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

131–140 of 172 posts

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

#131

Post by Turing_Machine »

elefanten wrote: post #50
Turing_Machine wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I find an explicit campaign contribution to be considerably less sleazy than paying a politician hundreds of thousands of dollars for "making a speech" (a very popular ruse with the Clintons, and now Obama). Less sleazy in that campaign funds have to be accounted for (i.e., actually spent on the campaign, or retained for a future campaign) while "speaking fees" can be spent any way you want.

False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories. It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important pe…

> False equivalence. Campaign contributions and personal income are separate categories.

"False equivalence"? I wasn't "equating" anything. The fact that they are separate categories was the entire point. Namely, that campaign contributions have to (at least in theory) be spent on the campaign, while "speaking fees" are pure slush that can be used for anything the politician desires.

> Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency.

Are you seriously arguing that politicians aren't influenced when people give them $400,000 of free money (allegedly for standing in front of a crowd and spouting nonsense for 20 minutes)? Dude, these are politicians, not saints.

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

#132

Post by dagw »

lokedhs wrote: post #130
marvin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"overtreffe" is a Norwegian word. However they mean more to surpass some previous set benchmark. You have to "överträffa" something (either a set goal, someone else or your own previous effort), you cannot just "överträffa".

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

#133

Post by jmkni »

DanBC wrote: post #128
jmkni wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I stand corrected, thanks!

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

#134

Post by matrixtransform »

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…

The Law of Jante seems similar to the british concept of "don't get ideas above your station" which is the cultural expression of the class system which acts as a block on social mobility.

In the UK, thanks the the billionaire-owned tabloid political agenda, we have:

Ultra-rich (old money, luck, extreme talent/charisma) Middle class (strivers, value creators, good people) Working class (tyrannical majority of freeloaders) Underclass (don't vote, who cares, lazy sub-human thieves)

So in Scandinavia, it looks like this?

Ultra-rich (old money, luck, extreme talent/charisma) Upper middle class (strivers, value creators, good people) Middle class (tyrannical majority of freeloaders, pretty bad people) (not mentioned) - Working class (lazy don't vote, who cares, sub-human thieves?)

As a middle class, socially immobile value creator myself, I feel your pain, but why does your anger seem directed mainly at those below you in the hierarchy? Without getting too Marxist about it, value creation is a function of the entire system, genius and value creation can't happen in isolation. Billionaires drive on roads built by unskilled labourers, hedge fund managers still need their toilets cleaned and computer hardware upgraded. Human underachievement in advanced economies is a tragedy, but there are systemic roadblocks, it's not just moral and cultural degeneracy by a grasping, entitled populist majority.

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

#135

Post by dagw »

d--b wrote: post #129
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…

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 Swede…

There are 27 billionaires in Sweden.

No there are 27 billionaires with Swedish citizenship. I'd estimate that less than half of them live full time in Sweden.

Also over 50% of them are from 1 of 4 families. and only 2 of them made their money by founding an actual company (as opposed to a hedge fund or trading company).

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

#136

Post by hal9000xp »

d--b wrote: post #129
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…

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 Swede…

In Sweden, you will pay 58% from your every Swedish krona for monthly salary above 55000 SEK (6873 USD). So social-democrats believe you are already rich having monthly income just above 6873 USD. At that level of income you have absolutely no vote over majority and you have zero lobby power and you obviously don't control any media. Having that level of income is already not normal and according to social-democrats you have to be "equalized".

So when I hear "rich should pay their fair share", I know they are going after me! I've never seen social-democrat policies which touch only billionaires as they constantly claim!

The pretty similar situation all across Europe with exception of German cantons of Switzerland.

Yet ripping off upper middle class so effectively, western European socialists still constantly complain about "inequality". Which means, they are not satisfied to taking only 58% from me, they want more, much more. In fact, I believe they will be not satisfied until everybody is completely "equalized to death".

I honestly do NOT believe that I owe anything to poor people. And I'm saying that as a person who born in Uzbekistan and lived in extreme poverty (my income in 2003 was ... 10 USD per month).

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

#137

Post by matrixtransform »

olalonde wrote: post #30
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?

Most US libertarians are just proponents of classical liberalism. "Left libertarianism" is very niche and sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me. I don't know much about Peter Thiel but it's hard for me to reconcile his outspoken support for Trump with the "libertarian" label.

Isn't "liberal" often used as an insult in the US by the likes of Ann Coulter and other far-right xenophobic conservatives?

I think the confusion is that the term is used for all sorts of things like economic liberals (neo-liberal de-regulators), social liberals (into multi-culturalism and identity politics) and Ayn Randian sea-steaders and techno-utopians, which is where classical liberals often seem to end up on a diet of extreme capitalism and sociopathy?

In Europe, left libertarianism is very much a thing, as identity politics and re-distributive economic socialism often find common ground in empathy for those who are disadvantaged in different ways. The right to exploit others does not trump the right to not be exploited, unless I am badly mis-remembering John Stuart Mill?

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

#138

Post by boomboomsubban »

KGIII wrote: post #104
boomboomsubban wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does a law require a lack of consent? Consent makes it enforceable, if you don't consent than you shouldn't be in a situation where the law can be broken.

Because we are humans and some of us won't consent so it must be forced. There are people who feel that rape, murder, and arson are all things they should be allowed to do. They don't consent to the laws. That's why they are in prison. It's a necessary thing, assuming you want a functional society.

They didn't consent to the laws, removal from society is already necessary for them. Forcing their consent doesn't make them any more likely to follow those laws.

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

#139

Post by boomboomsubban »

croon wrote: post #105
boomboomsubban wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does a law require a lack of consent? Consent makes it enforceable, if you don't consent than you shouldn't be in a situation where the law can be broken.

You mean by moving somewhere else? The point of laws in a democracy is that they're (theoretically, without corruption) consented to by a maximum amount of people. If you don't have rulers, then whatever your group of 10 people consent to as an unwritten rule will be broken by me, much to my gain.

By being removed from society somehow. Democracy still works, you can consent to accept certain laws the majority impose. And I don't see how a ruler changes that last point, if you don't consent to the laws those ten don't have to put up with your crap.

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

#140

Post by likeclockwork »

croon wrote: post #106
arethuza wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Laws can be agreed between consenting parties." That doesn't sound like a law - that sounds like a contract.

With no party to enforce it.

All the parties who agreed to the contract are responsible for enforcing it.
Post reply on HN