7 ms·

Silicon Valley’s Ultimate Exit (2013)

87 points by nkurz 10y ago

nkurz 10y ago
I post this now because the author (Balaji Srinivasan) has recently been named as a contender for heading the FDA: https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/12/fda-trump-oneil-srinivasan/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/12/fda-trump-oneil-srinivas... Note that "exit" here is not synonymous with "secession", but instead refers to Albert Hirschman's contrast of "exit" and "voice" as two complementary approaches that individuals can use to influence the society around them: http://peterlevine.ws/?p=11887 http://peterlevine.ws/?p=11887. In this context, the option of "voice" includes the approach of reforming institutions from within, while "exit" leaves them broken and bypasses them with new alternatives. Given Srinivasan's embrace of "exit", this makes him an intriguing candidate for overhauling a massive federal bureaucracy.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Amazing read, thank you! I have no idea what this next government will look like for the US... Interestingly, the kind of "exit" he's talking about sounds an awful lot like Timothy Leary's "Turn on, tune in, drop out": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out
  - thenewregiment1 10y ago
    Amazing read. Such thoughtful Writing.
- dlemire 10y ago
  I find it interesting that he would even consider the job.
DannyB2 10y ago
If the USA is the Microsoft of nations, as the article says. Then would some current or future president be the Ballmer of the US?
- r00fus 10y ago
  The analogy is flawed at the CEO<->President level, obviously. 3 CEOs vs. 44 Presidents?
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    There've been numerous Presidents who are akin to Ballmer though, having presided upon times where things were pretty good for the fortunate segment of society but doing nothing about looming catastrophes which could be seen but weren't critical problems. I'm thinking of Fillmore/Pierce/Buchanan in the run-up to the Civil War and Harding/Coolidge/Hoover in the run-up to the Great Depression. It's fairly likely that historians will view Dubya/Obama/Trump in the same way in reference to some future crisis around the national debt, global warming, or rising inequality.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Microsoft was founded in 1975. So, 40 years instead of 220? I mean, yes, Microsoft CEOs serve longer, on average, than US Presidents do, but it's not nearly as stark as you make it sound.
etjossem 10y ago
> Build an opt-in society, ultimately outside the US, run by technology. Balaji Srinivasan is being considered to run the FDA. If chosen, he is expected to radically weaken its regulatory power, purportedly in the interests of promoting innovation in the pharma space. He's described it as the big enemy for any biotech innovator to overcome. When we have an opt-in healthcare system, people who are in perfectly good health will opt into favorable plans only they qualify for. Those born with expensive conditions or who develop a chronic illness won't be able to opt in, and will find themselves in a high risk pool paying hardship-tier premiums. When we have pharmaceutical companies opting into less stringent regulatory structures, even the most dangerous drugs will make it to clinical trials - to be tested by people who lack the ability to choose any other way of making a living. Pharma manufacturers will then base their prices on what they believe the highest tier of wealth will bear, ignoring the long tail of underinsured Americans. The problem with an opt-in society is that only some people get the privilege of opting in. It's an almost self-contradicting concept. Societies only hold together if their members don't favor exit. Members collectively recognize they're all on the same side, by way of the social contract they've entered into, and they know the rules need to be the same for everyone. A modicum of loyalty - in Hirschman's sense - is an absolute prerequisite for a group to be called a society. When it comes to our health, let's show some loyalty to our fellow Americans and use our voices, instead of fleeing the inconveniently poor and sick. The veil of ignorance hasn't come off yet, after all: if you get cancer tomorrow, you might well become one of them.
- notgood 10y ago
  But what if America health system has terminal cancer? What if it's already beyond repair because the ones in charge are already fused into the system? About the opt-in society, I think it can create rules to prevent the disadvantages you mention; for example by paying a percentage of your salary/profits instead of a fixed amount; or perhaps by taking -free of charge- one sick poor person for every 10 healthy ones that enter the system.
  - etjossem 10y ago
    > taking -free of charge- one sick poor person for every 10 healthy ones that enter the system. This is a very rough way to put it, but it's a fantastic idea. Policymakers call this universal healthcare.
austenallred 10y ago
Does anybody have a link to Balaji's MOOC? I've heard great reviews about it, and I have an enormous amount of respect for Balaji, but I haven't been able to find it - I can only find his MOOC about Bitcoin. Or is that the MOOC he was referring to?
- kartD 10y ago
  It's been removed from coursera. I completed and it isn't available to me either. This is the stanford link (http://online.stanford.edu/course/startup-engineering http://online.stanford.edu/course/startup-engineering) but it just points to coursera as well.
- vmarsy 10y ago
  It was called called "Startup Engineering" [1]. This course doesn't exist on coursera anymore, there's a similar syllabus on Stanford's website [2]. The project was something about building a small web app with node.js and accepting enabling donations via bitcoin payment. I was trying to find the course in the archive.org's backup of coursera [3] but it doesn't appear to be searchable. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5089487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5089487 [2] http://startup.stanford.edu/ http://startup.stanford.edu/ [3] https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_coursera https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_coursera
bbctol 10y ago
