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

101–110 of 110 posts

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

#101

Post by Klinky »

grandalf wrote: post #86
mindcrime wrote: post #70

Today, the sci-fi novels of the sixties feel like artifacts from a distant age. “One way you can describe the collapse of the idea of the future is the collapse of science fiction,” Thiel said. “Now it’s either about technology that doesn’t work or about technology that’s used in bad ways. The anthology of the top twenty-five sci-fi stories in 1970 was, like, ‘Me and my friend the robot went for a walk on the moon,’…

What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well. His comment resonated with me as well. However I think there's a libertarian explanation for the decline of Utopian Sci-Fi. It existed out of a general optimism about problems too large for a ragtag group of individualists to solve.…

Not sure about your comments on public sector drama/propaganda. The startup & tech sector alone has it's fair share of propaganda & drama.

Facebook IPO. SpaceX. RelayRides & AirBnB liability concerns. Google & Apple taking over the world, etc...

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

#103

Post by Mizza »

grandalf wrote: post #86
mindcrime wrote: post #70

Today, the sci-fi novels of the sixties feel like artifacts from a distant age. “One way you can describe the collapse of the idea of the future is the collapse of science fiction,” Thiel said. “Now it’s either about technology that doesn’t work or about technology that’s used in bad ways. The anthology of the top twenty-five sci-fi stories in 1970 was, like, ‘Me and my friend the robot went for a walk on the moon,’…

What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well. His comment resonated with me as well. However I think there's a libertarian explanation for the decline of Utopian Sci-Fi. It existed out of a general optimism about problems too large for a ragtag group of individualists to solve.…

> What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well.

What a sad view of the world!

Artistic creativity is boundless.

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

#104

Post by slackson »

clavalle wrote: post #82
ataggart wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The value of one's life is infinite. That is demonstrably false. Everyone of us could, at a cost, reduce his chance of dying tomorrow.

How is that relevant? Edit: Which is to say, I don't think you demonstrated that statement is false.

If people are willing to accept an increased risk of dying for a dollar value, that means they don't value their life infinitely. If they did, no amount of money would be worth an overall increased chance of dying.

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

#105

Post by lps41 »

revelation wrote: post #2

Article from 2011. If you are more of a hard facts type of person, Wikipedia has the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital

I find his company's investment record eerily aligned with Francisco D'Anconia, of Atlas Shrugged. Unintentional, I'm sure, though I wouldn't be surprised if he noticed it himself and proclaims the parallel loudly among his peers.

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

#106

Post by clavalle »

slackson wrote: post #104
clavalle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that relevant? Edit: Which is to say, I don't think you demonstrated that statement is false.

If people are willing to accept an increased risk of dying for a dollar value, that means they don't value their life infinitely. If they did, no amount of money would be worth an overall increased chance of dying.

I see your point.

What is 1% of infinity?

Each individual must make an approximation.

What is a good approximation for infinity value for an 18 y.o. with a high school diploma?

If they were perfectly rational, it would be the present value of all expected future earnings.

Such a calculation would make taking a job as an oil platform underwater welder make sense.

Trouble is, it is only a convenient approximation. It can expand to fit any circumstance.

So if you own, say, a trading company worth $10 billion and you hire someone (or some entity) to be in charge of protecting your life, the substrate on which all of that value rests for you, you've just handed them a check for $9 billion plus the present value of all of your expected future earnings and asked them to keep good care of it.

How do you think a perfectly rational actor would respond?

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

#107

Post by calinet6 »

cpher wrote: post #91
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…

This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of socialism. 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. FTFY.

Could not agree more.

A world does not exist where either of these extreme models are true.

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

#108

Post by qdog »

no_flags wrote: post #71
qdog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves. For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediat…

I think you miss the point a bit, but I admit it's a bit long so I don't blame you for not reading it all. Mediation is just one of the author's guesses at what free market law might look like. The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly con…

Right, I wouldn't expect the law not to be influenced by people. I don't think any of this is a new way of thinking, though. We have the right to trial by jury because of this, which sure isn't perfect, but there is no way for a perfect world.

I'm not saying that there aren't valid points brought up by Libertarians, just that most of the theories are not feasible in the real world. Education, for instance, if there is no state-sponsored alternative (it is an alternative, we have private and home schooling in every state as far as I know), the people who have to work for a living often do not educate their children (my wife has an aunt who cannot read or write because her parents worked and she was put to work at an early age, so that's what has always happened in history). Yes, that's their choice, but not always the choice of the children, and uneducated masses are not likely to be able to live and make rational decisions in a society.

The law is imperfect, but throughout history civilization has been in a struggle to reduce oppression. Based on history I can't really see how removing laws would do anything but allow some 'bad actors' to acquire more power for oppression.

Anyways, based on the ability reason about things, maybe you aren't a libertarian, maybe you're a liberal and just don't know it ;)

Thanks for being civil, though, I don't mind having to read a bit (although that was just too many pages for me), and I've surely picked up some bit of knowledge.

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

#109

Post by tomjen3 »

potatolicious wrote: post #41
tomjen3 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel is arguing, congruently with the facts, that females are more likely than males to vote for a larger government and a bigger social safety net and you believe that nobody has the right to take others stuff (through taxes) then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote. I don't think anyone ought to have the right to vote, except on matters of the military (which cannot work if…

> "then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote." Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please. Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels. It's funny that,…

When I am against given them the right to vote it is because I don't consider those areas as something that the government should take care of.

Think gay marriages -- should that really be something the government can decide? Or should the individual church be able to decide what they want to do?

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

#110

Post by bluekeybox »

grandalf wrote: post #15

The tone of this article is annoying b/c it assumes that the reader is (or should be) delighted to be a part of some large group of humans who are normal compared to the eccentric person being profiled.

I read this through Instapaper four days after this was posted to HN, and your comment pinpoints exactly the thing I didn't like about the article.
Post reply on HN