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

91–100 of 110 posts

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

#91

Post by cpher »

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.

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

#92

Post by mkramlich »

mindcrime wrote: post #62
hindsightbias wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue.

The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue Very few, if any, libertarians believe that "the world is comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors." Some consequentialist libertarians whose arguments for the libertarian position are rooted in economics might almost argue that, but deontological libertarians hold to libertarian princ…

> And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government.

But you don't see the good things done by government? And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government? See, this is the flaw I think a lot of mono-ideological folks have: the cherry picking of which good things to weigh most and/or which bad things to ignore. I personally resonate with a lot of libertarian positions. But I also resonate with a lot of socialist positions, and government-is-good positions. (I think) I'm pragmatic. I'd almost not trust someone who isn't pragmatic.

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

#93

Post by mkramlich »

praxeologist wrote: post #43
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would need empathy to do that, or at least a basic understanding of human nature. That's pretty unlikely, given that they seem to lack the hardware for that. > Someone who has known him for more than a decade said, “He’s very cerebral, and I’m not sure how much value he places on the more intimate human emotions. I’ve never seen him express them. It’s certainly not the most developed aspect of his personality.”…

You are mistaking what he is saying. People say things like "France's gold", but France doesn't have gold. Only the individuals who also identify themselves as French, or are determined to be French by law, do.

Indeed. I'd even argue that France doesn't actually exist. People exist. The Earth exists. Objects exist. But "France" is just a concept and a set of traditions that a (rather large) number of people choose to talk about and believe in. But it has no independent existance. You cannot see France from space. If everyone's minds were wiped tonight and then we woke up tomorrow and got out of bed it would be as if France didn't exist. Beds would still exist. Food would still exist, our bodies, buildings, vehicles, etc.

Also the idea that only nation states are sovereign could be argued to be a combination of a benign constructive social conceit AND also a cognitive tool designed by elites to control the masses. Both of these things can be true at the same time. I'm not arguing that anarchy is a good thing. But something like it IS the natural state of affairs, physically speaking. And the only reason people tend to prefer something other than anarchy is when they see the relative benefits. But the alternatives to anarchy (families, tribes, cities, nations) are things we choose to do, we choose to engage in, and choose to go along with. Just as millions and perhaps billions of people choose to go along with the idea that France exists and is a sovereign entity. But let's never forget this is only true to the extent that enough (of the right) people want it to be true. And that can change.

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

#94

Post by cpher »

mindcrime wrote: post #67
qdog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Deadwoo…

FWIW, I'm very much a libertarian and spend a lot of time with other libertarians, and I don't know a single one who would contend that "ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals". What we might contend is that the current system doesn't do much to stop criminal from being criminals and probably (actually, almost certainly) creates even more criminals, and has al…

I agree. A "libertarian world" is nothing like a utopia, and that's the point. It's a world left up to the people, not to a group of political elite. Critics might argue that this further separates the haves from the have-nots. That could happen, but when compared to the haves/have-nots in other systems, I'll gladly choose one based on maximizing individual freedom.

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

#95

Post by mkramlich »

Retric wrote: post #36
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

The problem with saying your a pragmatic X is X becomes meaningless, your just pragmatic 98% of the time. It's only the 'meaningless' edge cases where you revert to whatever X is. See: How the 'communist party' deals with the Chinese economy. PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.

> PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.

I see this pattern in actual experience:

"PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with [crime-ridden, lack-of-self-control-prone] areas vs [peaceful, quiet, classy] areas in the same state."

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

#96

Post by mindcrime »

mkramlich wrote: post #92
mindcrime wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue Very few, if any, libertarians believe that "the world is comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors." Some consequentialist libertarians whose arguments for the libertarian position are rooted in economics might almost argue that, but deontological libertarians hold to libertarian princ…

> And quite a few of us hold to libertarian positions because we've seen the damage caused by government. But you don't see the good things done by government? And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government? See, this is the flaw I think a lot of mono-ideological folks have: the cherry picking of which good things to weigh most and/or w…

But you don't see the good things done by government?