One thing a lot of people don't realize about the modern concept of the "social contract" is that it depends on the capacity to exit, which requires the existence of the frontier. John Locke's idea of government wasn't just influential to the development of the United States, it was openly influenced by the existence of America; he wrote a lot about how the "state of nature" that exists independent of government was the American frontier (he didn't care much for/about Native Americans.) Now, the idea that a government is a social contract between citizens and rulers is universal, but we've eliminated its original foundation: an empty space citizens can settle when they decide their government is worse than nothing. There's no easy solution to this problem. We're out of unclaimed land (seasteading and Mars colonization wouldn't really resolve it, even if they were more plausible.) I don't think Srinivasan has a great concept of why nations work; the problem with a Silicon Valley exit is less that Silicon Valley doesn't have aircraft carriers, and more that it doesn't have, you know, farmland, and I don't think the opt-in society would be allowed: Silicon Valley is rich and prosperous because of the large pool of mainly American consumers it sells to, and it is protected by the auspices of the US government. If they really wanted to leave, they wouldn't be able to take the money-making with them, as the US has no incentive to protect the businesses of a foreign power. I actually think that instead of getting more and more small countries as time goes on, we'll get increasing large blocs caring for things like defense and very general welfare, and increasingly small, atomized communities, either geographically or online, caring for other needs. If we have a large United States government that takes care of the nuclear weapons stockpile, coordinates response to natural disasters, and makes sure people don't die for arbitrary reasons, smaller communities can tax, spend, negotiate as they will. And I expect these communities will increasingly go online; online, Locke's dream can be realized, as there really is infinite space to colonize (if you don't like your current forum, go found a new one.) As long as people have a basic level of security, they'll be free to self-organize and explore new models of society in a virtual world. I can't tell if this vision of the future is utopian or dystopian.
- ashark 10y ago
  In the Second Treatise, or somewhere else? I don't recall Locke mentioning any requirement for wild frontier to prop up the legitimacy of government. I do remember his "state of nature" as a kind of fable, presented as if it were or had been a real thing in some meaningful sense, propping up his premises. But his Second Treatise is the only document of his I've read.
stephancoral 10y ago
Why are SV "big shots" so obsessed with making their own little la-la land fiefdoms (Who actually wants AI/tech to run their country? Like, that is literally an apocalyptic nightmare of mine) instead of contributing positively to the country that helped foster their fortunes? This is some of the most myopic, ego-stroking bullshit I think I've ever read on this site. Also the sooner ridiculous "code=law" analogy goes away the better. It's clear this person has very little understanding how affairs of state actually work.
- doctorcroc 10y ago
  Did you read the article? It explicitly discusses using 'voice' or 'contributing positively to the country' as option #1, and 'exit' as the backup in case the former is ineffective. If you think their vision of the future is nightmarish, you don't have to do anything. Just stay where you are.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tzakrajs 10y ago
The governments will sooner outlaw job automation or implement basic income than allow chaos to take hold.
- tzakrajs 10y ago
  Also, our standards are pretty high right now, so I think chaos would ensue before our quality of living fell too much.
adangert 10y ago
I agree with this article on many points. I wish GitHub had a way to remove the "forked from" link in order to give more freedom to developers that want to take a project in a different direction, and properly "exit"
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  git clone .... Create new repo in github. git push ....
meanduck 10y ago
TLDR: 25k Govts is better than 25 Govts. And I absolutely agree. Its obvious that noone is going to happy with their Mega Govt all the time. We should work on mechanism that allows creating new, smaller Govts out of a Mega Govt as easy as possible. Let the market innovation/compitition advance Governence too.
la6470 10y ago
Yes many people won’t understand this article it but there is a strong and subtle point that Balaji makes. It is the power that technology brings to the common people. Technology will one day make food shelter healthcare clothing ie all the basic necessities so automated and so cheap that everyone can be guranteed free access to these basic needs. Already certain countries have started experimenting with annual basic income. This does not stop people from excelling or working hard to do better but will help us to stop worrying about going homeless or going broke just because one loses ones job. This is where technology can take us and this is what we dream about. Thank you.
pascalxus 10y ago
I like the way he's thinking and core argument is a good one. But there's one reason it won't work: Taxes. You can't have a new country when every single economic transaction is subject to an extremely onerous 35% income tax - you still have to pay this tax even if you live in another country. There's probably still a lot of good stuff you can do though: low cost housing and transportation, just for starters.
Animats 10y ago
That reads like a right-wing version of Barlow's Cyberspace Manifesto:[1] "Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather." Boy, was he wrong. [1] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
pmyjavec 10y ago
That’s how we got cell phones from a toy for Wall Street to something that’s helping the poorest of the poor all over the world I just don't see it, after spending time in third world countries I believe this is a false statement. It's not free to use a cell phone in the third world, the poorest of the poor can't afford "credit" nor phones, nor have anywhere to charge them. If anything I've seen cell phones usually being used by shady characters using them for nefarious purposes, they're often the only "poor" who can afford cell phones in third world. Let's also not forget who actually produced the cheap cell phones that made them affordable. God bless this article.

