"I asked what the poles of the oscillation were.
“It’s uh—it’s the, uh—it’s the—it’s um—it’s probably, uh—it’s probably just that it’s not that—well, the pro-seat-belt argument is that it’s safer, and the anti-seat-belt argument is that if you know that it’s not as safe you’ll be a more careful driver.” He made a left turn and fastened his seat belt. “Empirically, it’s actually the safest if you wear a seat belt and are careful at the same time, so I’m not even going to try to debate this point.”"
This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.
"They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities."
First, this is a blanket ad hominem about an entire group of people. Second, it's bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic libertarian. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's the purists on all sides of issues that present the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying.
If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.
Most people I've met who claim to be Libertarians seems to be very confused about how the world works. Usually, they have a pet idea (guns, pot, taxes, property rights, police forces, something) they are very hot about and fail to extend their logic out to the endpoint, ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals (I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life).
There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall.
Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!
FWIW, I'm very much a libertarian and spend a lot of time with other libertarians, and I don't know a single one who would contend that
"ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals".
What we might contend is that the current system doesn't do much to stop criminal from being criminals and probably (actually, almost certainly) creates even more criminals, and has all sorts of unintended consequences in the process... We might also contend that modern day law enforcement is largely reactive and does very little to stop crimes from happening, and that individuals should take on some degree of personal responsibility in terms of protecting themselves and their property.
I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life)
Yeah, few libertarians contend that a "libertarian world" would be a "libertarian utopia" (as our detractors like to suggest)... we just argue that it would be a great deal better than the current system in many ways, and perhaps worse in some ways... but that the gain in freedom more than makes up for whatever failings such a society would have.
I agree. A "libertarian world" is nothing like a utopia, and that's the point. It's a world left up to the people, not to a group of political elite. Critics might argue that this further separates the haves from the have-nots. That could happen, but when compared to the haves/have-nots in other systems, I'll gladly choose one based on maximizing individual freedom.
Many of us do follow the logic to its necessary conclusion. We don't assume criminals will magically disappear, we just would like law and order to be provided by the free market. See below before you dismiss it as impossible.
A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves.
For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law. Also, I, as a matter of principle, will attempt at all costs not to pre-sign anything that required binding arbitration requiring me to give up my right to seek redress in court. It is my understanding the entity that goes through these 'pay for courts' the most form relationships with the mediators/arbitrators and have a much higher chance of winning cases.
Also, the forced mediation is a remedy suggested by the courts themselves, so I don't really think that's the market version. Many companies already attempt to require binding arbitration, which is what empirically appears to be the preferred form of 'marketized law'. So far in the real world, it appears to be heavily weighted against the rights of individuals seeking redress against wealthy corporations. Also, it is always backed up by the force of law, not just good will.
That said, there are times when I might enter into binding arbitration, but not unless I have decided it's better for me than the courts, I don't care to have the companies I do business with deciding that for me.
I think you miss the point a bit, but I admit it's a bit long so I don't blame you for not reading it all. Mediation is just one of the author's guesses at what free market law might look like.
The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly convinced that free market law could never work. It's a bit hard to summarize the article so don't accept qdog's TL;DR at face value without reading it yourself.
My TL;DR, quoting from the article's conclusion:
"The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly."
Right, I wouldn't expect the law not to be influenced by people. I don't think any of this is a new way of thinking, though. We have the right to trial by jury because of this, which sure isn't perfect, but there is no way for a perfect world.
I'm not saying that there aren't valid points brought up by Libertarians, just that most of the theories are not feasible in the real world. Education, for instance, if there is no state-sponsored alternative (it is an alternative, we have private and home schooling in every state as far as I know), the people who have to work for a living often do not educate their children (my wife has an aunt who cannot read or write because her parents worked and she was put to work at an early age, so that's what has always happened in history). Yes, that's their choice, but not always the choice of the children, and uneducated masses are not likely to be able to live and make rational decisions in a society.
The law is imperfect, but throughout history civilization has been in a struggle to reduce oppression. Based on history I can't really see how removing laws would do anything but allow some 'bad actors' to acquire more power for oppression.
