Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
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.
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.
There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall.
Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Edit: And I apologize for the background of that link!
For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law. Also, I, as a matter of principle, will attempt at all costs not to pre-sign anything that required binding arbitration requiring me to give up my right to seek redress in court. It is my understanding the entity that goes through these 'pay for courts' the most form relationships with the mediators/arbitrators and have a much higher chance of winning cases.
Also, the forced mediation is a remedy suggested by the courts themselves, so I don't really think that's the market version. Many companies already attempt to require binding arbitration, which is what empirically appears to be the preferred form of 'marketized law'. So far in the real world, it appears to be heavily weighted against the rights of individuals seeking redress against wealthy corporations. Also, it is always backed up by the force of law, not just good will.
That said, there are times when I might enter into binding arbitration, but not unless I have decided it's better for me than the courts, I don't care to have the companies I do business with deciding that for me.
The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly convinced that free market law could never work. It's a bit hard to summarize the article so don't accept qdog's TL;DR at face value without reading it yourself.
My TL;DR, quoting from the article's conclusion: "The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly."
I'm not saying that there aren't valid points brought up by Libertarians, just that most of the theories are not feasible in the real world. Education, for instance, if there is no state-sponsored alternative (it is an alternative, we have private and home schooling in every state as far as I know), the people who have to work for a living often do not educate their children (my wife has an aunt who cannot read or write because her parents worked and she was put to work at an early age, so that's what has always happened in history). Yes, that's their choice, but not always the choice of the children, and uneducated masses are not likely to be able to live and make rational decisions in a society.
The law is imperfect, but throughout history civilization has been in a struggle to reduce oppression. Based on history I can't really see how removing laws would do anything but allow some 'bad actors' to acquire more power for oppression.
Anyways, based on the ability reason about things, maybe you aren't a libertarian, maybe you're a liberal and just don't know it ;)
Thanks for being civil, though, I don't mind having to read a bit (although that was just too many pages for me), and I've surely picked up some bit of knowledge.
So, it is therefore superior to have an accepted monopoly on the ability to arbitrate property disputes (or in other words, "be corrupt")?
Governments basically insulate themselves from being able to be sued. Look at how often the WTO finds against the US and the US just thumbs their nose at the ruling because the US is the big dog.
Also see #8 here. I wonder how long it will take on people to hit all 10:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
> For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law.
I don't get into arguments about things like cricket because I know jack shit about it. You really need to learn about what our position is first. Some libertarians even will say things like "Well, you can just boycott them!" in situations where it would be acceptable to go further and use force.
All law rests upon the ability to punish primarily. We might prefer to avoid fueding (it's certainly cheaper) but libertarian law is not toothless.
I can't make sense of the rest of what you talked about. It seems like you are mistaking the present day situation where governments have certain laws in place for a free market situation.
1) The market fully defined by exchanges underwritten by currency (read: a fluid medium of exchange).
2) Value can be assigned to anything and is therefore finite in all circumstances.
But there is a singularity where it all breaks down:
The value of one's life is infinite. Without it, no other value matters. If I could give you $10 trillion but I kill you 60 seconds afterward, what value does it have?
One's life cannot be underwritten by currency because currency is finite. Therefore the market as defined as an exchange of value underwritten by currency is inadequate for any exchange where one's continued life is a factor.
That is demonstrably false. Everyone of us could, at a cost, reduce his chance of dying tomorrow.
Edit: Which is to say, I don't think you demonstrated that statement is false.
What is 1% of infinity?
Each individual must make an approximation.
What is a good approximation for infinity value for an 18 y.o. with a high school diploma?
If they were perfectly rational, it would be the present value of all expected future earnings.
Such a calculation would make taking a job as an oil platform underwater welder make sense.
Trouble is, it is only a convenient approximation. It can expand to fit any circumstance.
So if you own, say, a trading company worth $10 billion and you hire someone (or some entity) to be in charge of protecting your life, the substrate on which all of that value rests for you, you've just handed them a check for $9 billion plus the present value of all of your expected future earnings and asked them to keep good care of it.
How do you think a perfectly rational actor would respond?
Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?
From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way.
I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles.
The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
Not necessarily. When you get to the most radical edges of libertarianism, you find the anarcho-capitalist types who are (depending on who you ask) a type of anarchist. Libertarians who hold to a strict adherence to the "NIF Principle"[1] are opposed to most of what passes for law enforcement in contemporary society since it largely involves initiation of force and isn't for self-defense.
which a lot of libertarians subscribe to.
"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 all sorts of unintended consequences in the process... We might also contend that modern day law enforcement is largely reactive and does very little to stop crimes from happening, and that individuals should take on some degree of personal responsibility in terms of protecting themselves and their property.
I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life)
Yeah, few libertarians contend that a "libertarian world" would be a "libertarian utopia" (as our detractors like to suggest)... we just argue that it would be a great deal better than the current system in many ways, and perhaps worse in some ways... but that the gain in freedom more than makes up for whatever failings such a society would have.
To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.
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 principles because they believe that the initiation of force or fraud is simply immoral.
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.
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...
> 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.” The friend added, “There are some irreconcilable elements that remain unreconciled in him”—a reference to Thiel’s being both Christian and gay, two facts that get no mention in his public utterances and are barely acknowledged in his private conversations. Though he is known for his competitiveness, he has an equally pronounced aversion to conflict. As chief executive of PayPal, which counted its users with a “world domination index,” Thiel avoided the personal friction that comes with managing people by delegating those responsibilities. Similarly, he hired from a small pool of like-minded friends, because “figuring out how well people work together would have been really difficult.”
