14 ms·
I just don't understand how he can call himself a libertarian. Self-rationalizing has no ends.
by redwood 10y ago
I just don't understand how he can call himself a libertarian. Self-rationalizing has no ends.
- clydethefrog 10y agoLook at the people behind Y Combinator that condemn Trump because according to them he represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants[0], but at the same time have many financial ties with Thiel's practices. They have financial power to take a stand against this threat, but decide not do it. [0] http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election
- potatosoup 10y ago> He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants As an immigrant myself, I keep seeing famous people write this, but I want some kind of "citation needed." What plans does this actually refer to?
- Anderkent 10y agoIt's not a complaint about any specific plans he has made, it's a complaint about his general approach to those communities. The risk is not that he'll implement this particular idea, it's that all of his ideas are shaped by his abusive personality.
- beachstartup 10y agothey deliberately conflate legal (skilled) immigrants and illegal aliens. to them, there is no difference. it is a hyper-egalitarian interpretation of the word 'immigrant' with no basis in law or social norms.
- srum 10y agoDidn't the recent travel ban attempt to revoke valid visas?
- dboreham 10y agoAnd bar entry to valid green card holders (permanent residents).
- humanrebar 10y ago> no basis in law or social norms To push back a little... I'm generally pro immigration and didn't vote for Trump (partly for these reasons). But there are valid points to be made about: * what a healthy level of immigration is * what a healthy immigration process looks like * how much should family concerns affect immigration chances * how much should professional skills affect immigration chances * how to enforce immigration laws The above are entirely about law and social norms. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there are no valid points. Not engaging those points is just retrenching people, promoting more division, and making reasonable people side with unreasonable ones like Trump. I'm gathering that most people who voted for Trump voted for the least bad option in their minds, not because they wanted a buffoon for a president.
- beachstartup 10y agowow, i must suck at writing because you just made the same point i did. namely: legal and illegal immigration are completely different things and anyone who says otherwise is disregarding law and social norms.
- humanrebar 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- chillingeffect 10y agoDemanding others supply widely reported and debated information doesn't make sense for this forum. Try searches like below, evaluate them and pick specific issues you think people here could help you with: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+women&t=ffsb&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+women&t=ffsb&ia=ne... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+minorities&t=ffsb&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+minorities&t=ffsb&... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+immigrants&t=ffsb&ia=news https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+immigrants&t=ffsb&...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nafizh 10y agoAs an immigrant and minority myself, you are being intentionally obtuse.
- Chris2048 10y agoHe should just drink the liberal koolaid?
- mlmlmasd 10y agoWhenever I see someone who labels people that criticize Trump as 'liberal' I automatically label them as 'dumbass'.
- Chris2048 10y agoGreat. Was has that got to do with this? OP didn't 'criticize Trump', they called another poster 'intentionally obtuse' for not assuming liberal premises.
- mlmlmasd 10y agoYou don't get it. Calling them 'liberal premises' makes you look like a dumbass.
- Chris2048 10y agoI'm a 'dumbass' for even questioning that liberal premises are not in any way political/ideologically motivated beliefs or perspectives, as opposed to facts you must not even be seen to question... ..AKA not drinking the kool-aid. And, as if it need to be said, your insults break HN civility rules.
- mlmlmasd 10y agoYou still don't get it buddy.
- npizzolato 10y agoHe's proven he's willing to enact executive orders with no notice which bar legal immigrants from entering the country. So we've got action against immigrants already. Not just plans.
- knowaveragejoe 10y agoI fail to see what this has to do with Peter Thiel's self-identification as a libertarian.
- cromwellian 10y agoBecause he complains about government funding and distortion in markets, but became a billionaire with Palantir thanks to government funding. It's hypocritical for "libertarians" to rail against government spending, crony capitalism, and the government picking winners, and then turn around and benefit from exactly that.
- rorykoehler 10y agoIt's not exactly surprising as right-libertarian is a paradoxical concept. It only works if you're loaded. No actual poor person could possibly ever be considered at liberty seeing as money dictates access.
- rvdavis 10y agoI would disagree on this point, being a "right"-libertarian from a low-income family, but I will happily concede that this differs from person to person, situation to situation. Libertarianism promotes and empowers the individual over the collective, and most libertarians derive their values from this ideological position. I'm not sure if you are familiar with any libertarians in your personal life, but many are deeply caring, rational individuals who have a consistent framework of ideals and strongly held beliefs against the use or threat of violence toward others. I would encourage you to engage with us more before you dismiss us, and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised :)
- rorykoehler 10y agoDisclaimer: Am fairly solidly left-libertarian (the original source of the word) Collective action is the only thing that can ever empower the individual. We're standing on the soldiers of giants. It's as a collective that humans have developed all the technology that you see. It's thanks to FOSS that I and many HN visitors can earn our livings and contribute further to society. If you want to be egotistical and think you don't exist as part of a complex eco-system that both sustains and enables you through more than just economic exchanges you are free to do so but do expect to be challenged on it frequently. This message was delivered to you via the world wide web after all, which would be impossible in a right-libertarian world.
- Teever 10y agoThat means two things either they don't care enough to do anything or Thiel has greater power over them than we assume. What could he have over them?
- abandonliberty 10y agoThis is basic game theory. Organizations and society select for maximization of wealth/power - not ethics, morality, enlightenment, and/or aspirational value of your choice. The problem is simple: Maximize organizational wealth/power given the social, business, and political context. Anyone competing in this system who does not loses to those who do. The current response: Placate the users by agreeing with the issues and take no real actions (beyond a call for startups focusing on democracy). CGPGrey's rules for rulers on youtube is a great application of the model to politics and organizations.
- Nomentatus 10y agoActually inequality has been shown to reduce a society's overall wealth and power by stifling growth. Banana Republics aren't renowned for accomplishing much.
- abandonliberty 10y ago>society's overall wealth and power Your response demonstrates a lack of understanding. Identify those trying to maximize this in a BR and compare to the priority and power of other players. I would suggest that no one in any significant position of power cares about 'overall wealth and power' - otherwise you'd see a different result.
- Nomentatus 10y agoI think you reversed the meaning of my response. So I'm going to count this as extremely "strenuous agreement."
- AndyMcConachie 10y agoHow is blatant capitalism in conflict with libertarianism? I ask this question genuinely because I never know what Americans mean when they use the term libertarian with a small L. What specifically about this ideology is being broken here? I understand American libertarianism to be based in selfishness and greed to the collective benefit of society. So that if we're all greedy and act out of our own best interest society as a whole benefits from increased wealth creation. What about Palantir contradicts this?
- lightbyte 10y agoAmerican libertarianism is about excluding the government from as much as you possibly can. Mass surveillance of a states citizens if practically the antithesis of that.
- alphonsegaston 10y agoI never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government. For example, it's wrong for the government to surveil all its citizens but fine for a private company to do so, even if the end result makes life just as untenable (e.g. unable to get a job/housing because of credit checks, get access to healthcare because of pre-existing conditions). Given the trajectory of American democracy, it's hard to look at libertarianism as anything other than an ideological ruse to dismantle all the protections preventing an authoritarian Capitalist state.
- hammocks 10y ago>I never understood the mentality that unchecked power is only unacceptable when wielded by a government. That's not really the libertarian mentality. It's closer to something like, any power (or just about any power) in the hands of a state with a legitimate monopoly on violence is unacceptable. That mentality then manifests itself in policy proposals in a number of ways including decentralized military and police power (states rights, militias, second amendment, etc) as well as limited powers within jurisdictions, especially federal.
- 10y ago
- otalp 10y agoI don't think he's a traditional American libertarian. If you read his book Zero To One, he states that he thinks a fundamental truth that most people don't realize is that improving technology is more important than globalization for the human race, which is fine, but that leads him to the conclusion that things like welfare and tax increases are an abomination holding back progress, which makes him against both. I don't think he has a problem with government spending as long as it's towards corporations instead of people.
- api 10y agoThat's a little bit of an oversimplification. Thiel thinks that globalization of development without massive technological advancement will lead to a kind of slow Malthusian catastrophe since current technology (fossil fuel energy systems, slow transit, inefficient power grids, etc.) cannot possibly support the entire human race at a modern developed world standard of living. I don't agree with everything Peter thinks, but this seems like a flat fact to me. Present-day technology as deployed in the Western world cannot support the entire human race at a Western standard of living and may not even be able to support the Western world at its current standard of living for another hundred years. Ask yourself what a slow motion Malthusian catastrophe might look like. Maybe you'd have insane levels of pollution (Google "asian brown cloud") as countries with 3X the US population try to achieve US standards of living, massive inflation in the cost of necessities, economic and political turmoil as systems buckle, stagnation and the destruction of the middle class in developed economies, ...? Edit: Thiel originally jumped out at me because he was one of the few people who sees something I've considered self-evident for years but that many other people seem unable to see-- that we entered a kind of minor dark age around 1970. Most of what we are doing now is just an incremental refinement of tech that was invented in the 50s and 60s. We stopped inventing. I don't know if I would agree with Thiel about the causes of this, but I give him credit for actually seeing it. When I saw SpaceX land a rocket I was filled with an incredible sense of optimism that the 1970s might finally be over.
- choxi 10y agoWhat's your opinion about the causes of this "mini Dark Age"? Do you still feel that we're in it?
- MichaelAO 10y ago"As a civil libertarian, my own view is that preventing terrorist attacks is actually quite important. I was surprised that we got something as extreme as the PATRIOT Act after 9/11. The alternative to technological approaches to preventing terrorism will not be the sort of perfect world of the ACLU. I think civil liberties always lose after you have an attack. They always get replaced by things that are, as a default, very intrusive and very low tech." Source: http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7213833/peter-thiel-palantir-paypal http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7213833/peter-thiel-palantir-p...
- flour_power 10y agobeing a libertarian usually begins and ends at your own front door.