5 ms·

I have so many questions - but seasteading. Isn't the problem that to have true economic freedom you have to have free trade? I mean like 100 billionaires on

I have so many questions - but seasteading. Isn't the problem that to have true economic freedom you have to have free trade? I mean like 100 billionaires on an island like Greenland, if they get embargoed by all the other countries -- like how many people do they have to have on their island to have the economic base to keep being billionaires and having their "freedom" Because - like I want to live on an off-grid homestead in the middle of nowhere - that's my idea of freedom, but I don't get the impression that's Peter Thiel's definition of freedom. So maybe this is why they're realizing they have to have authoritarianism over the largest economy of the world in order to have their "freedom". But one thing I think that's notable about a sort of schism in political thinking; is that it's interesting that the far left would say that both parties are the same and that both are bought by billionaires, but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite; maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign?

dboreham 1y ago
The fact that you can win an election just by "pumping hundreds of millions" into a campaign that includes many highly unpopular policies seems like the underlying problem here?
- nradov 1y ago
  Money in politics is a problem, but pumping hundreds of millions into a campaign doesn't guarantee a win. In the last presidential election, the losing candidate actually spent more. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris-campaign-spent-277-million-final-weeks-rcna182923 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris...
juujian 1y ago
The Democrats have their problems, and no one should give them a free pass. The Atlantic hit the nail on the head when they called it the HR-ification of the Democratic Party. The party apparatus is mostly just appropriating positions, that's their idea of leadership. Hillary Clinton's weaponization of rules and procedures against Bernie Sanders is a great example of that. That is a far cry from the open corruption of the Republican party however. Allowing the CEO of ExxonMobil to become the Secretary of State. Doing pay for play and accepting lavish gifts from Silicon Valley royalty. The Trump coin grift and dishing out pardons for crypto scammers. Both sides is a gross oversimplification.
- cudgy 1y ago
  So, the side that is more open about their corruption is the one that deserves to be voted out? That leaves the more secretive and professionally corrupt in power, right?
  - techblueberry 1y ago
    I mean, that’s what happened, whether we like it or not.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Technocracy shouldn't be inherently wrong choice. Especially when states really do depend increasingly on technology and productivity. In that view selecting a CEO in high role in government is probably a reasonable option. What are alternatives? Career politicians? Career bureaucrats? Maybe a CEO with proven history could be reasonable choice. Now if oil companies are bad or good, is much more political question. And really up to voters. Vote for party which supports your political direction.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Rex Tillerson wasn't even a terrible Secretary of State, all things considered. We've certainly had much worse.
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    > What are alternatives? People who aren't so boxed into the status quo (ideologically and financially) that they can't fathom anything being more important than technology, "productivity", and the almighty GDP. People whose top priority is to actually listen to society with an open mind, and find ways to improve the quality of life of everyone. Technocrats hear about the mental health problems plaguing society and rush to invent a robotic therapist and stronger psychiatric medication to try to curb the symptoms instead of treating systemic causes that have lead to the situation, like the role of our economic system, exploitation that people face, lack of access to mental health services. A CEO who's guaranteed to be invested into maintaining the status quo is the worst possible option, it's a comical conflict of interest. What does a "proven history" look like, anyway? We need to figure out a way to link the compensation of our representatives to how well the bottom half of society is doing to get the incentives aligned. Any ideas?
Apreche 1y ago
> but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite; The Democratic establishment are in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is very favorable to corporations and the wealthy. The Republicans think even the status quo isn’t billionaire friendly enough. They want to go as far as possible as quickly as possible to eliminate even more of the middle class. Their real goal is to disenfranchise labor entirely, hence the push for “AI” and eliminating jobs. Of course billionaires prefer one over the other. But from the perspective of the left, both are unacceptable. Neither of these options will actually pull in the other direction, tax the rich, restore the wealth of the middle class, etc.
- brightball 1y ago
  This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening. Republicans started going after CDL drivers who were issued licenses when they can’t read road signs in English. The result is basic economics…truckers who speak and read English get paid more now. Whether we are talking about healthcare, student loans, public school or even housing…everywhere the federal firehose gets aimed in the name of helping things get more expensive and hurt the middle class. The disaster that is the ACA was easy to see coming before it was even formed. The Ben Carson plan is the only economically viable plan that could have reduced the cost of healthcare, but we got ACA instead and costs have skyrocketed every since.
  - techblueberry 1y ago
    https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truck-driver-wages-downshifting-in-2025 https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truck-driver-wages-downshi...
    - jeffbee 1y ago
      Facts, in my HN?
  - wtfwhateven 1y ago
    >This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening. No it isn't. Parroting unproven narratives and lies manufactured by the state department only discredits your claim.
lapcat 1y ago
> the far left would say that both parties are the same This is a hyperbole. The two parties are not exactly the same, though they are the same on a number of issues, such as support for the military-industrial complex and Israel. Here's what Noam Chomsky said: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies." The way I would put it is that there are sane billionaires and insane billionaires, though they both have the economic interests of the billionaire class at heart. The insane billionaires want to disrupt everything and eat the world, while the sane billionaires just want to keep the quiet status quo of their dominance, and so they play "nice". > maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign I doubt that Musk's money changed the election outcome. Indeed, Musk's financial meddling in the subsequent Wisconsin Supreme Court election turned a lot of people against his candidate, who lost. The purpose of Musk's contributions was to buy influence with Trump, which worked, at least for a while.
- techblueberry 1y ago
  Exaggeration maybe, hyperbole? I literally can’t go a day browsing Reddit without seeing like 10 people say both sides are the same.
MangoToupe 1y ago
I think it's a mistake to project any kind of ideology onto these freaks. They'll say anything as a means to their personal ends. Why do you think Thiel has been babbling about the antichrist?
georgefrowny 1y ago
Libertarianism is "freedom" only for the top slice and always has been. Depending on how principled you want to be about what happens to the underclass, you have a choice. Either exert control privately, by removing state protections for people and using corporate strength. Or you can co-opt the existing government to act on your behalf. You can mix and match, where you weaken parts of government which protects and strengthen that which controls. Whether the jackboots have a national emblem or a company logo on them doesn't make a lot of difference to the necks.
casey2 1y ago
There are quite a few scifi novels of libertarian societies that rely on constant surveillance to assure that NAP isn't violated. I'd say the central theme is that eventually technology will solve these disputes so the fundamental system shouldn't allow any political leeway that will slow progress (why solve technical problems when you can just be made whole by the government). Someone else might want to live were you live, who gets to decide who lives there? You both live in identical virtual copies. The goal is to sidestep politics entirely wherever it appears Where it falls apart (aside from its total amorality) is that technological progress is secondary to scientific progress and if science says in 100 billion years the universe is over, then there is no technical solution, I don't want people increasing entropy and killing me sooner before then.
jeffbee 1y ago
Embargoes are just the beginning of the problems with this idea. After you renounce the protection of nations, they are free to literally nuke you. The very first thing that would happen to seasteaders is that a navy would roll up and sink their shit.

