7 ms·

Peter Thiel: The education of a libertarian (2009)

mrjangles 5y ago
When Elon Musk said in his interview with Tim Pool that "if we don't get off planet earth right now then we never will" I thought immediately that he was talking about exactly what Peter Thiel is talking about here. (Not surprising Elon has moved that way considering all the trouble he has been having with the government lately). I think they have both concluded that the Great Filter in the Fermi Pardox is simply technology advancing to the stage where one person or entity can enslave the rest of humanity forever. People can't have a revolution if their labor isn't needed for anything. Revolutions only work when those in power need those they rule over. Once one world government takes over, humanity will stagnate and stop progressing, just like happened every other time in history a single government took over an entire area. The only difference is this time it will be permanent, their power ensured by their robot technology that they long ago forgot how it works.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I disagree. A critical mass of completely disenfranchised people will always topple any ruling class. Even in the depth of any bunker. Fleeing the planet might work, but that is still out of reach. Aside from that todays robots still tend to disappoint. Chatbots are the most impressive thing overall.
  - danjac 5y ago
    History says otherwise. A mass of disfranchised people can stay disenfranchised indefinitely. A ruling class tends to be toppled by some external cause - such as a foreign invasion (e.g. Iraq in 2003) or long-term changes that slowly undermine their power base. Successful revolutions and coups tend to be carried out by a small, disciplined cadre that is able to seize the moment, such as the Bolsheviks, or a clique of military officers. Unfortunately, that usually results in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as far as it goes for the disenfranchised masses. Peasant revolts however generally end in failure.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I think empirical evidence suggest there is no such eternal civilization and there were a lot of absolute autocrats, monarchs and whatnot. For one reason or another they came to an end. Libya might be a better example. Gaddafi is still the most recently successful dictator if you measure time of ruling. Allegedly he had good instincts to sense coming revolutions and other dangers. But I have no doubts that he wouldn't have been toppled at some point. I also think he was so paranoid that he didn't really have potential successors. There are some dynasties that survived falling civilizations, but their influence is limited.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > just like happened every other time in history a single government took over an entire area. Not sure why you think this, because, if anything, the opposite is true. Scientific and technical progress almost always arise from stable, wealthy, large societies. The Chinese empire was a leader of science theoughput much of its history. The Roman empire as well. The Arab Caliphates became bastions of science once it had conquered enough to have a massive stable area. The USA became a massive source of innovation after it had settled it's half of the continent. The only major exception I know of for scientific progress in times of war (that is not simply weapons advancement) is the wake of WWII.
  - danjac 5y ago
    The early modern period - Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution - occurred among highly competitive, constantly warring European states.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      That's almost like rejecting my example of current US inventions (or at least those from 10 years ago) because the US is technically at war in Irak or Afghanistan. The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more. They were also often the result of international relationships between thinkers and artists across the continent. Competition surely provided some motivation for the Industrial Revolution, but it was not the main impetus, nor was it a major factor for the others.
      - danjac 5y ago
        > The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
a2tech 5y ago
This guy is the worst. His writing and beliefs are like the worst parts of Silicon Valley distilled into one human being.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  This is a very generic statement. What would you single out as concrete examples?
  - rvense 5y ago
    In the fine article, he says that freedom and democracy are at odds. This rather bizarre conception of freedom is, I'm sure, the same thought that propelled him to f(o)und that well-know force for liberation of the common man, Palantir Technologies. (There is, obviously, no real freedom for anyone without participation in the distribution of power, i.e. democracy.)
    - jmeister 5y ago
      Did you want the Supreme Court to intervene in the democratically passed abortion law in TX?
      - rvense 5y ago
        انا لست امركي
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Non-democratic states indeed tend to be non-free. But I think it is legitimate to think about extent of democracy vs. intrusion to personal lives. It is probably fine to prevent someone from polluting water sources by a democratic vote. It would be an overreach to prevent someone from grilling steaks on his porch because his neighbours are vegetarians and do not like the smell of meat. Zoning of residential areas is somewhere in between. Not too long ago, there was a case in Switzerland where a British person was denied citizenship by the initiative of her neighbors, because she complained too much about various topics (bells ringing too loudly etc.) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-annoying-swiss-citizenship-passport-switzerland-nancy-holten-gipf-oberfrick-aargau-a7712836.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-annoyi... Is it legitimate to take opinions of your neighbors into account when deciding your citizenship application? It is certainly more democratic than not doing so, but at the same time, it might degenerate into a popularity contest.
Miner49er 5y ago
It seems to me he has yet again shifted his views since writing this. He has seemed to embrace politics and benefits from government spending. Does anyone who knows more about Thiel know his reasons for this change in views? To go from wanting to get rid of politics to fully embracing it? I've became more interested in Thiel since he started his congressional campaigns. Since he seems to want to change society so much, I was curious what drove him, and what his goals were. All I found was that he and I seem to agree on many problems, but our solutions are nearly opposite, and I can't see how he arrived where he did.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  Curious why do you think he wants to change society ? His ideas are kind of outdated, people don't want flying cars, they want a virtual future. Neither is he the inventor of individualist liberal ideals.
  - playpause 5y ago
    > Curious why do you think he wants to change society ? In the opening paragraph of the article, he sets out his ideological principles, which are not exactly conservative.
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    That's a good point. I guess I should've said "influence society" or have maybe just said "seeking political power." He's started and funding multiple political campaigns, spending lots of money on it, and has been giving speech at various conservative events since 2016, or so, plus his involvement with Trump. So I guess I'm just interested in why he's so interested in politics all of a sudden. In this article from 2009, he was trying to avoid or get rid of politics.
  - GaryTang 5y ago
    If you mean VR by “virtual future” then I see flying cars gaining more traction instead. That said, his comments on flying cars weren’t so much about flying cars — it was about the disconnect between society’s expectations of progress in technology vs our actual progress in technology thus far.
cja 5y ago
Related: https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2021/09/29/the-spirit-of-the-age-why-the-tech-billionaires-want-to-leave-humanity-behind/content.html https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2021/09/29/the-spirit-of-t...
thegypsyking 5y ago
Thiel is my hero. I really can’t wait to get my green card so I can start a company, write a libertarian book and try to move the needle in the right direction.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I completely agree on the premise of the author (even if it's proving unpopular here on Hacker News, unsurprisingly). It is indeed sad to see how much freedom is declining in the world. I don't think outer space and seasteading are viable opportunities, unfortunately. Outer space is still way too early to be practical, seasteading didn't end well for that BTC trader couple. You will always have a state actor chasing you. With enough money, Peter Thiel could potentially militarily secure a perimeter in Somalia and experiment with a society with less government. For most of us instead, I think the realistic option is to choose carefully where to reside and which citizenship to adopt (where possible). You can't live in a free society, but you can at least pick the least worse.