Anyways, based on the ability reason about things, maybe you aren't a libertarian, maybe you're a liberal and just don't know it ;)
Thanks for being civil, though, I don't mind having to read a bit (although that was just too many pages for me), and I've surely picked up some bit of knowledge.
> A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves.
So, it is therefore superior to have an accepted monopoly on the ability to arbitrate property disputes (or in other words, "be corrupt")?
Governments basically insulate themselves from being able to be sued. Look at how often the WTO finds against the US and the US just thumbs their nose at the ruling because the US is the big dog.
Also see #8 here. I wonder how long it will take on people to hit all 10:
> For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law.
I don't get into arguments about things like cricket because I know jack shit about it. You really need to learn about what our position is first. Some libertarians even will say things like "Well, you can just boycott them!" in situations where it would be acceptable to go further and use force.
All law rests upon the ability to punish primarily. We might prefer to avoid fueding (it's certainly cheaper) but libertarian law is not toothless.
I can't make sense of the rest of what you talked about. It seems like you are mistaking the present day situation where governments have certain laws in place for a free market situation.
The problem with this theory is that it assumes a couple of things:
1) The market fully defined by exchanges underwritten by currency (read: a fluid medium of exchange).
2) Value can be assigned to anything and is therefore finite in all circumstances.
But there is a singularity where it all breaks down:
The value of one's life is infinite. Without it, no other value matters. If I could give you $10 trillion but I kill you 60 seconds afterward, what value does it have?
One's life cannot be underwritten by currency because currency is finite. Therefore the market as defined as an exchange of value underwritten by currency is inadequate for any exchange where one's continued life is a factor.
If people are willing to accept an increased risk of dying for a dollar value, that means they don't value their life infinitely. If they did, no amount of money would be worth an overall increased chance of dying.
What is a good approximation for infinity value for an 18 y.o. with a high school diploma?
If they were perfectly rational, it would be the present value of all expected future earnings.
Such a calculation would make taking a job as an oil platform underwater welder make sense.
Trouble is, it is only a convenient approximation. It can expand to fit any circumstance.
So if you own, say, a trading company worth $10 billion and you hire someone (or some entity) to be in charge of protecting your life, the substrate on which all of that value rests for you, you've just handed them a check for $9 billion plus the present value of all of your expected future earnings and asked them to keep good care of it.
How do you think a perfectly rational actor would respond?
It's a fine line. As an example, ESR, often called 'libertarian', is really an anarchist.
From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way.
I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way.
At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles.
The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
No. Anarchism is against hierarchy, libertarians are against government. Libertarians are usually proprietarians (called "anarcho-capitalists" sometimes), people who think that properly-extended property relations/rights can solve every governance problem.
Not necessarily. When you get to the most radical edges of libertarianism, you find the anarcho-capitalist types who are (depending on who you ask) a type of anarchist. Libertarians who hold to a strict adherence to the "NIF Principle"[1] are opposed to most of what passes for law enforcement in contemporary society since it largely involves initiation of force and isn't for self-defense.
Generalizations have their place. A big problem many have with right-wing libertarians is that, unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism seems more like an elaborate, and status-reinforcing, justification for one's own socioeconomic position.
To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.
They would need empathy to do that, or at least a basic understanding of human nature. That's pretty unlikely, given that they seem to lack the hardware for that.
> Someone who has known him for more than a decade said, “He’s very cerebral, and I’m not sure how much value he places on the more intimate human emotions. I’ve never seen him express them. It’s certainly not the most developed aspect of his personality.” The friend added, “There are some irreconcilable elements that remain unreconciled in him”—a reference to Thiel’s being both Christian and gay, two facts that get no mention in his public utterances and are barely acknowledged in his private conversations. Though he is known for his competitiveness, he has an equally pronounced aversion to conflict. As chief executive of PayPal, which counted its users with a “world domination index,” Thiel avoided the personal friction that comes with managing people by delegating those responsibilities. Similarly, he hired from a small pool of like-minded friends, because “figuring out how well people work together would have been really difficult.”
> Thiel liked to quote Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.”
You are mistaking what he is saying. People say things like "France's gold", but France doesn't have gold. Only the individuals who also identify themselves as French, or are determined to be French by law, do.
