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

81–90 of 110 posts

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

#81

Post by mindcrime »

cobrausn wrote: post #52
bjorn2404 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"get rid of all law enforcment..." Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?

It's a fine line. As an example, ESR, often called 'libertarian', is really an anarchist. From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in…

From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way.

At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles.

The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).

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

#82

Post by clavalle »

ataggart wrote: post #75
clavalle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this theory is that it assumes a couple of things: 1) The market fully defined by exchanges underwritten by currency (read: a fluid medium of exchange). 2) Value can be assigned to anything and is therefore finite in all circumstances. But there is a singularity where it all breaks down: The value of one's life is infinite. Without it, no other value matters. If I could give you $10 trillion but I ki…

> 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.

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

#83

Post by mindcrime »

calinet6 wrote: post #65
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the hilariously false core of libertarianism. 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. Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean",…

This is anecdotal, but the one hardcore libertarian I knew fit this stereotype perfectly. We all have varying degrees of empathy and ability to understand and act on the intentions and emotions of others, but those of us who are on the lowest end of the empathy scale tend toward libertarian ideals. It is no coincidence.

Plenty of libertarians have all sorts of empathy in my experience... it's just a matter of priority of principles. If I see someone in pain or who is hungry, I do feel for them, and hurt for them. I've been dirt poor myself, so I know how it feels. But I still wouldn't say that there hunger or pain justifies create a system that violates my rights to attempt to correct the injustices in the world. The bottom line, for most libertarians, is that - at the end of the day - we demand to live our lives free from the use of coercive aggression / force, or fraud to manipulate our choices or to control us and our property.

Now, sure, some libertarians are non-empathetic assholes who don't give a shit about their fellow man. But that's a tautology when applied to any group. But nothing about being libertarian means you have to be an asshole, or an uncaring robot or any of those things.

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

#84

Post by pemulis »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #38
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…

> the hilariously false core of libertarianism. 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. Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean",…

Saying that people who disagree with you politically must be mentally ill is ignorant and obnoxious. You follow it up by saying "there's no point in clarifying it" because there's no way you could possibly defend your opinion. If you assume your political opponents are crazy, there's no need to try to understand them. They're just cold, unthinking, unfeeling robots, right? Or they're Looney Toons, they have no grounding in reality, right? If that's the case, debating them is pointless, and there's no need to consider challenges to your own viewpoint. Assuming that people who think differently are crazy is just a way to justify intellectual laziness.

And you think the problem with libertarians is that they don't have any empathy? You're brushing aside millions of people as "basically robots" and "lacking humanity" because they have different opinions than you.

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

#85

Post by praxeologist »

lupatus wrote: post #46
praxeologist wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces) Why? This is a huge subject and text to dump on you, so sorry about this: http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

Read the section of the book _Catch-22_ where the Syndicate's pilots bomb their own airport because the Nazis outbid the Allies.

Are you talking about playing both sides as described here in ch 24? http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/section5.rhtml

If so, I would have to say it is a misconception you have if you think that is something which libertarian law approves of, to engage in war, just because it is a private subcontractor doing it.

Also, if this part from a wikipedia entry is what you are talking about, pay attention to who it is in power who forgives MM:

>However, as M&M Enterprises proves to be incredibly profitable, he hires an expensive lawyer who is able to convince the court that it was capitalism which made America great, and is absolved only by disclosing to the congressional committee investigating what the enormous profit he made by dealing with the Germans was.

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

#86

Post by grandalf »

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. Space travel, etc., is the realm of big governments, and exploration of the universe is the stuff of political hegemony.

The real world has gone way beyond that to a place where Peter Thiel is wealthy enough to fund his own space explorations. The problem for Sci-fi is that market based approaches to solving problems are a lot less glamourous than those undertaken by the state. There is also (quite often) far less drama, a simple profit motive, and rather boring incremental progress.

State actions are always impossible to disconnect from the propaganda story accompanying them. Scientific advancement, often undertaken by governments solely for the purpose of warmaking, has been the locus of much propaganda, and it wasn't until the 50s were over that the nation started to get a clue.

That said I hope someone writes a story that proves me wrong.

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

#87

Post by bjorn2404 »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #61
bjorn2404 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"get rid of all law enforcment..." Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?

No. Anarchism is against hierarchy , libertarians are against government . Libertarians are usually proprietarians (called "anarcho-capitalists" sometimes), people who think that properly-extended property relations/rights can solve every governance problem.

In the US the party (I assume the majority) is not against all government. They just want to limit government.

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

#88

Post by praxeologist »

qdog wrote: post #45
no_flags wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us do follow the logic to its necessary conclusion. We don't assume criminals will magically disappear, we just would like law and order to be provided by the free market. See below before you dismiss it as impossible. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm Edit: And I apologize for the background of that link!

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…

> 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.

So, it is therefore superior to have an accepted monopoly on the ability to arbitrate property disputes (or in other words, "be corrupt")?

Governments basically insulate themselves from being able to be sued. Look at how often the WTO finds against the US and the US just thumbs their nose at the ruling because the US is the big dog.

Also see #8 here. I wonder how long it will take on people to hit all 10:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

> For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law.

I don't get into arguments about things like cricket because I know jack shit about it. You really need to learn about what our position is first. Some libertarians even will say things like "Well, you can just boycott them!" in situations where it would be acceptable to go further and use force.

All law rests upon the ability to punish primarily. We might prefer to avoid fueding (it's certainly cheaper) but libertarian law is not toothless.

I can't make sense of the rest of what you talked about. It seems like you are mistaking the present day situation where governments have certain laws in place for a free market situation.

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

#89

Post by mindcrime »

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.

You make a good point. Have we reached a point where we've already imagined all of the wonderful things we could possibly imagine? Well, vis-a-vis technological progress anyway. I don't know, but it is a bit disconcerting to see sci-fi seemingly no longer pushing the boundaries of what might be possible.

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

#90

Post by guelo »

chrismcbride wrote: post #79
guelo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives want more government when it comes to the military, the drug war, opposing abortion, restricting civil liberties (everything the ACLU does), "tough on crime" laws, immigration, Israel...

Conservatives don't want that stuff, republicans do

There is supposed to be a difference between libertarians and conservatives.
Post reply on HN