171–180 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does Thiel ever argue for or request the ability to coerce others? Adjusting the system so that other actions are incentivised is not coercion.
Supporting the governmental bureaucracies like the NSA is by definition participating in coercion.
So, a former Gawker Media writer decides to point out the US goverment is using Thiel's data analysis and visualization company and you all (nearly all of you) jump on the hate-train. You people are starting to act like a quasi-religious group, and you've found your devil! Palentir itself doesn't collect data. Palentir is used for a variety of purposes, including medical and scientific research. The article contains…
I don't follow what benefits to work at a company has anything to do with the ethics of its actions. Note that I'm not accusing Palantir of doing whatever this article accuses them of but your argument to support the company based on its perks is very moot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
who enforces it?
Police.
edit: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord#Warlordism_as_the_domi...
> The other major consideration in categorizing warlords is through the lens of history. Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies until the modern state became globally ubiquitous. Often warlord governance in pre-modern state history was constructed along tribal or kinship lines and was congruent with early perceptions of "nation." In colonial empires warlords served in both cooperative political capacities and as leaders of rebellions. In modern states the presence of warlords is often seen as an indicator of state weakness or failure. American historian David G. Herrmann noted, "Warlordism is the default condition of humanity."[5]
So, that's the highly "pure" form of libertarianism discussed in this thread (e.g., no government). A highly libertarian state is by definition very "weak" and we can observe that warlordism rises out of such states (as common sense would suggest in any case). Been there, done that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." Thomas Sowell
That doesn't make any sense. Racists inherently judge with a different standard.
> that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards
don't buy into affirmative action, and are labeled as racists by people who do.
So, a former Gawker Media writer decides to point out the US goverment is using Thiel's data analysis and visualization company and you all (nearly all of you) jump on the hate-train. You people are starting to act like a quasi-religious group, and you've found your devil! Palentir itself doesn't collect data. Palentir is used for a variety of purposes, including medical and scientific research. The article contains…
So way off the standard of hacker news yet the top comment of plenty. Down the hell out of it, it's clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow what benefits to work at a company has anything to do with the ethics of its actions. Note that I'm not accusing Palantir of doing whatever this article accuses them of but your argument to support the company based on its perks is very moot.
I pointed out these perks in response to some comments in this thread claiming Thiel is anti LGBT, racist and sexist. The company profile is in fact very diverse [1]. [1] https://www.palantir.com/diversity/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/peter-thi...
Apartheid is good - I call racist. http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/03/500...
Palantir are freaking evil article hits the front page. "Hey come and work fcr palantir" is top post. Do you work for palantir dgut? You have time for a follow up about how good palantir is to work for but not to substantiate your claim the article contains falsehoods.
Pretty poor effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." Thomas Sowell
That doesn't make any sense. Racists inherently judge with a different standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make any sense. Racists inherently judge with a different standard.
I'm not familiar with either the quote or the person quoted, but I'm guessing it's an assertion that people who believe > that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards don't buy into affirmative action, and are labeled as racists by people who do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Thinking that heterosexual couples have an acute and unique problem with maintaining two-parent households, for instance, isn't anti anything. Well, it is anti something if it's code for being against gay marriage.
I can realize that: * half of all pregnancies are accidental * pregnancies only happen by accident with heterosexual couples * unprepared parents is a social and economic issue ...without being anti anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NAP by definition is an ethical stance. Following NAP is constitutional requirement irrelevent to ones ethics.
who enforces it?
Government = bad, Taxes = theft, is what all their arguments boil down to and you end up going around in a circle.
They don't get that monopoly on use of violence as ultimate arbitration is what allows society to exist in the first place.
"Non aggression principle" LMAO. Look at Somalia and other failed African states. If libertarians weren't socially and economically illiterate, they'd all be flocking to those places, because it's as close to their mystical paradise la-la land as you can possibly get.