With New Zealand citizenship, Peter Thiel can watch the world burn in peace
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
- Palantir
- Valar Ventures
- Mithril Capital Management
- Lembas LLC
- Rivendell One LLC
That said, Thiel's end-of-the-world scenario is almost certainly some fantasy about going Galt. He's not worried about the world under Trump the way many of us are.
It's amazing how easy nerds are to distract from the true implications of the work they do.
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri
At the end of Appearance and Properties, it is suggested that Gandalf himself claimed that false images or information could not be transmitted by the Palantiri, only suggestions via the selection of what information to show.
And yeah, I do think it's a bit of a problem that the United States doesn't have any real civil defense infrastructure in place although realistically geography largely insulates the United States from conventional military attack and so there's much less practical need for such options compared to countries in other regions.
I might be misunderstanding you, but The National Guard doesn't count?
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like you bought the article's narrative hook, line and sinker. I saw no evidence that Peter got NZ citizenship as an "escape pod". It was purely conjecture on the author's part.
There are many reasons for getting citizenship in another country. Maybe you want to retire there? Maybe it makes business dealings easier? Maybe you can't own property without it?
I also have a problem with the notion that the only freedom that matters is economic. As I see it, the goal of Thiel and his fellow-travelers is feudalism.
In any case, the Trump program seems to have little to do with freedom, even by that stunted definition, for very many people[1]. To the extent that we're seeing much coherency, it seems the program is to restrict the movement of labor, further free the mobility of capital, attack freedom of speech and give the hard-right a free hand for their social-engineering plans to attempt to construct a 1950s that never existed.
[1] I'll probably see a small tax break, but I'm likely the only one in my family who will. Most of them are regaining the freedom to once again do without routine medical care. Any tax break I do see will be donated to Planned Parenthood.
Wrong, it is freedom to do whatever you want with your property while freely associating with others.
>In any case, the Trump program seems to have little to do with freedom, even by that stunted definition, for very many people.
I disagree, and I will explain why.
>restrict the movement of labor
Protecting national borders and addressing illegal immigration should be done anyhow. Aside from allowing easier legal immigration from Europe, I don't remember Trump has saying much about restrictions on legal immigration. We'll have to see.
>free the mobility of capital
He talked about tariffs a lot, I would disagree about this.
>attack freedom of speech
Interestingly enough, libertarians that agree with Thiel feel freer now since political correctness is no longer the dominant doctrine [1].
>the hard-right a free hand for their social-engineering plans to attempt to construct a 1950s that never existed
Not sure what "hard-right" means for you, but what I read from here is that any social engineering from the right wing is wrong while the same thing from the left is okay.
>Any tax break I do see will be donated to Planned Parenthood.
You have the freedom to support the institutions you care about, as you should. Other people shouldn't be forced to do the same.
[1] https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/10/ideological-purge-curtis-...
You're adding in free association, which I accept. I still find that a massively stunted definition, which omits many important freedoms.
> Protecting national borders and addressing illegal immigration should be done anyhow.
...Which restricts freedom of association and the movement of labor.
> He talked about tariffs a lot, I would disagree about this.
Sure, flashy protectionist silliness. We'll see what congress allows there.
> Not sure what "hard-right" means for you, but what I read from here is that any social engineering from the right wing is wrong while the same thing from the left is okay.
Interesting that you don't deny it, at least. 'Hard right' to me includes many of his appointees and vice president.
> Interestingly enough, libertarians that agree with Thiel feel freer now since political correctness is no longer the dominant doctrine
Interestingly enough, libertarians hurt feelings (billionaire or not) have little to do with freedom of speech. You're talking about freedom of consequence from one's speech; in other words, the consequences of saying things that offend others[1]. I'm talking about the threats to "loosen up libel law" (which isn't going to work very well for technical reasons, but nonetheless), the desire to beat the press into submission, etc.
In other words, I'm talking about freedom of speech, not people whining about other people talking back.
[1] I don't know when "political correctness" has ever been "the dominant doctrine"; perhaps other people feel much more threatened by whiny college kids than I do. In any case, if someone can't handle the marketplace of ideas, I tend to think they should toughen up a mite to stick to their preferred media bubble.
True. In a libertarian society everything would be private and borders wouldn't exist, they would be handled on the basis of no trespassing on private property. In that case, you can have it all.
>'Hard right' to me includes many of his appointees and vice president.
Well, I find them to be on the left from e.g. Ron and Rand Paul, so for my taste they are not particularly right wing. I am concerned with authoritarianism coming from any side of the political spectrum (in case there was any doubt about it).
>Interestingly enough, libertarians hurt feelings (billionaire or not) have little to do with freedom of speech. You're talking about freedom of consequence from one's speech; in other words, the consequences of saying things that offend others. I'm talking about the threats to "loosen up libel law" (which isn't going to work very well for technical reasons, but nonetheless), the desire to beat the press into submission, etc.
Good point. Judging from #GamerGate and censorship on GitHub (private entity, sure they can legally do it, that's beside the point) [1], I would say PC was hitting quite hard (and to an extent still is, but hopefully not for long). I personally don't subscribe to it and invite others to do the same. The interventions into freedom of association under the guise of non-discrimination and forced equality should be criticized openly. As Pat Buchanan said: "Where equality is enthroned, freedom is extinguished. The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society."
We'll see what Trump does about the press. I personally wouldn't support libel laws of any kind, but I understand the argument behind them. Right now, I don't mind him bashing the press as hard as he does and I don't mind press bashing him either, the free market will decide whether people want such narrative to exist or not.
It's more like an escape pod for the rocket he's strapped the rest of us into against our will.
Who woulda thunk.
The only thing that Thiel does different from others is to actually take second citizenship in a civilized country instead of just going to some tax haven in the carribean or malta/cyprus where you can pay for citizenship.
If you're working for or directly influencing government, though, you potentially have a conflict of interest. That's why you can't become President if you were not born a US citizen, and why Ted Cruz resigned his Canadian citizenship even though he technically didn't have to.
Easy to get them mixed up, I know :)
Edit: just one link i found right away - https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerati...:
Potentially Expatriating Acts:
1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon one's own application after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);[edit] Quick research turned up a bunch of low key contradictions. There are a number of pieces of legislation that assume us-citizen and foreign national are mutually exclusive. Some other bits take dual citizenship into account.
In theory there are a bunch of points where it could be argued that you cannot hold dual citizenship but in practice it doesn't seem to be an issue.
On the other hand it seems fairy clear that some positions, and security clearances require absence of foreign national status (Even then with a little wiggle room, If you've never asked-for or made-use-of foreign national status you can pretend it didn't happen)
EDIT: to address your edit - you need to look at the wording of the relevant INA section which includes "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality". That's the key part, you have to have the intent to abandon your US citizenship. I know plenty of US-born people who hold dual citizenship so it is definitely possible.
> if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality
It looks like intent to renounce US needs to be explicit, not just implicitly inferred by performing the act.
Many countries court investment in these ways.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/why-does-peter-thiel-...
It really isn't. The onus is on you to explain why it's so clearly an escape plan, when even the article acknowledges both that NZ is a tax haven and that Thiel gained citizenship before the election. Why should he throw US citizenship away? Dual citizenship is cool.
Ah well, maybe those upper deck passengers on the Titanic were right - they paid so much for their tickets that they deserved their place on the lifeboats over everyone else...
Insinuating that he did it as a doomsday plan because of Trump is clearly manipulative.
I needed to share this because I always found difficult to swallow, that a libertarian would have Washington as his biggest customer. I wish it will help my libertarian friends to understand that Thiel is more about himself than freeing people.
PS:Can some admin or anyone else why is this flagged?
I feel that's very relevant. Peter Thiel clearly has more than enough money to help stop whatever he's afraid of happening in the US, and he has the connections to other people with money that can help as well. Yet, here he is, trying to run away instead of doing the right thing.
Peter Thiel is worth about $2.7bn [1]. That's a lot, but not enough to stop political momentum. It is enough to warrant the common practice of back-up citizenship.
(I am curious how he procured New Zealand citizenship, though.)
Max Levchin is the guy with the homeless shelters. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-f...
Personally I'm sympathetic to both perspectives. I'd rather give up most of my money than be the king of the wasteland. But if you've already spent, say, 20% of your fortune on reducing poverty is it wrong to spend 1% on personal insurance?
the pain in the ass it would have been for him to spend 240 days a year there for 5 years before being granted citizenship, sheesh.
although if things go south here, he might want to trade his currency in for NZ bucks before the hyper inflation kicks in. the government probably won't want someone with monopoly money taking up that prime real estate, ya know?
I don't agree with all of Thiel's actions or beliefs but he's getting singled out for being different. Anyone with billions of dollars is gonna be able to pack up and sit high and tidy in case of disaster. Someone with homes spread across several states or countries and the money to buy their own security and healthcare has the same opportunities and and no reason to be loyal to any given state, anyway, but we are not forming online lynch mobs to get them.
It's a horrific thing when Iranian PhD students might be banned from the country (yes) but fuck Thiel for being a citizen of the world. Huh?
Also, those students are getting banned thanks to Thiel's work in getting them banned, so there's that.
He may have purchased the NZ citizenship for tax purposes, or so he could buy this "sensitive land." Neither of which are going to win him a Humanitarian Of The Year award, but neither do they indicate that he foresees or is trying to bring about an economic catastrophe in the United States.
The article suggests Thiel acquired the citizenship before Trump was elected - is it not possible given Thiel's political views that he was ready to leave the country given other events or another electee?
It's only an "escape hatch" because people are calling it that.
If Thiel had been opposed to Trump and sought secondary citizenship elsewhere, he wouldn't be receiving so much flak.
[0] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2017/01/25/peter-thiel-o...
What a hero.