Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#71

Post by wwweston » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:50 AM UTC

jules wrote: post #39

confounded wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on the rich, Theil is effectively a feudalist. Both men were billionaires who invested in computing and were involved in the 'military industrial complex'. But the word 'libertarian' has been dragged so far to the right in the US in recent years that it's not a me…

Thiel is hardly alone in this view. Many libertarians are in favour of a constitutional republic over a democracy where 51% of the people have absolute power.

It's one thing to consider problems that might be in play if a bare majority had arbitrary power. Worth doing, but then again, an odd point to underscore considering that such considerations are already well-woven into most western democracies, including the United States.

It's another thing to propose that where representative government itself is in tension with capital... the problem is representation. Or perhaps even civic/state power in general.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#72

Post by arethuza » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:53 AM UTC

iand wrote: post #68

KGIII wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maxim…

> Anarchists believe in no laws. This is incorrect. Anarchists believe in no rulers. Laws can be agreed between consenting parties.

"Laws can be agreed between consenting parties."

That doesn't sound like a law - that sounds like a contract.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#73

Post by em3rgent0rdr » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:53 AM UTC

KGIII wrote: post #47

SapphireSun wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?

Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maxim…

> "For the most part, the leftist leaning libertarians are extinct in the US."

Actually there is a recent trend of leftwing libertains in America under the names "free-market anti-capitalist", "thick libertarianism", " market-anarchism", and even "libertarian socialism", all working inside and outside of the Libertarian Party.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#74

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:53 AM UTC

jules wrote: post #39

confounded wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on the rich, Theil is effectively a feudalist. Both men were billionaires who invested in computing and were involved in the 'military industrial complex'. But the word 'libertarian' has been dragged so far to the right in the US in recent years that it's not a me…

Thiel is hardly alone in this view. Many libertarians are in favour of a constitutional republic over a democracy where 51% of the people have absolute power.

American "libertarianism" has gotten pretty, um, corrupted compared to the philosophic ideals it's allegedly based on:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/0...

It’s probably true that some of the overlap between libertarians and alt-righters can be explained by their companionship as members of the political fringe. But it’s not purely accidental, either. Historically, prominent libertarian thinkers have made the decision to cultivate ties with the nationalist far right, and have viewed racial demagoguery both as an efficacious political tool and an intellectually defensible position. The libertarian-to-fascist pipeline may have been forged partially by coincidence, but it was also crafted and maintained.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#75

Post by Kevve » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:53 AM UTC

pryce wrote: post #61

belorn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone who prefer cultural globalisation over multiculturalism a white supremacist?

Of course not. But Thiel didn't write a book simply expressing a preference against multiculturalism, he wrote a book claiming that multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture. 'White culture is under threat' is a core belief of white supremacists.

>'White culture is under threat' is a core belief of white supremacists.

It's also a well known fact. All you have to do is look at the demographic changes in Western countries.

Wanting white culture to survive still doesn't make one a white supremacist. I even want Japanese culture to survive. Does this make me a Japanese supremacist?

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#76

Post by croon » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:55 AM UTC

KGIII wrote: post #57

0xbear wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, a fantasy world. A world which isn't going to exist, presented as a serious topic. Maybe idiot was too strong a word, but it was shorter than the alternatives. If she'd left it as a work of fantasy, and not encouraged adoption, I'd be less inclined to be disrespectful. However, she gave many talks on the subject and pushed her views as serious political philosophy. This was adopted by others and has pretty much…

I'll also add to that, that the notion of an "opposite" to something so complicated as a _world_ is idiotic, because in running away from the bad of that one, you run into bad in the other.

TL;DR: The "opposite" of a bad world isn't necessarily a good world.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#77

Post by 3131s » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:56 AM UTC

aaroninsf wrote: post #49

belorn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone who prefer cultural globalisation over multiculturalism a white supremacist?

There's an obvious correlation, and the language of the former is also used as cover for self-identified white supremacists who until recently found themselves obliged to cloak or mute their views. NB: that correlation is less obvious for those who have the "right" culture.

Not only that, but there is implicit violence in taking a "racial nationalist" stance in a country that is not and has never been racially homogeneous. These people couch their ideas in ostensibly neutral terms like "preserving white culture", yet how else is their ideal society attainable without the forced removal of non-white people? To expect that non-white Americans will adopt a worldview that involves leaving the only country they've ever known is obviously completely unrealistic, and of course it would never occur to these imbeciles that their own position entails going straight back to Europe.

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#78

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:57 AM UTC

pryce wrote: post #37

55555 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell are you talking about? It reads like you are accusing Thiel of being a white supremacist. If so, please provide citations.

I refer you Thiel's multiple published articles on multiculturalism during his time at Stanford for the journal 'Academic Questions', such as 'Multiculturalism and the decline of Stanford', followed by the book he co-authored called "the Diversity Myth", about how multiculturalism is horrific and how multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, are where you should look if you wish to get a good idea of what is…

[deleted]

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#79

Post by mtgx » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 7:57 AM UTC

> “Peter has indicated that if he takes the P.I.A.B. position he intends to take a comprehensive look at the U.S. intelligence community’s information-technology architecture. He is super-concerned about Amazon and Google”—and Facebook, less so. “He feels they have become New Age global fascists in terms of how they’re controlling the media, how they’re controlling information flows to the public, even how they’re purging people from think tanks. He’s concerned about the monopolistic tendencies of [all three] companies and how they deny economic well-being to people they disagree with.

I'm confused. I thought Thiel loved monopolies. Isn't that all he preaches about in one of his books, that you should create a monopoly ASAP? Or does he only love his monopolies or the ones he's been involved in - such as Facebook? And is that why he's willing to give Facebook a pass?

Re: Is Trump mulling Peter Thiel for a top intelligence advisory post?

#80

Post by KGIII » Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 8:00 AM UTC

dagw wrote: post #59

KGIII wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maxim…

You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself. ... Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them. How do you square these two lines of reasoning? If you can afford making sure I get killed and I cannot afford to defend myself against you what difference my theoretical right to defend myself make? If the only rights I have are the on…

By making murder illegal and punishable in a court of law. The goal is equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Bad things are still going to happen, abuses will always happen. The goal is to minimize the risks and to ensure a punitive response to unlawful behavior.

The goal being to maximize your ability to enjoy your freedoms does not mean you'll be able to maximize them as much as someone else with greater assets.

An example would be public parks. A wealthy person may be able to put a giant boat on the lake, but you may only be able to afford to swim in the lake. You should still be allowed to swim in the lake and enjoy the park.

You, the individual, are still responsible for you. Equal opportunity doesn't ensure equal outcome. So, we must still protect the commons and have a strong social safety net.

Unlike most libertarians, given the power to do so, I'd tax the hell out of the wealthy. For the record, I'm considered wealthy. I pay a lot of taxes, but could easily pay more without even really reducing my ability to enjoy my freedoms.

It is my responsibility to help pay for your social safety net. Not only that, it is financially sound for me to do so.

I want you to be healthy, you're more productive. I want you to be educated, you're more innovative. I want you to have the ability to try to start a business, so I can sell your business products and services. I want you happy, because happy people are more productive. I want you to not have to worry about health care expenses, because keeping you healthy is less expensive than fixing you up after you become unhealthy.

It's just good sense, I think. Killing you is still illegal and no system is going to recent that. Laws aren't really meant to stop people, they are meant to indicate those actions will be punished.