> Thiel liked to quote Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.”
Restated: "I hate debating smart people, because I spout over-generalized bullshit, and they call me on it".
... as if families, themselves, weren't each a kind of small society.
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.
I can play this game too! You should maybe try one day a week where you don't act like a condescending prick. You might find it liberating.
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."
In general I think arguments about the Peltzman effect in transportation are not that convincing.
If they were discussing the requirement to wear seat belts by the government/the requirement to add them to cars, Thiel would have responded quite differently.
edit, grammar mistake.
Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean", you're likely one of them, or pretty close. There's no point in clarifying it, it's like describing the color red to a blind person.
The article does confirm the stereotypical image of the libertarian-as-a-robot.
And you think the problem with libertarians is that they don't have any empathy? You're brushing aside millions of people as "basically robots" and "lacking humanity" because they have different opinions than you.
We all have varying degrees of empathy and ability to understand and act on the intentions and emotions of others, but those of us who are on the lowest end of the empathy scale tend toward libertarian ideals. It is no coincidence.
Now, sure, some libertarians are non-empathetic assholes who don't give a shit about their fellow man. But that's a tautology when applied to any group. But nothing about being libertarian means you have to be an asshole, or an uncaring robot or any of those things.
FTFY.
A world does not exist where either of these extreme models are true.
You know, I think he's on to something there. Modern sci-fi really doesn't seem to have a whole lot left to say about potential advances in technology, and the tone does seem to have shifted away from the optimism of yesteryear. The best new scifi I've read lately was a post-apocalyptic zombie story trilogy, for crying out loud.
His comment resonated with me as well. However I think there's a libertarian explanation for the decline of Utopian Sci-Fi. It existed out of a general optimism about problems too large for a ragtag group of individualists to solve. Space travel, etc., is the realm of big governments, and exploration of the universe is the stuff of political hegemony.
The real world has gone way beyond that to a place where Peter Thiel is wealthy enough to fund his own space explorations. The problem for Sci-fi is that market based approaches to solving problems are a lot less glamourous than those undertaken by the state. There is also (quite often) far less drama, a simple profit motive, and rather boring incremental progress.
State actions are always impossible to disconnect from the propaganda story accompanying them. Scientific advancement, often undertaken by governments solely for the purpose of warmaking, has been the locus of much propaganda, and it wasn't until the 50s were over that the nation started to get a clue.
That said I hope someone writes a story that proves me wrong.
What a sad view of the world!
Artistic creativity is boundless.
You make a good point. Have we reached a point where we've already imagined all of the wonderful things we could possibly imagine? Well, vis-a-vis technological progress anyway. I don't know, but it is a bit disconcerting to see sci-fi seemingly no longer pushing the boundaries of what might be possible.
Facebook IPO. SpaceX. RelayRides & AirBnB liability concerns. Google & Apple taking over the world, etc...
They mean 125^100.
But I do wonder - do schoolkids these days memorize this trivia or do they just reach for a calculator/wikipedia ?
Or at least, it's attributed to Einstein. It's a common enough sentiment, though, I'm sure I've independently said similar things myself.
On the other hand, it can easily be taken too far. Sometimes a random factoid isn't just a random factoid, it's part of the scaffolding on which you hang your knowledge. If you have to go to your periodic table to look up things like "Carbon" and "Hydrogen" you're never gonna have an intuitive understanding of chemistry.
I personally don't see the need for memorizing items I will not use more than once. It clogs my brain and impedes my memory.
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.
Thiel's nose is bulbous? I needed to know that for some reason? It just read like a fawning article about some rich guy to me. The author met with Thiel in this fancy coffee shop, Thiel recently bought 2 multi-million dollar houses blah blah blah. Great, just not anything I personally care that much about.
Or maybe I read jwz too often and was pre-biased against Thiel - http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/paypal-founder-has-played-fa...
Translation: I think X is important, he thinks Y is important, therefore it's not merely a matter of having different priorities, but "he is wrong" and - worse than that - "his worldview is impoverished".
I love how "tolerant people" can't tolerate people.
Being tolerant doesn't mean that one cannot be critical.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/the-po...
I don't think anyone ought to have the right to vote, except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces) -- the rest is just giving groups the right to do things individuals can't.
Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please.
Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels.
It's funny that, further up the thread, someone suggested than Libertarian arguments against the seatbelt center around the notion that, once legislated, nothing potentially better than the seatbelt could ever be tried, thanks to the heavy hand of government. It's egregiously incongruent to hear that argument, and hear another that suggests the permanent muzzling of 50% of the population would lead to a better world.
Think gay marriages -- should that really be something the government can decide? Or should the individual church be able to decide what they want to do?
I can identify the fact that people die in car crashes, and this in no way makes it understandable that I would prefer cars not exist (for the record I don't).
Why? This is a huge subject and text to dump on you, so sorry about this:
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 power who forgives MM:
>However, as M&M Enterprises proves to be incredibly profitable, he hires an expensive lawyer who is able to convince the court that it was capitalism which made America great, and is absolved only by disclosing to the congressional committee investigating what the enormous profit he made by dealing with the Germans was.
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.
I don't think he did. Gawker is terribly sensationalist.
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.