5 ms·

There is a difference between winning a lawsuit to right a wrong and then to go further and actually try to take down a paper. Whatever Gawker did to Theil it's

There is a difference between winning a lawsuit to right a wrong and then to go further and actually try to take down a paper. Whatever Gawker did to Theil it's not worth doing what he is doing but thats up to him. The problem though is that as extreme wealth gets put into fewer hands it allow them to basically bleed anything skeptical to this out. Furthermore and as a sidenote. I find it ironic that Theil of all people, a libertarian who claims we more or less don't need government end up kind of illustrating exactly why we do. Thats of course on top of his funding of Palantir a company who's based on government work. I like some of his thinking but I think he is showing some major flaws.

lake99 10y ago
Anarcho-capitalists advocate private courts and private enforcement, but that is impossible (at least for cases like this one) to put into practice when an existing government has already established a monopoly on this. Unless the government is abolished, using its facilities is a perfectly reasonable way to settle conflicts. Not only that, in some cases, using government facilities becomes mandatory, whatever your political beliefs. For example, if someone gets murdered in his house, and he is the sole witness, he is bound by law to report it. (At least, this is how I understand the law.)
randallsquared 10y ago
> I find it ironic that Theil of all people, a libertarian who claims we more or less don't need government end up kind of illustrating exactly why we do. I also find his actions ironic, but maybe for the opposite reason. In funding this lawsuit, Thiel appears to be funding the initiation of force -- bringing the power of government to bear against a private organization which hasn't used force or the threat of force (as far as I know). I would have assumed that as a libertarian, Thiel would be against this sort of thing, as you say, but apparently the temptation to use the State to crush someone he didn't like was too great. I would disagree with you that his actions illustrate that more of this is exactly what we need, though.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  the "off what we need" comment has to be understood in the context of wealth moving towards the ultra rich. What then is left in a ancap/libertarian society to defend those who aren't wealthy? The whole base of a democratic government, for all it's flaws, is to provide rights to the individual regardless of heir wealth and to defend those on your behalf.
- stale2002 10y ago
  They actually did use violence. If I set up a hidden camera in your shower, and post the results on youtube, most libertarians would agree that I have committed some sort violence against you or your property. If instead, I pay someone else to set up hidden cameras in your shower, I have also helped commit violence against you. Thats basically what Gawker did in this case.
lhnz 10y ago
He's a smart man, so it is quite possible he has some nuanced opinion that is not exactly cookie-cutter libertarian from a textbook. And this should be allowed. Siding a certain way on some political issues shouldn't require you to be absolutely dogmatic to all of the relating principles and perspectives in all contexts. I mean, I wouldn't expect this from myself, so I wouldn't expect it from others.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  He is a smart man, but that does not mean his morals are better. He can do whatever he want's I still find it ironic since his stance is one of quite fundamental morals. Him using his money in court to get revenge. Now imagine that in a private court he could potentially be primary shareholder in.
- internaut 10y ago
  I gave a small explanation concerning Thiel's ideas and the intelligence agencies last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782998 I don't deny this whole area is troubled and troubling, when national security is concerned it seems every path is taking you to some kind of hell. The world is a Big Place and common sense often falls short of being an ethical guide. I'm sure joining forces with Joseph Stalin produced mixed feelings. If courage is what is required to deal with that kind of thing then I'll be pleased to be called a coward.

lake99 10y ago

Anarcho-capitalists advocate private courts and private enforcement, but that is impossible (at least for cases like this one) to put into practice when an existing government has already established a monopoly on this. Unless the government is abolished, using its facilities is a perfectly reasonable way to settle conflicts. Not only that, in some cases, using government facilities becomes mandatory, whatever your political beliefs. For example, if someone gets murdered in his house, and he is the sole witness, he is bound by law to report it. (At least, this is how I understand the law.)

randallsquared 10y ago

> I find it ironic that Theil of all people, a libertarian who claims we more or less don't need government end up kind of illustrating exactly why we do. I also find his actions ironic, but maybe for the opposite reason. In funding this lawsuit, Thiel appears to be funding the initiation of force -- bringing the power of government to bear against a private organization which hasn't used force or the threat of force (as far as I know). I would have assumed that as a libertarian, Thiel would be against this sort of thing, as you say, but apparently the temptation to use the State to crush someone he didn't like was too great. I would disagree with you that his actions illustrate that more of this is exactly what we need, though.

ThomPete 10y ago
the "off what we need" comment has to be understood in the context of wealth moving towards the ultra rich. What then is left in a ancap/libertarian society to defend those who aren't wealthy? The whole base of a democratic government, for all it's flaws, is to provide rights to the individual regardless of heir wealth and to defend those on your behalf.
stale2002 10y ago
They actually did use violence. If I set up a hidden camera in your shower, and post the results on youtube, most libertarians would agree that I have committed some sort violence against you or your property. If instead, I pay someone else to set up hidden cameras in your shower, I have also helped commit violence against you. Thats basically what Gawker did in this case.

lhnz 10y ago

He's a smart man, so it is quite possible he has some nuanced opinion that is not exactly cookie-cutter libertarian from a textbook. And this should be allowed. Siding a certain way on some political issues shouldn't require you to be absolutely dogmatic to all of the relating principles and perspectives in all contexts. I mean, I wouldn't expect this from myself, so I wouldn't expect it from others.

ThomPete 10y ago
He is a smart man, but that does not mean his morals are better. He can do whatever he want's I still find it ironic since his stance is one of quite fundamental morals. Him using his money in court to get revenge. Now imagine that in a private court he could potentially be primary shareholder in.
internaut 10y ago
I gave a small explanation concerning Thiel's ideas and the intelligence agencies last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11782998 I don't deny this whole area is troubled and troubling, when national security is concerned it seems every path is taking you to some kind of hell. The world is a Big Place and common sense often falls short of being an ethical guide. I'm sure joining forces with Joseph Stalin produced mixed feelings. If courage is what is required to deal with that kind of thing then I'll be pleased to be called a coward.