When Elon Musk said in his interview with Tim Pool that "if we don't get off planet earth right now then we never will" I thought immediately that he was talking about exactly what Peter Thiel is talking about here. (Not surprising Elon has moved that way considering all the trouble he has been having with the government lately). I think they have both concluded that the Great Filter in the Fermi Pardox is simply technology advancing to the stage where one person or entity can enslave the rest of humanity forever. People can't have a revolution if their labor isn't needed for anything. Revolutions only work when those in power need those they rule over. Once one world government takes over, humanity will stagnate and stop progressing, just like happened every other time in history a single government took over an entire area. The only difference is this time it will be permanent, their power ensured by their robot technology that they long ago forgot how it works.

raxxorrax 5y ago
I disagree. A critical mass of completely disenfranchised people will always topple any ruling class. Even in the depth of any bunker. Fleeing the planet might work, but that is still out of reach. Aside from that todays robots still tend to disappoint. Chatbots are the most impressive thing overall.
- danjac 5y ago
  History says otherwise. A mass of disfranchised people can stay disenfranchised indefinitely. A ruling class tends to be toppled by some external cause - such as a foreign invasion (e.g. Iraq in 2003) or long-term changes that slowly undermine their power base. Successful revolutions and coups tend to be carried out by a small, disciplined cadre that is able to seize the moment, such as the Bolsheviks, or a clique of military officers. Unfortunately, that usually results in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" as far as it goes for the disenfranchised masses. Peasant revolts however generally end in failure.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I think empirical evidence suggest there is no such eternal civilization and there were a lot of absolute autocrats, monarchs and whatnot. For one reason or another they came to an end. Libya might be a better example. Gaddafi is still the most recently successful dictator if you measure time of ruling. Allegedly he had good instincts to sense coming revolutions and other dangers. But I have no doubts that he wouldn't have been toppled at some point. I also think he was so paranoid that he didn't really have potential successors. There are some dynasties that survived falling civilizations, but their influence is limited.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tsimionescu 5y ago
> just like happened every other time in history a single government took over an entire area. Not sure why you think this, because, if anything, the opposite is true. Scientific and technical progress almost always arise from stable, wealthy, large societies. The Chinese empire was a leader of science theoughput much of its history. The Roman empire as well. The Arab Caliphates became bastions of science once it had conquered enough to have a massive stable area. The USA became a massive source of innovation after it had settled it's half of the continent. The only major exception I know of for scientific progress in times of war (that is not simply weapons advancement) is the wake of WWII.
- danjac 5y ago
  The early modern period - Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution - occurred among highly competitive, constantly warring European states.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    That's almost like rejecting my example of current US inventions (or at least those from 10 years ago) because the US is technically at war in Irak or Afghanistan. The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more. They were also often the result of international relationships between thinkers and artists across the continent. Competition surely provided some motivation for the Industrial Revolution, but it was not the main impetus, nor was it a major factor for the others.
    - danjac 5y ago
      > The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution happened in the propsperous centers of those European countries, in cities that hadn't heard of conquest for a century or more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars
- jokethrowaway 5y ago

