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

1–10 of 110 posts

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

#4

Post by calinet6 »

"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 are careful at the same time, so I’m not even going to try to debate this point.”"

This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is 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.

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

#5

Post by DanielBMarkham »

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 the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying.

If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.

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

#7

Post by dantheman »

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 libertarian argument against seat belt legislation is that it was pre-optimization. We are locked into a design, and there is very little experimentation. By deviating from the bare minimum you expose yourself to risk.

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

#8

Post by TimPC »

chrismealy wrote: post #6

And no girls: http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...

It's good press to put inflammatory words in someones mouth. It's a far step from suggesting a causal link between two constituencies and what Thiel views as political regress and advocating the disenfranchisement of women. In fact, Thiel doesn't, he advocates the abandonment of politics as the vehicle for solving problems, which is something quite different.

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

#10

Post by moldbug »

chrismealy wrote: post #6

And no girls: http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...

I've never understood why anyone gets so hung up on their "right to vote." Why should women have the right to vote? Why should anyone have the right to vote?

In what possible conceivable sense is political power a "human right?" Is it a moral right, like the right not to be beaten with sticks? Or is it an instrumental right, ie, a political engineering mechanism designed to produce good government? Or both?

If I moved to London, say, I'd find myself obeying a government in no way responsible to me. I don't see at all how this would be anything like being beaten with sticks. But then, maybe it's just me.

Whereas if democracy is an engineering mechanism, it's a pretty freakin' strange one, you've got to admit. Would you expect it to produce good results? Is it producing good results? Well, see, there ya go.

Post reply on HN