87 points by nkurz 10y ago

nkurz 10y ago

I post this now because the author (Balaji Srinivasan) has recently been named as a contender for heading the FDA: https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/12/fda-trump-oneil-srinivasan/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/12/fda-trump-oneil-srinivas... Note that "exit" here is not synonymous with "secession", but instead refers to Albert Hirschman's contrast of "exit" and "voice" as two complementary approaches that individuals can use to influence the society around them: http://peterlevine.ws/?p=11887 http://peterlevine.ws/?p=11887. In this context, the option of "voice" includes the approach of reforming institutions from within, while "exit" leaves them broken and bypasses them with new alternatives. Given Srinivasan's embrace of "exit", this makes him an intriguing candidate for overhauling a massive federal bureaucracy.

RangerScience 10y ago
Amazing read, thank you! I have no idea what this next government will look like for the US... Interestingly, the kind of "exit" he's talking about sounds an awful lot like Timothy Leary's "Turn on, tune in, drop out": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out
- thenewregiment1 10y ago
  Amazing read. Such thoughtful Writing.
dlemire 10y ago
I find it interesting that he would even consider the job.

DannyB2 10y ago

If the USA is the Microsoft of nations, as the article says. Then would some current or future president be the Ballmer of the US?

r00fus 10y ago
The analogy is flawed at the CEO<->President level, obviously. 3 CEOs vs. 44 Presidents?
- nostrademons 10y ago
  There've been numerous Presidents who are akin to Ballmer though, having presided upon times where things were pretty good for the fortunate segment of society but doing nothing about looming catastrophes which could be seen but weren't critical problems. I'm thinking of Fillmore/Pierce/Buchanan in the run-up to the Civil War and Harding/Coolidge/Hoover in the run-up to the Great Depression. It's fairly likely that historians will view Dubya/Obama/Trump in the same way in reference to some future crisis around the national debt, global warming, or rising inequality.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Microsoft was founded in 1975. So, 40 years instead of 220? I mean, yes, Microsoft CEOs serve longer, on average, than US Presidents do, but it's not nearly as stark as you make it sound.