This is what happens whenever I debate "libertarians". I mention overarching tendencies, only to get replies about fine logic minutiae. I'm guessing obsession with details, and blindness to the big picture is also a trait of Ayn Rand fans.
yeah-- those damn details... always an annoying part of any argument. Also, I like how you imply that you can't both understand the "big picture" and care about the details. To me, it seems like the only way to understand anything. If you aren't conversant with the details of what you think, do you really understand what you're talking about?
Perhaps an important detail, then: Thatcher's quote was actually "And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
... as if families, themselves, weren't each a kind of small society.
Indeed. I'd even argue that France doesn't actually exist. People exist. The Earth exists. Objects exist. But "France" is just a concept and a set of traditions that a (rather large) number of people choose to talk about and believe in. But it has no independent existance. You cannot see France from space. If everyone's minds were wiped tonight and then we woke up tomorrow and got out of bed it would be as if France didn't exist. Beds would still exist. Food would still exist, our bodies, buildings, vehicles, etc.
Also the idea that only nation states are sovereign could be argued to be a combination of a benign constructive social conceit AND also a cognitive tool designed by elites to control the masses. Both of these things can be true at the same time. I'm not arguing that anarchy is a good thing. But something like it IS the natural state of affairs, physically speaking. And the only reason people tend to prefer something other than anarchy is when they see the relative benefits. But the alternatives to anarchy (families, tribes, cities, nations) are things we choose to do, we choose to engage in, and choose to go along with. Just as millions and perhaps billions of people choose to go along with the idea that France exists and is a sovereign entity. But let's never forget this is only true to the extent that enough (of the right) people want it to be true. And that can change.
The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue
Very few, if any, libertarians believe that "the world is comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors." Some consequentialist libertarians whose arguments for the libertarian position are rooted in economics might almost argue that, but deontological libertarians hold to libertarian principles because they believe that the initiation of force or fraud is simply immoral.
And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government.
> And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government.
But you don't see the good things done by government? And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government? See, this is the flaw I think a lot of mono-ideological folks have: the cherry picking of which good things to weigh most and/or which bad things to ignore. I personally resonate with a lot of libertarian positions. But I also resonate with a lot of socialist positions, and government-is-good positions. (I think) I'm pragmatic. I'd almost not trust someone who isn't pragmatic.
But you don't see the good things done by government?
Yes, and there's an important point about that... being opposed to "government" does not necessarily mean being opposed to all communal / collective action. It's just that governments are unique institutions in that they reserve for themselves a virtual monopoly on the use of force, and most of what they do is not optional. I believe that most of the good part of what comes from government as we know it today can be achieved through people choosing, voluntarily, to work together. The difference would be that the various communes and collectives that libertarians talk about, would not be able to mandate participation at the point of a gun barrel.
And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government?
I see certain individuals and/or businesses causing harm even in the face of government as we know it today. I'm not convinced that the situation would be considerably worse under a libertarian model, and - more to the point - I believe that freedom is it's own end, and justifies whatever negative consequences arise from it.
I guess it's hard to explain to anybody who isn't a libertarian, but people like us feel the whole "live free or die" thing, and just absolutely recoil at being denied the freedom to live without the constant interjection of coercive force / aggression into our lives. It's probably partly genetic or something...
Conservatives want more government when it comes to the military, the drug war, opposing abortion, restricting civil liberties (everything the ACLU does), "tough on crime" laws, immigration, Israel...
The day a believer in government realizes that he's voting in an elaborate charade where the Coke and Pepsi parties both deliver pretty much identical taxing, spending, and war making, and the ones who win every election are the politicians and government employees is the day the get a clue.
The true believers from all of the political philosophies are disappointed with the two party system, not just libertarians. I've heard similar Coke and Pepsi thoughts from socialists, environmentalists, anarchists, christian right, Tea Partiers, Ron Paul'ites, Ralph Nader'ites, etc.
The problem with saying your a pragmatic X is X becomes meaningless, your just pragmatic 98% of the time. It's only the 'meaningless' edge cases where you revert to whatever X is. See: How the 'communist party' deals with the Chinese economy.
PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.
> PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.
I see this pattern in actual experience:
"PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with [crime-ridden, lack-of-self-control-prone] areas vs [peaceful, quiet, classy] areas in the same state."