a2tech 5y ago

This guy is the worst. His writing and beliefs are like the worst parts of Silicon Valley distilled into one human being.

inglor_cz 5y ago
This is a very generic statement. What would you single out as concrete examples?
- rvense 5y ago
  In the fine article, he says that freedom and democracy are at odds. This rather bizarre conception of freedom is, I'm sure, the same thought that propelled him to f(o)und that well-know force for liberation of the common man, Palantir Technologies. (There is, obviously, no real freedom for anyone without participation in the distribution of power, i.e. democracy.)
  - jmeister 5y ago
    Did you want the Supreme Court to intervene in the democratically passed abortion law in TX?
    - rvense 5y ago
      انا لست امركي
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Non-democratic states indeed tend to be non-free. But I think it is legitimate to think about extent of democracy vs. intrusion to personal lives. It is probably fine to prevent someone from polluting water sources by a democratic vote. It would be an overreach to prevent someone from grilling steaks on his porch because his neighbours are vegetarians and do not like the smell of meat. Zoning of residential areas is somewhere in between. Not too long ago, there was a case in Switzerland where a British person was denied citizenship by the initiative of her neighbors, because she complained too much about various topics (bells ringing too loudly etc.) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-annoying-swiss-citizenship-passport-switzerland-nancy-holten-gipf-oberfrick-aargau-a7712836.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/woman-annoyi... Is it legitimate to take opinions of your neighbors into account when deciding your citizenship application? It is certainly more democratic than not doing so, but at the same time, it might degenerate into a popularity contest.

Miner49er 5y ago

It seems to me he has yet again shifted his views since writing this. He has seemed to embrace politics and benefits from government spending. Does anyone who knows more about Thiel know his reasons for this change in views? To go from wanting to get rid of politics to fully embracing it? I've became more interested in Thiel since he started his congressional campaigns. Since he seems to want to change society so much, I was curious what drove him, and what his goals were. All I found was that he and I seem to agree on many problems, but our solutions are nearly opposite, and I can't see how he arrived where he did.

cblconfederate 5y ago
Curious why do you think he wants to change society ? His ideas are kind of outdated, people don't want flying cars, they want a virtual future. Neither is he the inventor of individualist liberal ideals.
- playpause 5y ago
  > Curious why do you think he wants to change society ? In the opening paragraph of the article, he sets out his ideological principles, which are not exactly conservative.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  That's a good point. I guess I should've said "influence society" or have maybe just said "seeking political power." He's started and funding multiple political campaigns, spending lots of money on it, and has been giving speech at various conservative events since 2016, or so, plus his involvement with Trump. So I guess I'm just interested in why he's so interested in politics all of a sudden. In this article from 2009, he was trying to avoid or get rid of politics.
- GaryTang 5y ago
  If you mean VR by “virtual future” then I see flying cars gaining more traction instead. That said, his comments on flying cars weren’t so much about flying cars — it was about the disconnect between society’s expectations of progress in technology vs our actual progress in technology thus far.

cja 5y ago

Related: https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2021/09/29/the-spirit-of-the-age-why-the-tech-billionaires-want-to-leave-humanity-behind/content.html https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2021/09/29/the-spirit-of-t...

thegypsyking 5y ago

Thiel is my hero. I really can’t wait to get my green card so I can start a company, write a libertarian book and try to move the needle in the right direction.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

I completely agree on the premise of the author (even if it's proving unpopular here on Hacker News, unsurprisingly). It is indeed sad to see how much freedom is declining in the world. I don't think outer space and seasteading are viable opportunities, unfortunately. Outer space is still way too early to be practical, seasteading didn't end well for that BTC trader couple. You will always have a state actor chasing you. With enough money, Peter Thiel could potentially militarily secure a perimeter in Somalia and experiment with a society with less government. For most of us instead, I think the realistic option is to choose carefully where to reside and which citizenship to adopt (where possible). You can't live in a free society, but you can at least pick the least worse.