Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#691

Post by int_19h »

aninhumer wrote: post #501
int_19h wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarianism is basically about negative rights - not so much about "do what you want", but more about "nobody is going to force you to do something you don't want". As an ethical system, think of it as utilitarianism which assigns infinite value to freedom from violent coercion. Everything else follows from that.

Unless it's violent coercion used to enforce the property system, which libertarians seem to like to ignore.

That would be capitalist libertarians. There is also such a thing as libertarian socialists and communists.

But yes, that is the next most important division. Right libertarians believe that there is a natural right to property ownership. Therefore, infringement on that right is an aggression, and using violence to protect it is simple self-defense. Left libertarians believe that private property is a social construct, and that it has negative social effects at large scale (a few would even say that it has them at any scale), and so reject it, and the use of violence to protect it.

Re: undefined

#692

Post by tacticus »

idlewords wrote: post #659
pdog wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you suggesting that YC say or do? Should they be compelled or forced to make a statement?

They should say whatever they want, but remember that silence looks an awful lot like assent.

The current chief of the Australian army has a great line on this.

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. that goes for all of us, but especially those, who by their rank, have a leadership role."

Re: undefined

#693

Post by solipsism »

nhaehnle wrote: post #324
solipsism wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom in the Libertarianism context (and in most contexts) means lack of coercion or constraint imposed by government or other institutions. It doesn't refer to freedom from natural or physical constraints. That wouldn't make any sense to advocate for. Does this clear it up for you?

It is simultaneously amusing and frustrating how completely wrong this is. Coercion and constraint imposed by government (or similar institutions) is absolutely central to libertarianism! The whole point of property rights is to constrain people from doing things. E.g., you own a beachfront property? You get to constrain other people from swimming there, and the government is there to help if necessary. And so on. Sa…

This is pedantic. The clause, "except when necessary to prevent the violation of one's rights" is understood by most, and isn't relevant to this conversation.

Re: undefined

#694

Post by int_19h »

fixxer wrote: post #425
int_19h wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can still be "save the world" situation even when understanding this. Long-term, it would be nice to have a SCOTUS that would be more of a check on someone like Trump, and less of a rubberstamp.

I'd be happy with a SCOTUS that checks the executive branch in general. We're already in full-on rubber stamp mode and have been for 16 years, if not longer.

I wouldn't call the current court a rubber stamp. There have been some very unfortunate decisions, sure, but there were also quite a few decisions that prevented either the states or the feds from running wild.

The real problem with being a true check is partisanship on the court. By now, it seems to be essentially accepted that there are "liberal judges" and "conservative judges", and that they will rule accordingly. I cringe every time I hear that, because SCOTUS, like any other court, is supposed to rule on what the law is, not on what it should be; and one's political affiliation should not affect the former. In practice, of course, it does matter these days, and it is a really bad thing, especially in an institution that is 1) so small, and 2) not providing any mechanism to hold them responsible.

Re: undefined

#695

Post by roguecoder »

idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

I know that after this, I won't work at any YC company, as well as any place Peter Thiel is involved in any way. The organization get to decide which reputation hit they want to take, but no option is neutral in the face of a racist, sexual-assaulting demagogue.

Re: undefined

#696

Post by welanes »

tptacek wrote: post #687
welanes wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're demanding a struggle session because someone openly supports one of the two candidates. The one that you don't like. What consequences do you have in mind for the millions of others that will vote Trump in November? Don't you find it dangerous to try to witch-hunt individuals for their political choices?

That's not what he's doing. Paul Graham and Sam Altman have both openly repudiated Trump, not as someone whose ideas they disagree with but as someone whose efforts threaten the fabric of our society. Both Graham and Altman has publicly (and correctly) called Trump an aspiring dictator. It is not then a "struggle session" when we point out to both of them that their actions and beliefs are incoherent: that they can c…

So Paul Graham has disavowed Trump. Thiel supports Trump. Paul Graham hasn't disavowed Thiel's support of Trump.

That seems an absurd expectation, to ditch someone for exercising their own agency legally and within the parameters of a democracy.

I don't support Trump. I also don't support the goading and lack of empathy towards those that do. Nor the guilt-by-association accusations being promulgated in this election cycle.

Re: undefined

#697

Post by t27 »

idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

Why aren't you going behind mark zuckerberg as well? Thiel is not only an influential investor, but also has a board seat there, and he probably has a bigger share in facebook than he has in YC right?