I don't think that paragraph has anything to do with libertarianism. It's about whether you should wear your seat belt or not. On one side are the safety improvements, on the other is the Peltzman effect (that safety improvements cause us to act more dangerously). Thiel is debating with himself because the most rational option (seat belt+careful) may not be the most pragmatic (because in practice he will still be less careful).
In general I think arguments about the Peltzman effect in transportation are not that convincing.
If they were discussing the requirement to wear seat belts by the government/the requirement to add them to cars, Thiel would have responded quite differently.
The libertarian argument against seat belt legislation is that it was pre-optimization. We are locked into a design, and there is very little experimentation. By deviating from the bare minimum you expose yourself to risk.
> the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.
Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean", you're likely one of them, or pretty close. There's no point in clarifying it, it's like describing the color red to a blind person.
The article does confirm the stereotypical image of the libertarian-as-a-robot.
Saying that people who disagree with you politically must be mentally ill is ignorant and obnoxious. You follow it up by saying "there's no point in clarifying it" because there's no way you could possibly defend your opinion. If you assume your political opponents are crazy, there's no need to try to understand them. They're just cold, unthinking, unfeeling robots, right? Or they're Looney Toons, they have no grounding in reality, right? If that's the case, debating them is pointless, and there's no need to consider challenges to your own viewpoint. Assuming that people who think differently are crazy is just a way to justify intellectual laziness.
And you think the problem with libertarians is that they don't have any empathy? You're brushing aside millions of people as "basically robots" and "lacking humanity" because they have different opinions than you.
This is anecdotal, but the one hardcore libertarian I knew fit this stereotype perfectly.
We all have varying degrees of empathy and ability to understand and act on the intentions and emotions of others, but those of us who are on the lowest end of the empathy scale tend toward libertarian ideals. It is no coincidence.
Plenty of libertarians have all sorts of empathy in my experience... it's just a matter of priority of principles. If I see someone in pain or who is hungry, I do feel for them, and hurt for them. I've been dirt poor myself, so I know how it feels. But I still wouldn't say that there hunger or pain justifies create a system that violates my rights to attempt to correct the injustices in the world. The bottom line, for most libertarians, is that - at the end of the day - we demand to live our lives free from the use of coercive aggression / force, or fraud to manipulate our choices or to control us and our property.
Now, sure, some libertarians are non-empathetic assholes who don't give a shit about their fellow man. But that's a tautology when applied to any group. But nothing about being libertarian means you have to be an asshole, or an uncaring robot or any of those things.
This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of socialism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.
Today, the sci-fi novels of the sixties feel like artifacts from a distant age. “One way you can describe the collapse of the idea of the future is the collapse of science fiction,” Thiel said. “Now it’s either about technology that doesn’t work or about technology that’s used in bad ways. The anthology of the top twenty-five sci-fi stories in 1970 was, like, ‘Me and my friend the robot went for a walk on the moon,’ and in 2008 it was, like, ‘The galaxy is run by a fundamentalist Islamic confederacy, and there are people who are hunting planets and killing them for fun.’"
You know, I think he's on to something there. Modern sci-fi really doesn't seem to have a whole lot left to say about potential advances in technology, and the tone does seem to have shifted away from the optimism of yesteryear. The best new scifi I've read lately was a post-apocalyptic zombie story trilogy, for crying out loud.
What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well.
His comment resonated with me as well. However I think there's a libertarian explanation for the decline of Utopian Sci-Fi. It existed out of a general optimism about problems too large for a ragtag group of individualists to solve. Space travel, etc., is the realm of big governments, and exploration of the universe is the stuff of political hegemony.
The real world has gone way beyond that to a place where Peter Thiel is wealthy enough to fund his own space explorations. The problem for Sci-fi is that market based approaches to solving problems are a lot less glamourous than those undertaken by the state. There is also (quite often) far less drama, a simple profit motive, and rather boring incremental progress.
State actions are always impossible to disconnect from the propaganda story accompanying them. Scientific advancement, often undertaken by governments solely for the purpose of warmaking, has been the locus of much propaganda, and it wasn't until the 50s were over that the nation started to get a clue.
That said I hope someone writes a story that proves me wrong.
