5 ms·

Thiel thinks that America needs more demagogues to unite Americans in a manufactured hatred of the Chinese et al. So he's funding some of those demagogues right

Thiel thinks that America needs more demagogues to unite Americans in a manufactured hatred of the Chinese et al. So he's funding some of those demagogues right now. In reality, many of America's problems are due to the unfettering of ruthless & selfish oligarchs -- like himself -- who don't have the foggiest sense of "collective social good". A paradox indeed. It's hard to not view his political activity as mere scapegoating while he continues to make billions in the most depraved of manners (e.g. Palantir).

ihsw 5y ago
[dead]
atlasunshrugged 5y ago
On the face of it I'm inclined to agree, but how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now.
- gnramires 5y ago
  Or maybe another great war could destroy civilization, and it's best not to play around it irresponsibly. Most of our ills are coordination failures. I believe solutions are complex, because society is growing more complex. But we also need to find ways to reinvent ourselves so that we won't fall prey to the various instabilities we are subject to -- political instabilities, environmental instabilities, even AI safety instabilities. What is needed is a clear vision of our shared goal: to maximize the well being of all conscious creatures. As long as most of our system design is not aligned with that, we will be in significant danger. (To be honest, just existing in the long term is just so darn difficult -- something few people realize -- that even with such systems in place there are no guarantees)
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Did you notice how the US never had a war with USSR (beside proxy wars, like Afghanistan in 1980s), but still defeated it economically? Of course a war is not a great idea, and is a device of last resort. But who are you friends with, and who do you depend on economically, plays a very large role on which regimes last, and which get changed, one way or another.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  The idea that America "needs" international conflict is kind of terrifying.
  - atlasunshrugged 5y ago
    Just to clarify, I said common enemy, not conflict (which to me implies kinetic or hybrid warfare). My greatest preference would be for our common enemy not to be a country but rather a shared goal that benefits humanity; I had high hopes that climate change or the pandemic would be that... now my last hope is aliens uniting the human race together (although I hope it ends up more like Star Trek)
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      Why would you describe a 'shared goal that benefits humanity' as an 'enemy'? Do you usually consider yourself an enemy of your goals?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        jrochkind1 5y ago
        Sorry, it's not meant to be a gotcha, I think it's more than accidentally using the wrong word, I think we are indeed taught that of course we "need" an enemy, such that we just repeat it/internalize it without even considering what we're saying. And it's terrifying. The point was very much not clear. Go back and look at your first comment. It clearly read to me as saying we needed a common enemy so the question was what country was most suitable. I was not intentionally misreading it. And I don't think it's at all unusual for Americans to think what it clearly said. And it's terrifying.
- phs318u 5y ago
  You want a common enemy? How about ignorance? Or poverty? Or if they're too hard, how about tackling obesity, or the prescription drug epidemic, or tackling under-employment and job security, or routing out political corruption, or mitigating the corrupting behaviour of the profit motive on the criminal justice system? Still too hard? How about uniting against crumbling infrastructure? Or tackling pollution? I don't think America lacks for common enemies. What it lacks is the will to develop agreed strategies for those common enemies. The political structures in the US all but guarantee that that lack of unification on strategy will continue indefinitely.
  - efitz 5y ago
    People are tribal. The enemy has to be a tribe of people that are “other”.
    - phs318u 5y ago
      Of course. So the real enemy is tribalism.
- pphysch 5y ago
  > how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Look around. Hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering under the predatory practices of massive corporations: unnecessary debt, opioids, malnutrition, misinformation, other addictions. > Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now. AIPAC is far too powerful for that to happen.
AnotherGoodName 5y ago
Which is much better than Musk who's a "libertarian"; constantly posting how America should do away with regulations to Twitter. Meanwhile he's not saying a single thing about China (except once where he simply said "China's great!") since he has a car factory there. Really it's not hard to see most rich libertarians as completely full of shit. They want to pay less taxes and regulations for their business but they don't really show any signs of libertarianism when it comes to the most authoritarian threat to us all: China. In fact they'll happily have factories there.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Billionaires like Koch and economists fabricated libertarianism to do away with costs and pass on externalities to everyone else. It's a utopian ideology far polar opposite of Communism. What's sad is how many "smart" people fall for it because it assumes everyone plays nice and common infrastructure is cheap. It's a filter bubble warped reality that plays from an unconscious bias Upton Sinclair effect of favoring what's good for you is good for everyone or everything. I would wager every billionaire is implicitly and explicitly out-of-touch with the concerns, worries, and stresses of the homeless and working poor. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison Since jerks and clueless idiots exist in droves, government regulation is absolutely essential to police what (greedy) people can and cannot do. Demonzing China isn't constructive and has the optics of racism. China isn't an imminent military threat to anyone outside the South China Sea and the border with India. The US is a far greater threat with hundreds of bases worldwide. China is a larger threat ecologically because of wanton water and air (including emissions) pollution through the manufacturing of domestic and export goods. China would be wise to tax carbon, regulate air/soil/water pollution, and/or cap/trade, even if it means driving nearly slave-wages carpetbagging corporations to Africa and other parts of Asia. Even if political interests prevent particular remediation solutions, China has the advantage that it can choose to deploy evidence-based solutions at scale ahead of economic interests in a self-serving, sustainment manner.
  - cherrycherry98 5y ago
    I think it's disingenuous to call libertarianism fabricated, especially by people like the Kochs. This implies that those supporting its views are either manipulators or being ignorant of manipulation. It's a range of ideas rooted in enlightenment thinking that goes back hundreds of years, some of which are more extreme than others. I find this kind of sentiment across many political groups where each seems to think they are the enlightened ones trying to save humanity and others are just in it to manipulate others for personal gain. This is conspiracy theory thinking. We should treat arguments in good faith in that those arguing for them really do think they have merit and are the best for most people, as we work towards discovering where we might have incorrect assumptions or just plain different ideas on what is "best" and what is fair.

