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

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

vanityfair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 172 posts

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

#121

Post by sjwright »

KGIII wrote: post #117
dagw wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're views (which I largely agree with) with ideas like strict regulations, higher taxation and solid safety nets sound more like European Liberal views rather than anything most people would recognize as libertarian. But I do understand that most political labels are pretty meaningless in isolation.

They were the most common of libertarian values until recently. Libertarians used to be the kooky left but are now the crazy right, at least as far as perception goes. The thing is, we weren't ever a large group. When what I call ashamed republicans took over the party, it moved perception strongly to the right. We can't really kick them out of the party, that would kinda be antithetical to our stated beliefs. So, he…

Libertarianism ought to be, in my view, maximum freedom with minimum externalities. You should be able to justify drug legalisation and strict pollution regulations within this model.

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

#122

Post by dagw »

malmsteen wrote: post #101
maccard wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's one thing to consider problems that might be in play if a bare majority had arbitrary power. ..... including the United States The last election for the POTUS had the declared winner elected by an overall loss of 3mm votes. The UK is plowing ahead with a hard brexit with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout (38% of the electorate explicitly said they wanted to leave), with a minority government propped up by a brib…

> The UK is plowing ahead with a hard brexit with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout (38% of the electorate explicitly said they wanted to leave) I hate this argument because you would just not count if brexit had been rejected as you wish it had been. You would just say "sigh it's normal, i'm happy people are not that stupid" and you wouldn't bother arguing with "stupid people". Even if i wanted to argue on that level,…

so it make absolute sense to leave in that case.

That's one way to look it at it. Another is to take the result and say there is no clear majority either way, and since there is no clear public majority for either option it should be up parliament to decide since that's their job.

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

#123

Post by wwweston »

maccard wrote: post #93
wwweston wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's one thing to consider problems that might be in play if a bare majority had arbitrary power. ..... including the United States The last election for the POTUS had the declared winner elected by an overall loss of 3mm votes. The UK is plowing ahead with a hard brexit with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout (38% of the electorate explicitly said they wanted to leave), with a minority government propped up by a brib…

> The last election for the POTUS had the declared winner elected by an overall loss of 3mm votes.

Well, one way to address the problem of the tyranny of the majority is to make minority rule plausible. :b

> to say that that you require a "supermajority" in most western countries isn't strictly true.

A supermajority isn't necessary for many things; a plurality will do for a lot of operations, including becoming POTUS. But in the US there's also some legal concepts that you can only do away with via a supermajority and one spread out over different branches of government at that. Doing away with any of the bill of rights is not happening with a plurality in an election.... because the US already is a republic with a democratically elected representative government based on rule of law set down in a constitution that can't be changed without supermajority buy-in.

Most western democracies that I'm familiar with have some similar sets of principles that aren't up for democratic election (at least, according to the stated rules of the governance game -- unofficially, any principle is always vulnerable to contention and falling out of value, that's a reality of governing human beings, not a flaw in a system of government).

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

#124

Post by olalonde »

KGIII wrote: post #117
dagw wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're views (which I largely agree with) with ideas like strict regulations, higher taxation and solid safety nets sound more like European Liberal views rather than anything most people would recognize as libertarian. But I do understand that most political labels are pretty meaningless in isolation.

They were the most common of libertarian values until recently. Libertarians used to be the kooky left but are now the crazy right, at least as far as perception goes. The thing is, we weren't ever a large group. When what I call ashamed republicans took over the party, it moved perception strongly to the right. We can't really kick them out of the party, that would kinda be antithetical to our stated beliefs. So, he…

> I can understand why people would be confused when I say I'm a libertarian

Indeed. Do you think it is possible that you are mislabeling yourself? From this thread, I'd say most people would label you a social democrat (and no, not because you reject Ayn Rand).

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

#125

Post by 3131s »

Banthum wrote: post #108
3131s wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

"how else is their ideal society attainable without the forced removal of non-white people?" Um, how about just reducing immigration a lot and giving it time? It's not that complicated. I think you're just obscuring the obvious non-Hitler solutions because you want easy moral superiority. Easy to slag someone when you can pretend they just want to commit genocide. Much harder when you take their views charitably. But…

> Um, how about just reducing immigration a lot and giving it time? It's not that complicated.

But not reducing immigration from most of Europe, right? And in turn should white Americans not be allowed to live abroad in most of the rest of the world?

I should have refrained from saying "imbeciles", because that's not conducive to discussion and obviously there are some smart people like Thiel and yourself who end up advocating these ideas. It's hard to even begin a discussion about racial nationalism though, because I think it's pretty clear that the idea of race itself is scientifically shaky.

I'd like to convince you though. But first, what exactly is it that you're advocating?

And some questions I have...

1) Can you clarify your stance on immigration?

2) Can you give me a coherent definition of race?

3) What entitles one particular race (I'm assuming "white" people in this case) to predominate in America?

