Thiel thinks that America needs more demagogues to unite Americans in a manufactured hatred of the Chinese et al. So he's funding some of those demagogues right now.
In reality, many of America's problems are due to the unfettering of ruthless & selfish oligarchs -- like himself -- who don't have the foggiest sense of "collective social good". A paradox indeed. It's hard to not view his political activity as mere scapegoating while he continues to make billions in the most depraved of manners (e.g. Palantir).
Which is much better than Musk who's a "libertarian"; constantly posting how America should do away with regulations to Twitter.
Meanwhile he's not saying a single thing about China (except once where he simply said "China's great!") since he has a car factory there.
Really it's not hard to see most rich libertarians as completely full of shit. They want to pay less taxes and regulations for their business but they don't really show any signs of libertarianism when it comes to the most authoritarian threat to us all: China. In fact they'll happily have factories there.
Billionaires like Koch and economists fabricated libertarianism to do away with costs and pass on externalities to everyone else. It's a utopian ideology far polar opposite of Communism. What's sad is how many "smart" people fall for it because it assumes everyone plays nice and common infrastructure is cheap. It's a filter bubble warped reality that plays from an unconscious bias Upton Sinclair effect of favoring what's good for you is good for everyone or everything. I would wager every billionaire is implicitly and explicitly out-of-touch with the concerns, worries, and stresses of the homeless and working poor.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison
Since jerks and clueless idiots exist in droves, government regulation is absolutely essential to police what (greedy) people can and cannot do.
Demonzing China isn't constructive and has the optics of racism. China isn't an imminent military threat to anyone outside the South China Sea and the border with India. The US is a far greater threat with hundreds of bases worldwide. China is a larger threat ecologically because of wanton water and air (including emissions) pollution through the manufacturing of domestic and export goods. China would be wise to tax carbon, regulate air/soil/water pollution, and/or cap/trade, even if it means driving nearly slave-wages carpetbagging corporations to Africa and other parts of Asia. Even if political interests prevent particular remediation solutions, China has the advantage that it can choose to deploy evidence-based solutions at scale ahead of economic interests in a self-serving, sustainment manner.
On the face of it I'm inclined to agree, but how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now.
You want a common enemy? How about ignorance? Or poverty? Or if they're too hard, how about tackling obesity, or the prescription drug epidemic, or tackling under-employment and job security, or routing out political corruption, or mitigating the corrupting behaviour of the profit motive on the criminal justice system? Still too hard? How about uniting against crumbling infrastructure? Or tackling pollution?
I don't think America lacks for common enemies. What it lacks is the will to develop agreed strategies for those common enemies. The political structures in the US all but guarantee that that lack of unification on strategy will continue indefinitely.
Or maybe another great war could destroy civilization, and it's best not to play around it irresponsibly.
Most of our ills are coordination failures. I believe solutions are complex, because society is growing more complex.
But we also need to find ways to reinvent ourselves so that we won't fall prey to the various instabilities we are subject to -- political instabilities, environmental instabilities, even AI safety instabilities. What is needed is a clear vision of our shared goal: to maximize the well being of all conscious creatures. As long as most of our system design is not aligned with that, we will be in significant danger.
(To be honest, just existing in the long term is just so darn difficult -- something few people realize -- that even with such systems in place there are no guarantees)
> how do you know that's what is causing America's ills?
Look around. Hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering under the predatory practices of massive corporations: unnecessary debt, opioids, malnutrition, misinformation, other addictions.
> Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now.
You see this a lot with hedge fund guys too. They make a boatload of money doing a very specific thing (thiel : software :: griffin : securities trading) and think their ability in that thing gives them abilities in most other things.
Stepping back it’s fairly obvious the opposite is true. They got so good at that thing by focusing on it. Focusing on something, by definition, means not paying attention to other things. You see where this goes…
You're actually very wrong on this point at a very basic level.
You can't be really good at something by focusing only on it.
To be good at software design, you need to be good at understanding computers and people. You need to understanding programming, design, marketing, hiring, management, etc.
Scott Adams developed this into a concept he named "The Talent Stack".