dboreham 1y ago

The fact that you can win an election just by "pumping hundreds of millions" into a campaign that includes many highly unpopular policies seems like the underlying problem here?

nradov 1y ago
Money in politics is a problem, but pumping hundreds of millions into a campaign doesn't guarantee a win. In the last presidential election, the losing candidate actually spent more. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris-campaign-spent-277-million-final-weeks-rcna182923 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris...

juujian 1y ago

The Democrats have their problems, and no one should give them a free pass. The Atlantic hit the nail on the head when they called it the HR-ification of the Democratic Party. The party apparatus is mostly just appropriating positions, that's their idea of leadership. Hillary Clinton's weaponization of rules and procedures against Bernie Sanders is a great example of that. That is a far cry from the open corruption of the Republican party however. Allowing the CEO of ExxonMobil to become the Secretary of State. Doing pay for play and accepting lavish gifts from Silicon Valley royalty. The Trump coin grift and dishing out pardons for crypto scammers. Both sides is a gross oversimplification.

cudgy 1y ago
So, the side that is more open about their corruption is the one that deserves to be voted out? That leaves the more secretive and professionally corrupt in power, right?
- techblueberry 1y ago
  I mean, that’s what happened, whether we like it or not.
Ekaros 1y ago
Technocracy shouldn't be inherently wrong choice. Especially when states really do depend increasingly on technology and productivity. In that view selecting a CEO in high role in government is probably a reasonable option. What are alternatives? Career politicians? Career bureaucrats? Maybe a CEO with proven history could be reasonable choice. Now if oil companies are bad or good, is much more political question. And really up to voters. Vote for party which supports your political direction.
- nradov 1y ago
  Rex Tillerson wasn't even a terrible Secretary of State, all things considered. We've certainly had much worse.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  > What are alternatives? People who aren't so boxed into the status quo (ideologically and financially) that they can't fathom anything being more important than technology, "productivity", and the almighty GDP. People whose top priority is to actually listen to society with an open mind, and find ways to improve the quality of life of everyone. Technocrats hear about the mental health problems plaguing society and rush to invent a robotic therapist and stronger psychiatric medication to try to curb the symptoms instead of treating systemic causes that have lead to the situation, like the role of our economic system, exploitation that people face, lack of access to mental health services. A CEO who's guaranteed to be invested into maintaining the status quo is the worst possible option, it's a comical conflict of interest. What does a "proven history" look like, anyway? We need to figure out a way to link the compensation of our representatives to how well the bottom half of society is doing to get the incentives aligned. Any ideas?