Yes, and there's an important point about that... being opposed to "government" does not necessarily mean being opposed to all communal / collective action. It's just that governments are unique institutions in that they reserve for themselves a virtual monopoly on the use of force, and most of what they do is not optional. I believe that most of the good part of what comes from government as we know it today can be achieved through people choosing, voluntarily, to work together. The difference would be that the various communes and collectives that libertarians talk about, would not be able to mandate participation at the point of a gun barrel.

And you don't see the damage caused by businesses and private individuals independently from and/or in the absence of government?

I see certain individuals and/or businesses causing harm even in the face of government as we know it today. I'm not convinced that the situation would be considerably worse under a libertarian model, and - more to the point - I believe that freedom is it's own end, and justifies whatever negative consequences arise from it.

I guess it's hard to explain to anybody who isn't a libertarian, but people like us feel the whole "live free or die" thing, and just absolutely recoil at being denied the freedom to live without the constant interjection of coercive force / aggression into our lives. It's probably partly genetic or something...

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

#97

Post by ninguem2 »

tjic wrote: post #54
hindsightbias wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The day a libertarian realizes the world is not comprised of sets of well meaning rational actors is the day they get a clue.

The day a believer in government realizes that he's voting in an elaborate charade where the Coke and Pepsi parties both deliver pretty much identical taxing, spending, and war making, and the ones who win every election are the politicians and government employees is the day the get a clue.

The day an American realizes that there is a world outside the US where governments actually do good for their people is the day that they get a clue.

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

#98

Post by daniel-cussen »

dxbydt wrote: post #22
joshuahedlund wrote: post #3

How many digits does the number 125100 have? Two hundred and ten. They mean 125^100. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=125%5E100

In Indian high schools, you are supposed to memorize a ton of "useless" shit like atomic weights of 50+ elements in the periodic table, logs upto 20, exponentials, factorials, avogardo constant & tons of physics constants like g and speed of light & sound & diffraction constants & the like. So from the age of 12,I happen to know that log 5 is 0.7 Ergo, log(125^100) = 300log(5) = 210, hence 210 digits in 125^100. But…

Try wolfram alpha/siri for that one. No way they'd figure out how to do it on a calculator.

Having said that I kind of envy your Indian schooling, that's some important information right there, and I've learned a lot of it over time for my own projects.

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

#99

Post by lupatus »

praxeologist wrote: post #85
lupatus wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for that link! It has been 15 years since I read Catch 22 and I don't happen to own a copy right now.

Yes, that is exactly the section of which I was thinking.

I didn't intend my comment to mean that libertarian law approves of mercenaries or for-hire militaries (honestly, I'm not sure what "libertarian" law's stance on the topic is). I merely meant it as illustrative of the inherent problems associated with mercenaries, privateers, and rogue for-hire military forces to the body politic - that these forces owe their loyalty not necessarily to the nation, but to the highest bidder.

And, M&M Enterprises was not exactly a private subcontractor, as I understand it, but an international cooperative of soldiers who switched loyalty from their respective national forces to the cooperative for their own mutual benefit.

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

#100

Post by DividesByZero »

I can understand how one might come to be a libertarian: through disillusionment with the government of the day, one comes to believe government itself is the problem rather than its particular form. The problem at the core of libertarianism is the slavish belief that the 'free market' is somehow guaranteed to produce results beneficial to society as a whole, or in the more sociopathic cases (which I suspect are the majority), benefit for themselves at the expense of others in a way that government cannot.

This argument neglects the fact that there does not exist any such beast as the 'free market' except in the platonic form - real transcational characteristics of goods and services, as well as the characteristics of the medium of exchange, always lead to a particular form of market emerging. Specifically, because of the fact that capital compounds capital - it is in the very nature of unregulated markets to concentrate resources in the hands of a few.

Why should we therefore be satisfied with 'free' markets that lead to enormous concentrations of resources in the hands of small numbers of individuals, far skewed away from the distributions of human ability according to measures of intelligence, aptitude or what have you? A market is a physical system to be engineered to produce the social outcome of most benefit. How you decide what is of 'most benefit' has some contention, but I'm pretty sure concentrating resources created by a majority in the hands of a minority is not it.

Post reply on HN