4 ms·

TIL there is a LOTR themed company that is making weapons, neat.

• qarl 3y ago
  It's closely related to Palantir. Both are by right wing Silicon Valley libertarians sucking on the government teat.
  • adampk 3y ago
    In your view, does any company that does business with government organizations count as sucking on the government teat?
    • qarl 3y ago
      Pretty much, yes. Personally I don't mind the idea of sucking on the government teat - seems pretty reasonable. But when you're a libertarian doing it - I just have to laugh. Ditto Tesla. It's not a coincidence that all these guys are suffering the same hypocrisy.
      • justrealist 3y ago
        Defense/military is one of the few government functions that libertarians endorse as totally necessary. To many, it's the only legitimate government function. I don't think you've thought about this very hard.
        • qarl 3y ago
          Ah then - so in your mind it's only Elon who's the hypocrite?
          • justrealist 3y ago
            What specifically do you think Elon has said which is hypocritical?
            • qarl 3y ago
              Are you not following our conversation?
      • seti0Cha 3y ago
        Libertarians aren't anarchists. They don't generally believe that there should be no government (although you can find people who believe just about anything). I don't think there's anything hypocritical about libertarians taking government contracts for defense. If they were taking government contracts or jobs around regulating markets or building public housing, then that would be closer to hypocritical, but I'm not sure that even qualifies. Hypocrisy isn't benefiting from something you disapprove of, it's engaging in it, so arguably, they'd have to be the ones issuing the laws they disapprove of for it to be hypocrisy.
        • qarl 3y ago
          Maybe. But they almost certainly don't just take this work. They advocate for more work. They lobby for more funds. I'm not a libertarian, so I don't know the details, but I believe advocated for larger government must be contrary to their beliefs, no?
          • seti0Cha 3y ago
            Maybe, but not necessarily. It really depends on what they actually believe (or say they believe) specifically. If their belief is "societies work better when governments don't interfere with markets", then their beliefs say nothing about what individual people should do in situations where a government does interfere with markets. They may also believe that if you can't fix something, taking advantage of it is justified, in which case they are not being hypocritical. That's not to say you can't regard such a position as unethical. However, I think many if not most people use systems they are in favor of dismantling. For example, people who believe housing is a human right don't typically donate their houses when they move, they sell them on the open market.
            • qarl 3y ago
              > They may also believe that if you can't fix something, taking advantage of it is justified Yes, but you're ignoring my central point. They aren't merely taking advantage of something, they are pushing to expand and enlarge it.
      • literallycancer 3y ago
        You can argue for changes while still recognizing that the current rules make it more optimal to do the things you argue against. There is no contradiction.
        • qarl 3y ago
          But you cannot advocate to extend the current rules for the profit of your company.
  • drngdds 3y ago
    >libertarians Palmer Luckey got kicked out of Meta for funding Trump ads, I don't think you can classify him as a libertarian lol (though there are many other self-described libertarians who are even more right-wing-authoritarian, so maybe nitpicking isn't worthwhile)
    • qarl 3y ago
      Pretty sure it was the fact that he paid trolls to harass Clinton's online forums.