ihsw 5y ago

[dead]

atlasunshrugged 5y ago

On the face of it I'm inclined to agree, but how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now.

gnramires 5y ago
Or maybe another great war could destroy civilization, and it's best not to play around it irresponsibly. Most of our ills are coordination failures. I believe solutions are complex, because society is growing more complex. But we also need to find ways to reinvent ourselves so that we won't fall prey to the various instabilities we are subject to -- political instabilities, environmental instabilities, even AI safety instabilities. What is needed is a clear vision of our shared goal: to maximize the well being of all conscious creatures. As long as most of our system design is not aligned with that, we will be in significant danger. (To be honest, just existing in the long term is just so darn difficult -- something few people realize -- that even with such systems in place there are no guarantees)
- nine_k 5y ago
  Did you notice how the US never had a war with USSR (beside proxy wars, like Afghanistan in 1980s), but still defeated it economically? Of course a war is not a great idea, and is a device of last resort. But who are you friends with, and who do you depend on economically, plays a very large role on which regimes last, and which get changed, one way or another.
jrochkind1 5y ago
The idea that America "needs" international conflict is kind of terrifying.
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  Just to clarify, I said common enemy, not conflict (which to me implies kinetic or hybrid warfare). My greatest preference would be for our common enemy not to be a country but rather a shared goal that benefits humanity; I had high hopes that climate change or the pandemic would be that... now my last hope is aliens uniting the human race together (although I hope it ends up more like Star Trek)
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    Why would you describe a 'shared goal that benefits humanity' as an 'enemy'? Do you usually consider yourself an enemy of your goals?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
      - jrochkind1 5y ago
        Sorry, it's not meant to be a gotcha, I think it's more than accidentally using the wrong word, I think we are indeed taught that of course we "need" an enemy, such that we just repeat it/internalize it without even considering what we're saying. And it's terrifying. The point was very much not clear. Go back and look at your first comment. It clearly read to me as saying we needed a common enemy so the question was what country was most suitable. I was not intentionally misreading it. And I don't think it's at all unusual for Americans to think what it clearly said. And it's terrifying.
phs318u 5y ago
You want a common enemy? How about ignorance? Or poverty? Or if they're too hard, how about tackling obesity, or the prescription drug epidemic, or tackling under-employment and job security, or routing out political corruption, or mitigating the corrupting behaviour of the profit motive on the criminal justice system? Still too hard? How about uniting against crumbling infrastructure? Or tackling pollution? I don't think America lacks for common enemies. What it lacks is the will to develop agreed strategies for those common enemies. The political structures in the US all but guarantee that that lack of unification on strategy will continue indefinitely.
- efitz 5y ago
  People are tribal. The enemy has to be a tribe of people that are “other”.
  - phs318u 5y ago
    Of course. So the real enemy is tribalism.
pphysch 5y ago
> how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Look around. Hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering under the predatory practices of massive corporations: unnecessary debt, opioids, malnutrition, misinformation, other addictions. > Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now. AIPAC is far too powerful for that to happen.

AnotherGoodName 5y ago

Which is much better than Musk who's a "libertarian"; constantly posting how America should do away with regulations to Twitter. Meanwhile he's not saying a single thing about China (except once where he simply said "China's great!") since he has a car factory there. Really it's not hard to see most rich libertarians as completely full of shit. They want to pay less taxes and regulations for their business but they don't really show any signs of libertarianism when it comes to the most authoritarian threat to us all: China. In fact they'll happily have factories there.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Billionaires like Koch and economists fabricated libertarianism to do away with costs and pass on externalities to everyone else. It's a utopian ideology far polar opposite of Communism. What's sad is how many "smart" people fall for it because it assumes everyone plays nice and common infrastructure is cheap. It's a filter bubble warped reality that plays from an unconscious bias Upton Sinclair effect of favoring what's good for you is good for everyone or everything. I would wager every billionaire is implicitly and explicitly out-of-touch with the concerns, worries, and stresses of the homeless and working poor. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison Since jerks and clueless idiots exist in droves, government regulation is absolutely essential to police what (greedy) people can and cannot do. Demonzing China isn't constructive and has the optics of racism. China isn't an imminent military threat to anyone outside the South China Sea and the border with India. The US is a far greater threat with hundreds of bases worldwide. China is a larger threat ecologically because of wanton water and air (including emissions) pollution through the manufacturing of domestic and export goods. China would be wise to tax carbon, regulate air/soil/water pollution, and/or cap/trade, even if it means driving nearly slave-wages carpetbagging corporations to Africa and other parts of Asia. Even if political interests prevent particular remediation solutions, China has the advantage that it can choose to deploy evidence-based solutions at scale ahead of economic interests in a self-serving, sustainment manner.
- cherrycherry98 5y ago
  I think it's disingenuous to call libertarianism fabricated, especially by people like the Kochs. This implies that those supporting its views are either manipulators or being ignorant of manipulation. It's a range of ideas rooted in enlightenment thinking that goes back hundreds of years, some of which are more extreme than others. I find this kind of sentiment across many political groups where each seems to think they are the enlightened ones trying to save humanity and others are just in it to manipulate others for personal gain. This is conspiracy theory thinking. We should treat arguments in good faith in that those arguing for them really do think they have merit and are the best for most people, as we work towards discovering where we might have incorrect assumptions or just plain different ideas on what is "best" and what is fair.