> What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well.
What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well.
You make a good point. Have we reached a point where we've already imagined all of the wonderful things we could possibly imagine? Well, vis-a-vis technological progress anyway. I don't know, but it is a bit disconcerting to see sci-fi seemingly no longer pushing the boundaries of what might be possible.
The tone of this article is annoying b/c it assumes that the reader is (or should be) delighted to be a part of some large group of humans who are normal compared to the eccentric person being profiled.
In Indian high schools, you are supposed to memorize a ton of "useless" shit like atomic weights of 50+ elements in the periodic table, logs upto 20, exponentials, factorials, avogardo constant & tons of physics constants like g and speed of light & sound & diffraction constants & the like. So from the age of 12,I happen to know that log 5 is 0.7
Ergo, log(125^100) = 300log(5) = 210, hence 210 digits in 125^100.
But I do wonder - do schoolkids these days memorize this trivia or do they just reach for a calculator/wikipedia ?
Current high schooler in the US here. I feel that today the trend is definitely more towards looking things up as opposed to memorizing them. For example, in my chemistry class, we always got a periodic table (with weights) and were given things like Planck's constant. We did, however, have to memorize some of the more basic ones such as speed of light and Avogadro's number. With regards to math, all tests involving more than trivial amounts of math you get a calculator, so I have never even thought of memorizing logs or exponents.
"I don't know the answers because I do not need to clutter my head with the answers you seek. I hire smart young people from your schools who have memorized information(like the indians) that you think is intelligence. My job is to keep my head clear of such clutter and trivial facts so that I can think" Henry Ford
Or at least, it's attributed to Einstein. It's a common enough sentiment, though, I'm sure I've independently said similar things myself.
On the other hand, it can easily be taken too far. Sometimes a random factoid isn't just a random factoid, it's part of the scaffolding on which you hang your knowledge. If you have to go to your periodic table to look up things like "Carbon" and "Hydrogen" you're never gonna have an intuitive understanding of chemistry.
I would argue that memorization for a lot of 'useless' constants is in fact, useless. We had the same curriculum in Romania during the communist era, where Ceausescu forced everyone to memorize as many trigonometric functions as possible and physics constants.
I personally don't see the need for memorizing items I will not use more than once. It clogs my brain and impedes my memory.
Try wolfram alpha/siri for that one. No way they'd figure out how to do it on a calculator.
Having said that I kind of envy your Indian schooling, that's some important information right there, and I've learned a lot of it over time for my own projects.
thanks, I was super confused. all I figured was that 'One hundred twenty five thousand one hundred' has 44 characters with spaces, and was about to start ascii conversion of the string. you saved me.
That article read like The Great Gatsby, I gave up after a few paragraphs. I don't think I'm into idolizing rich people anymore, I probably would have devoured this in high school, though.
People being rich doesn't bother me, reading fluffy New Yorker articles about them just doesn't interest me. Other people obviously enjoy it, but it doesn't really read like the kind of article I look for on HN, or even in the New Yorker.
Thiel's nose is bulbous? I needed to know that for some reason? It just read like a fawning article about some rich guy to me. The author met with Thiel in this fancy coffee shop, Thiel recently bought 2 multi-million dollar houses blah blah blah. Great, just not anything I personally care that much about.
I didn't think it was fawning, in fact quite the opposite - that some of these details were intended ironically, and the tone of the piece was actually more negative? Did I just read what I wanted to see?
I read a few paragraphs, started skimming, and eventually gave up, maybe it was only those first few paragraphs. It just didn't seem like a meaty article to me, and if it was, it was too much work for me to get to the meat. The internet may have made me lazy.
Being rich is no problem. Acting like being rich means you're better than other people (or smarter, more hard-working, or even luckier, anything other than richer) is a huge problem, because it leads to a kind of economically-driven idolatry.
> incredibly impoverished in his personal world view
Translation: I think X is important, he thinks Y is important, therefore it's not merely a matter of having different priorities, but "he is wrong" and - worse than that - "his worldview is impoverished".
I love how "tolerant people" can't tolerate people.
The author's follow up to this article a couple weeks later is pretty excellent. By some fluke of timing, the Thiel article was published shortly before a fantastic profile on Occupy Wall St.
