4 ms·

In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. The depth of his convictions can be measured in microns. He's the perfect example of the "

In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. The depth of his convictions can be measured in microns. He's the perfect example of the "libertarian" who espouses that philosophy not out of any genuine commitment to its ideals, but just because he wants lower taxes and more leeway for whatever despicable business practices he has in mind. For instance, he founded a company whose, no joke, entire raison d'être is providing surveillance-as-a-service to increase the power of the State. This is something I wouldn't even do, and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal".

gizmo 10y ago
His justification, bizarrely, is that as a hardcore libertarian he is exactly the sort of person who should start a massive surveillance business because other people respect individual rights much less than he does. If the business is going to exist anyway (because of market demand) then having it chaired by a libertarian is the best case scenario.
jnbiche 10y ago
> In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. ...and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal" Thank you. I'm glad you've been able to distinguish between Thiel, perhaps one of the most anti-liberty, authoritarian 'libertarians' in modern history. I likewise take many liberals (and conservatives!) seriously, even if we do not always agree. For example, one of my favorite congressmen is Alan Grayson (a pro-liberty Democrat/liberal) and one of my favorite senators is Rand Paul (a pro-liberty Republican/fiscal conservative). I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate their willingness to stick up for their beliefs. Sadly, people like us are relatively few and far between.
- jonathanstrange 10y ago
  The point is that libertarianism is just one more whacky US misnomer for right-wing liberalism, which has existed since Bentham.
Aloha 10y ago
I suspect Thiel might be willing to argue against his obvious business interest (in re Palantir) and would rather that the government not be in the business of spying on its own citizens. I have no shame is taking money to do a task I wouldn't ever do myself. Thats part of why they're paying you. So long as I'm not doing 'hard evil' (direct physical, mental or emotional harm to a group) - everything else is open to interpretation.

gizmo 10y ago

His justification, bizarrely, is that as a hardcore libertarian he is exactly the sort of person who should start a massive surveillance business because other people respect individual rights much less than he does. If the business is going to exist anyway (because of market demand) then having it chaired by a libertarian is the best case scenario.

jnbiche 10y ago

> In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. ...and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal" Thank you. I'm glad you've been able to distinguish between Thiel, perhaps one of the most anti-liberty, authoritarian 'libertarians' in modern history. I likewise take many liberals (and conservatives!) seriously, even if we do not always agree. For example, one of my favorite congressmen is Alan Grayson (a pro-liberty Democrat/liberal) and one of my favorite senators is Rand Paul (a pro-liberty Republican/fiscal conservative). I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate their willingness to stick up for their beliefs. Sadly, people like us are relatively few and far between.

jonathanstrange 10y ago
The point is that libertarianism is just one more whacky US misnomer for right-wing liberalism, which has existed since Bentham.

Aloha 10y ago

I suspect Thiel might be willing to argue against his obvious business interest (in re Palantir) and would rather that the government not be in the business of spying on its own citizens. I have no shame is taking money to do a task I wouldn't ever do myself. Thats part of why they're paying you. So long as I'm not doing 'hard evil' (direct physical, mental or emotional harm to a group) - everything else is open to interpretation.