etjossem 10y ago

> Build an opt-in society, ultimately outside the US, run by technology. Balaji Srinivasan is being considered to run the FDA. If chosen, he is expected to radically weaken its regulatory power, purportedly in the interests of promoting innovation in the pharma space. He's described it as the big enemy for any biotech innovator to overcome. When we have an opt-in healthcare system, people who are in perfectly good health will opt into favorable plans only they qualify for. Those born with expensive conditions or who develop a chronic illness won't be able to opt in, and will find themselves in a high risk pool paying hardship-tier premiums. When we have pharmaceutical companies opting into less stringent regulatory structures, even the most dangerous drugs will make it to clinical trials - to be tested by people who lack the ability to choose any other way of making a living. Pharma manufacturers will then base their prices on what they believe the highest tier of wealth will bear, ignoring the long tail of underinsured Americans. The problem with an opt-in society is that only some people get the privilege of opting in. It's an almost self-contradicting concept. Societies only hold together if their members don't favor exit. Members collectively recognize they're all on the same side, by way of the social contract they've entered into, and they know the rules need to be the same for everyone. A modicum of loyalty - in Hirschman's sense - is an absolute prerequisite for a group to be called a society. When it comes to our health, let's show some loyalty to our fellow Americans and use our voices, instead of fleeing the inconveniently poor and sick. The veil of ignorance hasn't come off yet, after all: if you get cancer tomorrow, you might well become one of them.

notgood 10y ago
But what if America health system has terminal cancer? What if it's already beyond repair because the ones in charge are already fused into the system? About the opt-in society, I think it can create rules to prevent the disadvantages you mention; for example by paying a percentage of your salary/profits instead of a fixed amount; or perhaps by taking -free of charge- one sick poor person for every 10 healthy ones that enter the system.
- etjossem 10y ago
  > taking -free of charge- one sick poor person for every 10 healthy ones that enter the system. This is a very rough way to put it, but it's a fantastic idea. Policymakers call this universal healthcare.

austenallred 10y ago

Does anybody have a link to Balaji's MOOC? I've heard great reviews about it, and I have an enormous amount of respect for Balaji, but I haven't been able to find it - I can only find his MOOC about Bitcoin. Or is that the MOOC he was referring to?

kartD 10y ago
It's been removed from coursera. I completed and it isn't available to me either. This is the stanford link (http://online.stanford.edu/course/startup-engineering http://online.stanford.edu/course/startup-engineering) but it just points to coursera as well.
vmarsy 10y ago
It was called called "Startup Engineering" [1]. This course doesn't exist on coursera anymore, there's a similar syllabus on Stanford's website [2]. The project was something about building a small web app with node.js and accepting enabling donations via bitcoin payment. I was trying to find the course in the archive.org's backup of coursera [3] but it doesn't appear to be searchable. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5089487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5089487 [2] http://startup.stanford.edu/ http://startup.stanford.edu/ [3] https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_coursera https://archive.org/details/archiveteam_coursera

bbctol 10y ago

One thing a lot of people don't realize about the modern concept of the "social contract" is that it depends on the capacity to exit, which requires the existence of the frontier. John Locke's idea of government wasn't just influential to the development of the United States, it was openly influenced by the existence of America; he wrote a lot about how the "state of nature" that exists independent of government was the American frontier (he didn't care much for/about Native Americans.) Now, the idea that a government is a social contract between citizens and rulers is universal, but we've eliminated its original foundation: an empty space citizens can settle when they decide their government is worse than nothing. There's no easy solution to this problem. We're out of unclaimed land (seasteading and Mars colonization wouldn't really resolve it, even if they were more plausible.) I don't think Srinivasan has a great concept of why nations work; the problem with a Silicon Valley exit is less that Silicon Valley doesn't have aircraft carriers, and more that it doesn't have, you know, farmland, and I don't think the opt-in society would be allowed: Silicon Valley is rich and prosperous because of the large pool of mainly American consumers it sells to, and it is protected by the auspices of the US government. If they really wanted to leave, they wouldn't be able to take the money-making with them, as the US has no incentive to protect the businesses of a foreign power. I actually think that instead of getting more and more small countries as time goes on, we'll get increasing large blocs caring for things like defense and very general welfare, and increasingly small, atomized communities, either geographically or online, caring for other needs. If we have a large United States government that takes care of the nuclear weapons stockpile, coordinates response to natural disasters, and makes sure people don't die for arbitrary reasons, smaller communities can tax, spend, negotiate as they will. And I expect these communities will increasingly go online; online, Locke's dream can be realized, as there really is infinite space to colonize (if you don't like your current forum, go found a new one.) As long as people have a basic level of security, they'll be free to self-organize and explore new models of society in a virtual world. I can't tell if this vision of the future is utopian or dystopian.