Thiel is arguing, congruently with the facts, that females are more likely than males to vote for a larger government and a bigger social safety net and you believe that nobody has the right to take others stuff (through taxes) then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote.
I don't think anyone ought to have the right to vote, except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces) -- the rest is just giving groups the right to do things individuals can't.
Yeah, women have a really annoying habit of realising that the world doesn't quite work the way that libertarians like Thiel think it does. For example, no matter how good they'd be at jobs like CEO, they're still at a disadvantage to men because the people who do the selection are other men who naturally favour people like themselves. The market doesn't penalize them for this either - the people that invest in them and write reports for investors and make loan decisions? Almost all men who think in the same way.
> "then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote."
Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please.
Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels.
It's funny that, further up the thread, someone suggested than Libertarian arguments against the seatbelt center around the notion that, once legislated, nothing potentially better than the seatbelt could ever be tried, thanks to the heavy hand of government. It's egregiously incongruent to hear that argument, and hear another that suggests the permanent muzzling of 50% of the population would lead to a better world.
When I am against given them the right to vote it is because I don't consider those areas as something that the government should take care of.
Think gay marriages -- should that really be something the government can decide? Or should the individual church be able to decide what they want to do?
Thiel identifies the issue. There is a big difference between identifying an issue, and suggesting a proposed solution.
I can identify the fact that people die in car crashes, and this in no way makes it understandable that I would prefer cars not exist (for the record I don't).
If so, I would have to say it is a misconception you have if you think that is something which libertarian law approves of, to engage in war, just because it is a private subcontractor doing it.
Also, if this part from a wikipedia entry is what you are talking about, pay attention to who it is in power who forgives MM:
>However, as M&M Enterprises proves to be incredibly profitable, he hires an expensive lawyer who is able to convince the court that it was capitalism which made America great, and is absolved only by disclosing to the congressional committee investigating what the enormous profit he made by dealing with the Germans was.
Thanks for that link! It has been 15 years since I read Catch 22 and I don't happen to own a copy right now.
Yes, that is exactly the section of which I was thinking.
I didn't intend my comment to mean that libertarian law approves of mercenaries or for-hire militaries (honestly, I'm not sure what "libertarian" law's stance on the topic is). I merely meant it as illustrative of the inherent problems associated with mercenaries, privateers, and rogue for-hire military forces to the body politic - that these forces owe their loyalty not necessarily to the nation, but to the highest bidder.
And, M&M Enterprises was not exactly a private subcontractor, as I understand it, but an international cooperative of soldiers who switched loyalty from their respective national forces to the cooperative for their own mutual benefit.
It's good press to put inflammatory words in someones mouth. It's a far step from suggesting a causal link between two constituencies and what Thiel views as political regress and advocating the disenfranchisement of women. In fact, Thiel doesn't, he advocates the abandonment of politics as the vehicle for solving problems, which is something quite different.
I can understand how one might come to be a libertarian: through disillusionment with the government of the day, one comes to believe government itself is the problem rather than its particular form. The problem at the core of libertarianism is the slavish belief that the 'free market' is somehow guaranteed to produce results beneficial to society as a whole, or in the more sociopathic cases (which I suspect are the majority), benefit for themselves at the expense of others in a way that government cannot.
This argument neglects the fact that there does not exist any such beast as the 'free market' except in the platonic form - real transcational characteristics of goods and services, as well as the characteristics of the medium of exchange, always lead to a particular form of market emerging. Specifically, because of the fact that capital compounds capital - it is in the very nature of unregulated markets to concentrate resources in the hands of a few.
Why should we therefore be satisfied with 'free' markets that lead to enormous concentrations of resources in the hands of small numbers of individuals, far skewed away from the distributions of human ability according to measures of intelligence, aptitude or what have you? A market is a physical system to be engineered to produce the social outcome of most benefit. How you decide what is of 'most benefit' has some contention, but I'm pretty sure concentrating resources created by a majority in the hands of a minority is not it.
I find his company's investment record eerily aligned with Francisco D'Anconia, of Atlas Shrugged. Unintentional, I'm sure, though I wouldn't be surprised if he noticed it himself and proclaims the parallel loudly among his peers.
This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.