I guess if you can make a buck... That aside, I don't think this is the best example. Litigating through courts is pretty fundamental to anarcho-capitalist ideas, so this seems fairly consistent with that worldview.
- internaut 10y ago
  I know how it seems at first but you should probably hear out his explanation. First I take it you accept the necessity of gathering intelligence and analyzing it i.e. You don't believe the world is a John Lennon song. He says that Palantir is a very targeted approach to surveillance. It was founded at a time when dragnet surveillance proposals were being thrown up. The 'greater good' in this sense is preventing a more Orwellian world by the method of being effective and flexible in a way that sprawling govcomplexes tend not to be. When Snowden came out Thiel was alongside Binney in criticizing the NSA for being overwhelmed in irrelevant data. The basic point they both make is that an effective government isn't a cruel one or has the potential to be less likely to cudgel large numbers of innocent people. No need to send the village to the gulag if one of them is the culprit.
abiox 10y ago
> A libertarian using the power of government despite the somewhat narrow notion of what "libertarian" encompasses in US politics, even there they aren't equivalent to zero-government anarchists. > to crush free speech i'm increasingly believing that the notion of "free speech" has asymptotically zero meaning in general discourse. that said, an interesting counterpoint is in the article: "Mr. Thiel has donated money to the Committee to Protect Journalists and has often talked about protecting freedom of speech." it certainly appears to me that he sees gawker as a particularly hostile and unethical enterprise. the cases wouldn't exist without gawker's behavior, and the judges ostensibly render judgement according to the law.
- discordance 10y ago
  Free speech does not mean speech without repercussion.
imgabe 10y ago
Libel and slander are not recognized as protected speech.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  libel and slander are defined as writing or saying _false_ things that damage a person's reputation or property. if the damaging statement is _true_ its not libel or slander.
  - imgabe 10y ago
    If it is true, then a lawsuit for defamation should not be successful.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      if its a trial by jury then the verdict is whatever the jury renders. the ambiguity, however, leaves lots of room open for appeals, which is exactly whats going on in Terry Bollea v Gawker right now.

Being able to use the courts to sue for defamation is pretty widely accepted as legit by most if not all strains of libertarianism. It's actually a clear example of a valid case in which governmental authority is necessary.

djrobstep 10y ago
Libertarianism: "All the parts of government that benefit rich folks are legit/necessary/essential. All the parts that benefit poor folks are illegitimate/aggression/tyranny."
- darawk 10y ago
  Either way, his position is not hypocritical.
- vidarh 10y ago
  That's right-wing libertarianism. Libertarianism was first formulated by a French anarcho-communist named Joseph Déjacque in the late 1800's, who lambasted Proudhon (of "property is theft" fame) for not being sufficiently focused on liberty. Right-libertarianism on the other hand was basically an attempt at reformulating the theories of Ayn Rand and von Mises to something that would allow a common from on many issues with liberal groups on the left.
kedean 10y ago
It is, but that's not what Thiel is trying to do. He is backing an unrelated lawsuit in an effort to squash them. The action that he had a problem with, them outing him, is in no way illegal, so he got into a proxy war against them. That is unquestionably unethical. The ethical thing for him to do would be to come at them head on in the public arena.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Especially when you champion yourself as taking the moral high ground. "The right to face your acccuser" as opposed to "having them bankroll your opponents behind the scenes".

qrendel 10y ago

Not sure why you were downvoted for this. One of my bigger criticisms of Thiel would be that he seems to have a very hypocritical sort of "libertarianism" - e.g. founding Palantir, basically another spy agency for the US gov. But hey, I guess if you can make a buck... That aside, I don't think this is the best example. Litigating through courts is pretty fundamental to anarcho-capitalist ideas, so this seems fairly consistent with that worldview.

internaut 10y ago
I know how it seems at first but you should probably hear out his explanation. First I take it you accept the necessity of gathering intelligence and analyzing it i.e. You don't believe the world is a John Lennon song. He says that Palantir is a very targeted approach to surveillance. It was founded at a time when dragnet surveillance proposals were being thrown up. The 'greater good' in this sense is preventing a more Orwellian world by the method of being effective and flexible in a way that sprawling govcomplexes tend not to be. When Snowden came out Thiel was alongside Binney in criticizing the NSA for being overwhelmed in irrelevant data. The basic point they both make is that an effective government isn't a cruel one or has the potential to be less likely to cudgel large numbers of innocent people. No need to send the village to the gulag if one of them is the culprit.

abiox 10y ago

> A libertarian using the power of government despite the somewhat narrow notion of what "libertarian" encompasses in US politics, even there they aren't equivalent to zero-government anarchists. > to crush free speech i'm increasingly believing that the notion of "free speech" has asymptotically zero meaning in general discourse. that said, an interesting counterpoint is in the article: "Mr. Thiel has donated money to the Committee to Protect Journalists and has often talked about protecting freedom of speech." it certainly appears to me that he sees gawker as a particularly hostile and unethical enterprise. the cases wouldn't exist without gawker's behavior, and the judges ostensibly render judgement according to the law.

discordance 10y ago
Free speech does not mean speech without repercussion.

imgabe 10y ago

Libel and slander are not recognized as protected speech.

metaphorm 10y ago
libel and slander are defined as writing or saying _false_ things that damage a person's reputation or property. if the damaging statement is _true_ its not libel or slander.
- imgabe 10y ago
  If it is true, then a lawsuit for defamation should not be successful.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    if its a trial by jury then the verdict is whatever the jury renders. the ambiguity, however, leaves lots of room open for appeals, which is exactly whats going on in Terry Bollea v Gawker right now.