Apreche 1y ago

> but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite; The Democratic establishment are in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is very favorable to corporations and the wealthy. The Republicans think even the status quo isn’t billionaire friendly enough. They want to go as far as possible as quickly as possible to eliminate even more of the middle class. Their real goal is to disenfranchise labor entirely, hence the push for “AI” and eliminating jobs. Of course billionaires prefer one over the other. But from the perspective of the left, both are unacceptable. Neither of these options will actually pull in the other direction, tax the rich, restore the wealth of the middle class, etc.

brightball 1y ago
This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening. Republicans started going after CDL drivers who were issued licenses when they can’t read road signs in English. The result is basic economics…truckers who speak and read English get paid more now. Whether we are talking about healthcare, student loans, public school or even housing…everywhere the federal firehose gets aimed in the name of helping things get more expensive and hurt the middle class. The disaster that is the ACA was easy to see coming before it was even formed. The Ben Carson plan is the only economically viable plan that could have reduced the cost of healthcare, but we got ACA instead and costs have skyrocketed every since.
- techblueberry 1y ago
  https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truck-driver-wages-downshifting-in-2025 https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truck-driver-wages-downshi...
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    Facts, in my HN?
- wtfwhateven 1y ago
  >This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening. No it isn't. Parroting unproven narratives and lies manufactured by the state department only discredits your claim.

lapcat 1y ago

> the far left would say that both parties are the same This is a hyperbole. The two parties are not exactly the same, though they are the same on a number of issues, such as support for the military-industrial complex and Israel. Here's what Noam Chomsky said: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies." The way I would put it is that there are sane billionaires and insane billionaires, though they both have the economic interests of the billionaire class at heart. The insane billionaires want to disrupt everything and eat the world, while the sane billionaires just want to keep the quiet status quo of their dominance, and so they play "nice". > maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign I doubt that Musk's money changed the election outcome. Indeed, Musk's financial meddling in the subsequent Wisconsin Supreme Court election turned a lot of people against his candidate, who lost. The purpose of Musk's contributions was to buy influence with Trump, which worked, at least for a while.

techblueberry 1y ago
Exaggeration maybe, hyperbole? I literally can’t go a day browsing Reddit without seeing like 10 people say both sides are the same.

MangoToupe 1y ago

I think it's a mistake to project any kind of ideology onto these freaks. They'll say anything as a means to their personal ends. Why do you think Thiel has been babbling about the antichrist?

georgefrowny 1y ago

Libertarianism is "freedom" only for the top slice and always has been. Depending on how principled you want to be about what happens to the underclass, you have a choice. Either exert control privately, by removing state protections for people and using corporate strength. Or you can co-opt the existing government to act on your behalf. You can mix and match, where you weaken parts of government which protects and strengthen that which controls. Whether the jackboots have a national emblem or a company logo on them doesn't make a lot of difference to the necks.

casey2 1y ago

There are quite a few scifi novels of libertarian societies that rely on constant surveillance to assure that NAP isn't violated. I'd say the central theme is that eventually technology will solve these disputes so the fundamental system shouldn't allow any political leeway that will slow progress (why solve technical problems when you can just be made whole by the government). Someone else might want to live were you live, who gets to decide who lives there? You both live in identical virtual copies. The goal is to sidestep politics entirely wherever it appears Where it falls apart (aside from its total amorality) is that technological progress is secondary to scientific progress and if science says in 100 billion years the universe is over, then there is no technical solution, I don't want people increasing entropy and killing me sooner before then.

jeffbee 1y ago

Embargoes are just the beginning of the problems with this idea. After you renounce the protection of nations, they are free to literally nuke you. The very first thing that would happen to seasteaders is that a navy would roll up and sink their shit.