You can easily verify it: find billionairs who got rich from X, study their profile, you will find they have a wide range of skills outside of X.
For any such X you can also find many individuals with exceptional ability/knowledge about X but not much else, and they are often far less successful from people with a wide range of skills.
I’ve edited this to remove the snark from my initial post where I mentioned something about being much closer to the people in question than you might guess, trying to keep conversation high quality. What do you recommend I research?
To comment on the podcast itself, I found it decently interesting but unsatisfying because the guest didn't go deeper into Thiel's thinking and ecosystem.
As someone who is interested enough in Thiel to buy a Rene Girard book, too much of this episode is 'intro' stuff.
He can say and do and present himself as this and that all he likes and everyone will run around hanging off his every word defending this and impugning that. He has money.
He has also not been hesitant to use his money to shut down Gawker by bankrolling Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit. When it became public which claims would make Gawker’s insurance pay for the defense and damages, they specifically dropped those claims so that Gawker would be responsible for the damages themselves.
Money is just one form of power, not the most powerful.
Putin for example has way more power than any wealthy Russian oligarch. They have money but they will do anything to avoid getting on Putin's bad side.
>> Money is power.
> Money is just one form of power, not the most powerful.
I've over thought this one a lot and happened on an anthropology book that confirmed my position:
Power is the ability to influence or induce action. Money is a medium of exchange which acts as a mechanism to induce economic activity. Entertainment companies, media companies, and even social media influencers have the ability to manipulate perception which may induce action. Money is an odd beast in the landscape of power because it grants access to "API's" of power. Lobbying, media buys, hiring employees, and even purchasing portions of the economy(i.e. businesses). My point, and where I agree with you, is that money, in and of itself, is not power... it is a medium through which one can express power.
Peter Thiel is a man who got lucky in the dotcom boom, expanded that fortune by merely having no shame and starting companies to spy on us for governments, laments that women get to vote, funded Trump, is now funding people to encourage war with China, bought land in New Zealand to escape to after America is ruined by himself. That HN is so fascinated by him is so disappointing. The man represents the worst of humanity in every way, we should be allied against people like him.
> That HN is so fascinated by him is so disappointing. The man represents the worst of humanity in every way, we should be allied against people like him.
Agree with the second sentence, but I'm pretty interested in Thiel because he's one of the few, and maybe only, prominent tech billionaires who does not talk in PR-speak and pretend that capitalism is benevolent.
His well known "competition is for losers" point exhibits how he candidly rejects capitalist articles of faith that are held and espoused by the dishonest and the stupid.
> we should be allied against people like him.
Oracle's Larry E is also a multi-billionaire Trump supporting right-winger, but he hides his malevolence and ideology, so there's little talk about him.
Thiel is one of the most vicious, petty hypocrites around.
Believes fiercely in free speech, but bankrolls an entire lawsuit to get revenge on a press publication that outs him.
Goes on and on about being a libertarian but his company, Palantir, is just about the worst abuser of privacy one can imagine, and then uses his connections with Trump to pardon Levandowski.
Espouses a distinctly anti-government, pro-corporate fantasy where the best in business are ostensibly the smartest and most viable leaders, yet whole-heartedly backs Trump, perhaps the least successful businessman one can name, even today and bankrolls the next wave of populist right-wing candidates who take the approach to the lowest possible denominators.
Screw him. I wouldn't take funding from any firm he's associated with.
The least successful businessman (we use business person these days) is a weak point because Hilary isn't a business person. The fact that we can name Trump means he is more successful compared to most. Libertarian doesn't mean privacy. Lawsuits are part of his speech.
The Libertarian platform literally has a section saying, “Libertarians advocate individual privacy and government transparency.” I am not sure where you got the confidence that it does not mean this, can you elaborate?
I keep seeing Thiel called a libertarian. He may have been at one time but I get the sense he has converted to national conservatism or perhaps even more extreme views such as neoreaction. Those are not libertarian views at all.
If that were the case he would not be alone. There has been a mass conversion of libertarians to those sorts of views in the 20-teens. Many others converted to the far left. It feels as if libertarianism is dead.
I don’t really know. I’m just wondering if he still calls himself that.
