4 ms·

>College-age tech students poised to enter the Silicon Valley ranks overwhelmingly responded like their millionaire idols: liberal on social issues, staunchly c

by scythe 8y ago

>College-age tech students poised to enter the Silicon Valley ranks overwhelmingly responded like their millionaire idols: liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation.

akhilcacharya 8y ago
Stanford students are generally wealthy to begin with. Do it for all CS majors and I’ll be more interested.
deburo 8y ago
Okay but thats probably the most popular stance anyway
zorga 8y ago
> liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation. That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.
- dnautics 8y ago
  That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. You might as well call a libertarian a classical socialist (in the style of Benjamin Tucker).
  - zorga 8y ago
    > That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. No it isn't, and in the era of social justice warriors, it's relevance is on the rise.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    The word libertarian has been wrongfully stolen by capitalist, yes. Same with a term like anarcho-capitalism, which has nothing to do with anarchism, an ideology which is always staunchly anti-capitalist.
- lake99 8y ago
  You have it backwards. Liberal economics means fewer regulations, less federal planning, etc. In their more "socialist" phases, China and India had the government in control of a lot of manufacturing, trade, etc. After their economies were liberalized, private companies had a greater say in their own affairs (they got "liberated"). In India, the government started selling off its factories to private owners under a liberal economic regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
  - verbify 8y ago
    While I agree with you in the main, many economic liberals would still support government intervention to stop oligopolies, monopolies or monopsonies. They support free markets and individual choice, not just privatisation or corporatisation for the sake of it.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Funnily enough, that person does not have it backwards. It's the _article_ and the terminology it uses from the USA that have it backwards. This is revealed by the fact that the article claims that Silicon Valley's elite are both "staunchly conservative on regulation" and have "anti-regulatory zeal". So you're actually agreeing vigorously with the guy to whom you're responding.
    - lake99 8y ago
      Definitely not agreeing with GP. Progressives are not economic liberals. But you're right, the article has it backwards too. The phrase "staunchly conservative on regulation" seems to have a special meaning in the US that's not applicable elsewhere. In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values.
      - zorga 8y ago
        > Progressives are not economic liberals. They are under the American meaning of the word liberal, you just don't understand what liberal means in America. You are agreeing with me whether you understand it or not. What you mean by liberal, we call conservative or "classical liberal". Liberal here doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world. > In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values. That's not what it means here.
isoskeles 8y ago
Believe it or not, many people who work in SV didn’t go to Stanford.
jcims 8y ago
So basically closet libertarians? Too bad the party is so weird and dysfunctional (and subject to a first-past-the-post voting system in the US), it could have a lot of support.
oh-kumudo 8y ago
And I see no problem with that. Why would being liberal mean to support extreme leftist regulatory policy here? Why would we consider, letting those government officials, who may not have the expertise understanding the subject at hand, in this case technology, dictate how business should run and put harness on it, as part of the package of being liberal?
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  Corporations have proven these past hundreds of years that they are completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. And yet people continue to go “no we should let them poison the earth for their profit! We should allow them to underpay people and let society pick up the difference! We should allow them to pay politicians to make rules that benefit them! Because rules are bad!”. It’s baffling.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. So have many governments. Even well intentioned regulations have unintended side effects.
  - oh-kumudo 8y ago
    > remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good You really couldn't find a worse time to defend the government caring about morality or greater good under current administration.

by scythe 8y ago

>College-age tech students poised to enter the Silicon Valley ranks overwhelmingly responded like their millionaire idols: liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation.

akhilcacharya 8y ago

Stanford students are generally wealthy to begin with. Do it for all CS majors and I’ll be more interested.

deburo 8y ago

Okay but thats probably the most popular stance anyway

zorga 8y ago

> liberal on social issues, staunchly conservative on regulation. That's what liberal actually means. To be liberal in both areas it to be a progressive.

dnautics 8y ago
That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. You might as well call a libertarian a classical socialist (in the style of Benjamin Tucker).
- zorga 8y ago
  > That use of the word liberal is quite obsolete. No it isn't, and in the era of social justice warriors, it's relevance is on the rise.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  The word libertarian has been wrongfully stolen by capitalist, yes. Same with a term like anarcho-capitalism, which has nothing to do with anarchism, an ideology which is always staunchly anti-capitalist.
lake99 8y ago
You have it backwards. Liberal economics means fewer regulations, less federal planning, etc. In their more "socialist" phases, China and India had the government in control of a lot of manufacturing, trade, etc. After their economies were liberalized, private companies had a greater say in their own affairs (they got "liberated"). In India, the government started selling off its factories to private owners under a liberal economic regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
- verbify 8y ago
  While I agree with you in the main, many economic liberals would still support government intervention to stop oligopolies, monopolies or monopsonies. They support free markets and individual choice, not just privatisation or corporatisation for the sake of it.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Funnily enough, that person does not have it backwards. It's the _article_ and the terminology it uses from the USA that have it backwards. This is revealed by the fact that the article claims that Silicon Valley's elite are both "staunchly conservative on regulation" and have "anti-regulatory zeal". So you're actually agreeing vigorously with the guy to whom you're responding.
  - lake99 8y ago
    Definitely not agreeing with GP. Progressives are not economic liberals. But you're right, the article has it backwards too. The phrase "staunchly conservative on regulation" seems to have a special meaning in the US that's not applicable elsewhere. In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values.
    - zorga 8y ago
      > Progressives are not economic liberals. They are under the American meaning of the word liberal, you just don't understand what liberal means in America. You are agreeing with me whether you understand it or not. What you mean by liberal, we call conservative or "classical liberal". Liberal here doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world. > In India and Pakistan, for example, "conservative" just means holding on to traditional religious values. That's not what it means here.

isoskeles 8y ago

Believe it or not, many people who work in SV didn’t go to Stanford.

jcims 8y ago

So basically closet libertarians? Too bad the party is so weird and dysfunctional (and subject to a first-past-the-post voting system in the US), it could have a lot of support.

oh-kumudo 8y ago

And I see no problem with that. Why would being liberal mean to support extreme leftist regulatory policy here? Why would we consider, letting those government officials, who may not have the expertise understanding the subject at hand, in this case technology, dictate how business should run and put harness on it, as part of the package of being liberal?

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Corporations have proven these past hundreds of years that they are completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. And yet people continue to go “no we should let them poison the earth for their profit! We should allow them to underpay people and let society pick up the difference! We should allow them to pay politicians to make rules that benefit them! Because rules are bad!”. It’s baffling.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > completely unwilling to act in a way that is remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good. So have many governments. Even well intentioned regulations have unintended side effects.
- oh-kumudo 8y ago
  > remotely moral or beneficial for the greater good You really couldn't find a worse time to defend the government caring about morality or greater good under current administration.