Re: undefined

#698

Post by tptacek »

grzm wrote: post #689
tptacek wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what he's doing. Paul Graham and Sam Altman have both openly repudiated Trump, not as someone whose ideas they disagree with but as someone whose efforts threaten the fabric of our society. Both Graham and Altman has publicly (and correctly) called Trump an aspiring dictator. It is not then a "struggle session" when we point out to both of them that their actions and beliefs are incoherent: that they can c…

I understand where you're coming from. That said, how do you recommend we heal what's dividing people? Do we stop associating with people that don't share our beliefs? What level of association is acceptable? I know I don't have the answer, but I don't think increasing the separation between people is a good general solution. I think calling out in a constructive way behavior we think is problematic is useful. And ma…

No, I don't recommend that. I don't think we should work to de-normalize Republicans. I don't think we should ostracize Republicans who vote for Trump out of genuine concern over the direction of the Supreme Court, or because they believe abortion is murder. I don't think we should ostracize Trump supporters.

But I think there's an obvious, material difference between the kind of support a voter might give Trump --- casting a vote, wearing a pin, putting up a lawn sign --- and what Thiel did. Trump is so troubling the the Republican party that they had to put Scott Baio on stage at their convention. Trump's most important GOP surrogate is the discredited former mayor of New York City. Every living former GOP nominee refused to speak for Trump at the RNC. Every living GOP president refused to endorse them. Thiel, though, did exactly that. He got up on the most public stage imaginable and told the American people that Trump was the only honest candidate in the election.

Months later, after Trump had pivoted his campaign to a strategy that depends on white voters presumption that black votes are illegitimate and that the election is rigged, after more than ten women came out to say Trump had sexually assaulted them, Thiel wrote a $1.25MM check for Trump.

I can tolerate Republicans voting their conscience about the Supreme Court.

I will not tolerate the people in the crowds whooping and cheering Trump's claim that some women are too ugly to have been assaulted by Trump.

Similarly, I will not tolerate Peter Thiel, Rudolph Giuliani, or Chris Christie, or any of the rest of Trump's high council of enablers.

Re: undefined

#699

Post by idlewords »

timehastoldme wrote: post #690
idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

Right there with you. I'd like to know your perspective of the explicit amorality of the SV "quirky-elite", especially the YC-Facebook nexus. To me, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Thiel all very obviously have ulterior scifi motives (live forever, solve the question they think underlies existence, etc) predicated upon a sort of über anthropic principle, i.e., "I'm one in a million so there is a special underlying meaning to…

I think of it as "AI cosplay". They imagine how an ultimate superintelligence would behave, trying to pull the hidden levers of power in the world to achieve their ends, and then try to emulate it.

At the heart is a very undemocratic belief that the most capable people should 'hack' the world to their own ends, and the rest of us will catch up.

Re: undefined

#700

Post by tptacek »

welanes wrote: post #696
tptacek wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what he's doing. Paul Graham and Sam Altman have both openly repudiated Trump, not as someone whose ideas they disagree with but as someone whose efforts threaten the fabric of our society. Both Graham and Altman has publicly (and correctly) called Trump an aspiring dictator. It is not then a "struggle session" when we point out to both of them that their actions and beliefs are incoherent: that they can c…

So Paul Graham has disavowed Trump. Thiel supports Trump. Paul Graham hasn't disavowed Thiel's support of Trump. That seems an absurd expectation, to ditch someone for exercising their own agency legally and within the parameters of a democracy. I don't support Trump. I also don't support the goading and lack of empathy towards those that do. Nor the guilt-by-association accusations being promulgated in this election…

Thiel isn't merely a supporter of Trump. There are, as many have pointed out on this thread, tens of millions of Trump supporters.

But they are not all the same: some of them support Trump because they cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate (they are wrong in this instance, but they are wrong in good faith). Others --- hundreds of thousands of them --- support Trump because they are themselves white nationalists who see in Trump the hope that America can revert itself to the social mores of the late 1940s. Some people put up lawn signs. Some people donate millions of dollars to Trump. Some people refuse to disavow Trump, because to do so would be to spend political capital to thwart an outcome that is already unlikely to occur. Others get up on stage with Scott Baio to shout their support for Trump into microphones and cameras.

Along virtually every axis you can come up with, Thiel's support for Trump exceeds the norms of our politics and of civil debate. Thiel is not a typical Trump supporter. I do not need to stretch to make this argument: it is clear and obvious.

Sam Altman and Paul Graham should acknowledge this. I don't care what else they do; I don't care if they "fire" Thiel. But they have to at least pay consistent lip service to the things they claim to believe.

* Some of them support Trump because they believe

Post reply on HN