> perhaps even more extreme views such as neoreaction
Evidence? I have and listened to Thiel extensively and see no signs of neoreaction. In fact, he has been pretty consistent in his claims of pursuing a less violent future.
I think to the posters point, his words and actions don’t line up. If he wants a less violent future, he shouldn’t bankroll those advocating for, condoning, or downplaying violence such as zip ties and gallows at the Capitol.
I've seen the term mis-characterized, for lack of a better word. I've seen European libertarian, eastern (US) libertarian, southern (US) libertarian people describe their beliefs all in vastly different ways. Some I'd characterize as heavily socialist, some heavily.... right, some heavily left, some just as a "alternative" to two main US parties.
A lot of people I know who call themselves libertarians - not all, but the loudest - are what I would describe as opportunistic freedom-warriors when it suits their purposes. Pointing out to them the degree to which their safety and prosperity is being safeguarded by the government they think unnecessary just results in cognitive dissonance for them: They can't accept it emotionally. So they live in a fantasy where they believe they ultimately control every aspect of their own destiny, and where everyone else must be a fool, but their political views are not much more than a series of post-justifications for being fairly lousy human beings.
As I understand the taxonomy, Libertarians are more closely aligned with anarcho-capitalists, to the point where I tend to consider them equivalent.
Anarcho-capitalists believe in the primacy of property rights above all else. It is a system which explicitly requires an enforcement mechanism - such as, ideally, a private police system, with the right to use force against citizens to protect the rights of property holders.
Anarchism is in general a utopian (but IMO idealistic, and intrinsically unstable) system where no person has authority over any other. There can be no police force because everyone has effectively the same rights. (There are lots of variations on this general theme). Anarchism has a bad reputation (the reasons for this are in themselves interesting) but by definition it is anti-authoritarian.
I personally think that most libertarians I’ve met are actually anarcho-capitalists, and not anarchists. Despite sounding alike, the two systems could hardly be more different.
Readit News
In reality, many of America's problems are due to the unfettering of ruthless & selfish oligarchs -- like himself -- who don't have the foggiest sense of "collective social good". A paradox indeed. It's hard to not view his political activity as mere scapegoating while he continues to make billions in the most depraved of manners (e.g. Palantir).
Meanwhile he's not saying a single thing about China (except once where he simply said "China's great!") since he has a car factory there.
Really it's not hard to see most rich libertarians as completely full of shit. They want to pay less taxes and regulations for their business but they don't really show any signs of libertarianism when it comes to the most authoritarian threat to us all: China. In fact they'll happily have factories there.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison
Since jerks and clueless idiots exist in droves, government regulation is absolutely essential to police what (greedy) people can and cannot do.
Demonzing China isn't constructive and has the optics of racism. China isn't an imminent military threat to anyone outside the South China Sea and the border with India. The US is a far greater threat with hundreds of bases worldwide. China is a larger threat ecologically because of wanton water and air (including emissions) pollution through the manufacturing of domestic and export goods. China would be wise to tax carbon, regulate air/soil/water pollution, and/or cap/trade, even if it means driving nearly slave-wages carpetbagging corporations to Africa and other parts of Asia. Even if political interests prevent particular remediation solutions, China has the advantage that it can choose to deploy evidence-based solutions at scale ahead of economic interests in a self-serving, sustainment manner.
That's not my impression, nor is there any mention of the word in the Wikipedia on his political views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Elon_Musk#Political_p...
I don't think America lacks for common enemies. What it lacks is the will to develop agreed strategies for those common enemies. The political structures in the US all but guarantee that that lack of unification on strategy will continue indefinitely.
Most of our ills are coordination failures. I believe solutions are complex, because society is growing more complex.
But we also need to find ways to reinvent ourselves so that we won't fall prey to the various instabilities we are subject to -- political instabilities, environmental instabilities, even AI safety instabilities. What is needed is a clear vision of our shared goal: to maximize the well being of all conscious creatures. As long as most of our system design is not aligned with that, we will be in significant danger.
(To be honest, just existing in the long term is just so darn difficult -- something few people realize -- that even with such systems in place there are no guarantees)
Look around. Hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering under the predatory practices of massive corporations: unnecessary debt, opioids, malnutrition, misinformation, other addictions.
> Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now.
AIPAC is far too powerful for that to happen.
Dead Comment
Stepping back it’s fairly obvious the opposite is true. They got so good at that thing by focusing on it. Focusing on something, by definition, means not paying attention to other things. You see where this goes…
You can't be really good at something by focusing only on it.
To be good at software design, you need to be good at understanding computers and people. You need to understanding programming, design, marketing, hiring, management, etc.
Scott Adams developed this into a concept he named "The Talent Stack".
You can easily verify it: find billionairs who got rich from X, study their profile, you will find they have a wide range of skills outside of X.
For any such X you can also find many individuals with exceptional ability/knowledge about X but not much else, and they are often far less successful from people with a wide range of skills.
As someone who is interested enough in Thiel to buy a Rene Girard book, too much of this episode is 'intro' stuff.
Money is power. Power is money.
This is an article from the NYT before they knew it was financed by Thiel: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/business/dealbook/gawker-...
Money is just one form of power, not the most powerful.
Putin for example has way more power than any wealthy Russian oligarch. They have money but they will do anything to avoid getting on Putin's bad side.
I've over thought this one a lot and happened on an anthropology book that confirmed my position:
Power is the ability to influence or induce action. Money is a medium of exchange which acts as a mechanism to induce economic activity. Entertainment companies, media companies, and even social media influencers have the ability to manipulate perception which may induce action. Money is an odd beast in the landscape of power because it grants access to "API's" of power. Lobbying, media buys, hiring employees, and even purchasing portions of the economy(i.e. businesses). My point, and where I agree with you, is that money, in and of itself, is not power... it is a medium through which one can express power.
Agree with the second sentence, but I'm pretty interested in Thiel because he's one of the few, and maybe only, prominent tech billionaires who does not talk in PR-speak and pretend that capitalism is benevolent.
His well known "competition is for losers" point exhibits how he candidly rejects capitalist articles of faith that are held and espoused by the dishonest and the stupid.
> we should be allied against people like him.
Oracle's Larry E is also a multi-billionaire Trump supporting right-winger, but he hides his malevolence and ideology, so there's little talk about him.
Believes fiercely in free speech, but bankrolls an entire lawsuit to get revenge on a press publication that outs him.
Goes on and on about being a libertarian but his company, Palantir, is just about the worst abuser of privacy one can imagine, and then uses his connections with Trump to pardon Levandowski.
Espouses a distinctly anti-government, pro-corporate fantasy where the best in business are ostensibly the smartest and most viable leaders, yet whole-heartedly backs Trump, perhaps the least successful businessman one can name, even today and bankrolls the next wave of populist right-wing candidates who take the approach to the lowest possible denominators.
Screw him. I wouldn't take funding from any firm he's associated with.
If that were the case he would not be alone. There has been a mass conversion of libertarians to those sorts of views in the 20-teens. Many others converted to the far left. It feels as if libertarianism is dead.
I don’t really know. I’m just wondering if he still calls himself that.
Evidence? I have and listened to Thiel extensively and see no signs of neoreaction. In fact, he has been pretty consistent in his claims of pursuing a less violent future.
https://reason.com/2020/08/02/wait-wasnt-peter-thiel-a-liber...
Dead Comment
In which case it seems entirely possible to be a libertarian and have strong personal beliefs of wildly different flavors.
Libertarians also have the specific problem that we attract a disproportionate number of people who hate everything...
Anarcho-capitalists believe in the primacy of property rights above all else. It is a system which explicitly requires an enforcement mechanism - such as, ideally, a private police system, with the right to use force against citizens to protect the rights of property holders.
Anarchism is in general a utopian (but IMO idealistic, and intrinsically unstable) system where no person has authority over any other. There can be no police force because everyone has effectively the same rights. (There are lots of variations on this general theme). Anarchism has a bad reputation (the reasons for this are in themselves interesting) but by definition it is anti-authoritarian.
I personally think that most libertarians I’ve met are actually anarcho-capitalists, and not anarchists. Despite sounding alike, the two systems could hardly be more different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism