See addendum to the essay at bottom: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
Lazy editing by the NYT.
This isn't an article by the NYT. It's an opinion piece by someone unrelated to the newspaper:
Jonathan Taplin is the director emeritus of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Innovation Lab and the author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.”
The NYT chose to publish this in full. They bear responsibility for what they choose to put on their pages.
No. Newspapers don't "bear responsibility" for opinion sections or letters to the editor.
They publish them because they find the opinions relevant, not because they condone or support the content. The NYT frequently published highly opposing opinions together.
It has been like that for decades, if not centuries, in pretty much every single newspaper in the world.
It's a difficult fact to discern but still a statement of fact that shouldn't be made without evidence, in this world where people are fired because the media claims they think that.
Yes, a fact which can't be directly observed, and it is the author's opinion that Thiel thinks that.
And remember, "Thiel saying he doesn't think that" doesn't prove that he doesn't think, only that he says he doesn't think.
You are wrong in US law; the burden of proof for falsity is on the plaintiff.
Of course, the standard of proof in most civil cases is only preponderance of the evidence, so you only need more convincing evidence than the defense has, but the burden is still on the plaintiff.
And for a public figure on a matter of concern, you have to also prove that the defendant knew the statement to be false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth.
> The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.
http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defens...
But if these jury instructions are correct and up to date, California remains one of the states where truth is an affirmative defense.
> [Name of defendant] is not responsible for [name of plaintiff]’s harm, if any, if [he/she] proves that [his/her] statement(s) about [name of plaintiff] [was/were] true. [Name of defendant] does not have to prove that the statement(s) [was/were] true in every detail, so long as the statement(s) [was/were] substantially true.
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1700/1720...
Of course, this is for private plaintiffs on matters of private concern. If Peter Thiel was ruled a public figure, libel would be essentially impossible to prove.
This suggest not that HE DOESN'T want them to be taken away, but he sees he has no chance of trying to take them away.
Not that this suggest he DOES WANT that, but it certainly doesn't suggest that he DEFINITELY DOES not want them taken away.
I agree that including more constituent groups in a democracy makes its administration more complex. But that doesn't make it impossible, and it definitely doesn't make the whole worse-off.
I guess I disagree with Thiel that it makes our system, "capitalist democracy", impossible. We're living it. It's complicated -- but when has government ever been simple in history?
I find his claims of libertarianism as being free from the typical struggles of politics to be extremely out of touch.
Being wealthy can free you from politics, until you start to get interested in it, and then you're in the thick of it just like everyone else.
Also, his "humble" suggestion that others call his projects "utopian", is simply exactly what political candidates say. "I can build your future, just give me your support". I dread the day the public swallows this lie from the likes of Thiel or Musk. It'll be worse than 2017.
That does seem to be increasingly true.
People can debate all day over whether America's current system is sustainable. When they start to suggest the inclusion of the female vote is part of the reason for that, they're understandably going to face some backlash, regardless of whatever corrections they make in the future. What he wrote is clear enough, and his correction can be understood by conservatives to be insincere, since it was forced on him by the mainstream view.
Why is it wrong to speak the truth?
> Why is it wrong to speak the truth?
One could argue that some degree of voting against extreme capitalists has allowed capitalism to endure.
Women got the vote 100 years ago, and America still has the dominant marketplace in the world.
Capitalism has expanded across the world since that time. Even China has largely embraced capitalism.
Nothing is wrong with speaking either a truth or a theory.
However, what you put forward isn't based on any research and sounds more like a stereotype, or your personal experience, than an objective truth backed by science.
In those cases, there can be more than meets the eye.