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

Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 110 posts

Re: Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

#11

Post by MaxGabriel »

calinet6 wrote: post #4

"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…

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.

edit, grammar mistake.

Re: Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

#13

Post by [deleted] »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #5
calinet6 wrote: post #4

"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…

"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…

[deleted]

Re: Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

#17

Post by [deleted] »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #5
calinet6 wrote: post #4

"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…

"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…

[deleted]

Re: Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

#18

Post by [deleted] »

calinet6 wrote: post #4

"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…

[deleted]

Re: Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

#19

Post by qdog »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #5
calinet6 wrote: post #4

"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…

"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…

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!

Re: Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

#20

Post by leot »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #5
calinet6 wrote: post #4

"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…

"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…

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.

Post reply on HN