ashark 10y ago
In the Second Treatise, or somewhere else? I don't recall Locke mentioning any requirement for wild frontier to prop up the legitimacy of government. I do remember his "state of nature" as a kind of fable, presented as if it were or had been a real thing in some meaningful sense, propping up his premises. But his Second Treatise is the only document of his I've read.

stephancoral 10y ago

Why are SV "big shots" so obsessed with making their own little la-la land fiefdoms (Who actually wants AI/tech to run their country? Like, that is literally an apocalyptic nightmare of mine) instead of contributing positively to the country that helped foster their fortunes? This is some of the most myopic, ego-stroking bullshit I think I've ever read on this site. Also the sooner ridiculous "code=law" analogy goes away the better. It's clear this person has very little understanding how affairs of state actually work.

doctorcroc 10y ago
Did you read the article? It explicitly discusses using 'voice' or 'contributing positively to the country' as option #1, and 'exit' as the backup in case the former is ineffective. If you think their vision of the future is nightmarish, you don't have to do anything. Just stay where you are.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tzakrajs 10y ago

The governments will sooner outlaw job automation or implement basic income than allow chaos to take hold.

tzakrajs 10y ago
Also, our standards are pretty high right now, so I think chaos would ensue before our quality of living fell too much.

adangert 10y ago

I agree with this article on many points. I wish GitHub had a way to remove the "forked from" link in order to give more freedom to developers that want to take a project in a different direction, and properly "exit"

yummyfajitas 10y ago
git clone .... Create new repo in github. git push ....

meanduck 10y ago

TLDR: 25k Govts is better than 25 Govts. And I absolutely agree. Its obvious that noone is going to happy with their Mega Govt all the time. We should work on mechanism that allows creating new, smaller Govts out of a Mega Govt as easy as possible. Let the market innovation/compitition advance Governence too.

la6470 10y ago

Yes many people won’t understand this article it but there is a strong and subtle point that Balaji makes. It is the power that technology brings to the common people. Technology will one day make food shelter healthcare clothing ie all the basic necessities so automated and so cheap that everyone can be guranteed free access to these basic needs. Already certain countries have started experimenting with annual basic income. This does not stop people from excelling or working hard to do better but will help us to stop worrying about going homeless or going broke just because one loses ones job. This is where technology can take us and this is what we dream about. Thank you.

pascalxus 10y ago

I like the way he's thinking and core argument is a good one. But there's one reason it won't work: Taxes. You can't have a new country when every single economic transaction is subject to an extremely onerous 35% income tax - you still have to pay this tax even if you live in another country. There's probably still a lot of good stuff you can do though: low cost housing and transportation, just for starters.

Animats 10y ago

That reads like a right-wing version of Barlow's Cyberspace Manifesto:[1] "Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather." Boy, was he wrong. [1] https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

pmyjavec 10y ago

That’s how we got cell phones from a toy for Wall Street to something that’s helping the poorest of the poor all over the world I just don't see it, after spending time in third world countries I believe this is a false statement. It's not free to use a cell phone in the third world, the poorest of the poor can't afford "credit" nor phones, nor have anywhere to charge them. If anything I've seen cell phones usually being used by shady characters using them for nefarious purposes, they're often the only "poor" who can afford cell phones in third world. Let's also not forget who actually produced the cheap cell phones that made them affordable. God bless this article.