4) What if anything should happen to non-white people that are currently legal US citizens?

5) What should happen to Americans like myself who are married to non-white, non-US-citizens? Won't we end up in limbo with no place to go? I can assure you that I am not just looking for moral superiority -- I feel that my very wellbeing is threatened by the ideas that I hear espoused by racial nationalists.

6) Would you break apart the United States to give, for example, a black nationalist movement their own country? Seems only fair considering whites forcibly brought them to this country. And Native Americans? If so, what are the logistics of this and who gets what?

7) Do you feel that there is something fundamental connecting culture and "race"? What specific elements of the cultures of other races do you see as harmful? Are these differences fundamentally irreconcilable and why? Surely there are other white people (myself probably) who hold opinions that are equally divergent, so why not separate on that basis rather than purely on race?

Again, I find myself halting while even typing out these questions because I have to keep referring back to this ill-defined idea of race. But, I guess the discussion has to start somewhere unless we plan on wiping each other out.

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

#126

Post by jmkni »

jjeaff wrote: post #38
Taniwha wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very American point of view, in the rest of the western world we consider buying off politicians to be be immoral, a corrosive thing inimical with democracy

So the wealthy don't donate to politicians in the rest of the western world?

As far as I'm aware, in the UK, no.

Wealthy individuals can donate to political parties, but not to individual politicians, and that is tightly regulated.

If an individual politician was accepting donations from a wealthy individual or company, it would be a scandal.

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

#127

Post by KGIII »

olalonde wrote: post #124
KGIII wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were the most common of libertarian values until recently. Libertarians used to be the kooky left but are now the crazy right, at least as far as perception goes. The thing is, we weren't ever a large group. When what I call ashamed republicans took over the party, it moved perception strongly to the right. We can't really kick them out of the party, that would kinda be antithetical to our stated beliefs. So, he…

> I can understand why people would be confused when I say I'm a libertarian Indeed. Do you think it is possible that you are mislabeling yourself? From this thread, I'd say most people would label you a social democrat (and no, not because you reject Ayn Rand).

Not really, no. I didn't change, the party changed and the public perception changed. It is hard to put people into boxes. In my case, my goal is to maximize liberty. That's my primary concern.

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

#128

Post by DanBC »

jmkni wrote: post #126
jjeaff wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the wealthy don't donate to politicians in the rest of the western world?

As far as I'm aware, in the UK, no. Wealthy individuals can donate to political parties, but not to individual politicians, and that is tightly regulated. If an individual politician was accepting donations from a wealthy individual or company, it would be a scandal.

You can donate to individual politicians.

Here's one list: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-s...

Here's some more information: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-s...

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

#129

Post by d--b »

hal9000xp wrote: post #109
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…

I'm tired of two so wide spread dogmas - "will of majority is absolute good", "rich owes money to society, so we need rip them off". I lived in Sweden and now I live in the Netherlands. You have better chance to meet alien from another galactic than a person who doesn't believe in these dogmas. So I definitely see absolute political monogamy here. In centralized democracy high earners have absolutely no voice. I.e. f…

That is certainly not true. In the US, republicans control the presidency and congress. It means that somewhere around 50% of american people believe that the rich should be taxed much less. I believe a similar fraction of European countries believe that too.

The rich (whether they're on the left or on the right) have a massive impact on the media. Think Rupert Murdoch, think Oprah.

There are 27 billionaires in Sweden. For a population of 10 million people. Per capita, that's about twice as much as the US.

Stop feeling victimized for being on the right. The rich pay taxes, so that society seems fairer to those millions of people who make everything that the rich consume. Tough luck, but guess what, you can still become super rich, so what's the issue?

You can talk to anyone who's worth more than 100 million: being twice as rich won't change a damn thing to their way of life. At this stage, it's only a matter of power and counting points.

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

#130

Post by lokedhs »

marvin wrote: post #112
hal9000xp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tired of two so wide spread dogmas - "will of majority is absolute good", "rich owes money to society, so we need rip them off". I lived in Sweden and now I live in the Netherlands. You have better chance to meet alien from another galactic than a person who doesn't believe in these dogmas. So I definitely see absolute political monogamy here. In centralized democracy high earners have absolutely no voice. I.e. f…

Well said. I have been trying to pinpoint these sentiments for a while, but haven't quite figured it out. The ultra-rich and the middle-class ruling above others is a very eloquent way of phrasing it. Your description hits my native Norway very well. It is very difficult to excel and get recognition for it. In a discussion with my SO the other day, I was trying to find a Norwegian word for 'excel' and realized that w…

In Swedish we have the word "överträffa" and I was sure there must be a corresponding Norwegian word.

However, after looking at several different dictionaries, I really can't find a Norwegian word that translates to this. Two separate sources translates it with "stige" which doesn't sound right at all.

Post reply on HN