Judging from comments on HN the valley does sound quite libertarian but not the kind that register and vote Republican. It seems more intellectual and based in logic while Republicans are more about dogma and scoring political points.
* "Liberaltarian" (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/liberaltarians). Generally libertarian views (support for free markets, drug de-criminalization, gay rights, right to bear arms, open borders, etc...) but where views on social issues (namely basic civil liberties, gay rights, drug de-criminalization, open borders) trump (by far) the economic issues.
Most of these folks also don't subscribe to Randian/Nietzschean "virtue of selfishness" so given a candidate whose economic policies might benefit them but who opposes gay rights and immigration, they'll vote for his opponents even if they happen to be straight and native-born.
* Conventional style liberalism, but with heavier focus on civil liberties and technology. Zoe Logfren is probably great example of candidate that appeals heavily to this group.
* Bloomberg-style centrism: some degree of social liberalism (particularly in regards to gay rights, abortion), moderate-to-center-right economic views (mainly dictated by self-interest), but strong opposition to personal liberty-issues that are perceived to have social costs (e.g., drug de-criminalization, right to bear arms).
This is generally common with older folks, likely the ones that supported Reagan and Nixon earlier. Generally these are also the view of many California republicans (e.g., Meg Whitman) but also a significant chunk of Democrats. Given national republican party has now deviated from significantly from this view (with big factions now being religious right, Tea Party, and some libertarian-leaning folks), again there's a tendency to vote democratic on national level.
* Actual libertarians tends to be somewhat more common than in the rest of the country, but again there's a tendency for people to come to libertarian views from a more academic point of view (study of economics, philosophy, etc...) as opposed to from reading Atlas Shrugged.
So yes, if you define libertarian as Objectivist (a view that goes far beyond libertarianism -- the idea that poor deserve to be poor and do not deserve even voluntary charity, as opposed to the idea that economic planning hurts the poor more than it helps), then there's only few libertarians in Silicon Valley. If you use a more open-minded definition (opposition to economic planning and support for personal liberties) the picture changes a bit.
My take on it is that SV is 'liberaltarian', in that they prefer small, efficient, decentralized organizational structures, but that they also recognize the need for social welfare as a stabilizing force. Additionally, I would guess most of them are turned off by the conservatism side of the Republican party (pro-religion, pro-drug controls, etc), and as such tend to vote for democrats based on the 'lesser of two evils' decision making process. This pretty much describes my views, and I would imagine a lot of others in SV.
The author seems to use this fact to negate the idea that many in SV lean libertarian:
If libertarianism is so rampant in Silicon Valley, why are they voting for higher taxes and funding a big government liberal by such overwhelming numbers?
The premise that voting for the Democratic Party is the opposite of a "Gilded Age" is confusing to me though - it seems too reductive to assume that every person who voted for a Democrat is an ardent redistributionist who wants to see the welfare state expanded. I agree with your take on the politics of the region though.
Also, I wish that the title "Learning from Los Gatos" was explained in any way - what is the "Los Gatos" in reference to?
Presumably the town of Los Gatos (a relatively wealthy suburb of San Jose). Why Los Gatos in particular? I have no idea.
That's how I see it as well.
The fact is, that there is a strong demand for social insurance/welfare services (e.g. health insurance, unemployment stipends, retirement pensions, etc), and the supply of those services can either come mostly from the government (as it tends to in Western Europe) or mostly from employers (as it tends to in the US).
"Liberaltarians," I think, believe that we're better off letting the government provide the social insurance services to everyone, so that citizens' access to them is no longer dependent on employment, which will increase liquidity in the labor market and take some of the risk out of entrepreneurship. Then employers also won't have to be burdened with providing and administrating these expensive "benefits." Win-win.
Meanwhile, people that live in sparsely-populated rural areas believe that they have less demand for social services, and that their tax dollars are paying for the social services that are only consumed by low-income city-dwellers. I've read studies that show this is false, and most rural counties consume more tax dollars than they contribute, mostly due to farm subsidies. Regardless, that seems to be the main economic concern of rural Republican voters.
Also, employer-funded health insurance is a drag on US companies that must compete with foreign companies that can rely on government health insurance/services.
Of course, we might not have to pay higher taxes at all if we didn't have all these private health insurance companies skimming the pot.
From 2008:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10079225-38.html Calling venture capitalist Tim Draper an ardent Republican is something of an understatement. In 1999, he was enough of a fan of then-candidate George W. Bush that he chaired three fundraisers over a year before the actual election. Salon once dubbed him "George W.'s point man in Silicon Valley." The Draper, Fisher Jurvetson managing partner is a longtime proponent of limited government, free markets, and libertarian concepts like school vouchers, making him a natural fit for a political party whose platform lauds "lower taxes, reasonable regulation, and smaller, smarter government." This year, though, something odd happened. Draper gave $2,300--the legal maximum--to Barack Obama and zero to John McCain. Draper also did something that would have been unthinkable in the days when Bush was touting laissez-faire principles: he disclosed publicly that he will vote for a Democrat. [...]
But attempting to have a nuanced discussion of politics in this country is as pointless as it is impossible.
It gets even more complicated when you look inside the party. On one hand you have the "Tea Party" Representatives and Senators elected in the last couple of election cycles. Most of them swing towards little "l" libertarianism (at least fiscally if not socially). Recently, the Republican leadership in the House "fired" most of them from their committee assignments because they won't hold "the party line". The current Republican leadership talks a small government game, but isn't very interested in it. It is rhetoric and not action.
If the scale tips into the "Tea Party" favor (lot of interesting primary action), then I can see actual libertarianism (more fiscal than social) having a home, otherwise I expect the 2016 Presidential primary and convention to be epically nasty. The 2012 convention was a screw the local folks type of affair, but I get the feeling the local folks are gearing for 2016.
> But attempting to have a nuanced discussion of politics in this country is as pointless as it is impossible.
My only comfort in this area is that at least some of things that were said by candidates about other candidates in the election of 1800 cannot be said now.
On the other hand, punditry (by both sides) is just as profitable as it ever was as a spectator sport.
note: For those interested in a deeper look at such things. Look at the build up to the 2014 South Dakota Senatorial race. The amount of non-local manipulation reminds me more of national party bosses than a normal primary season. It might be a bit of an indicator of what is to come for both parties.
I don't feel like that defines a libertarian at all.
When I hear the word, I think of someone who believes they (and everyone) should have the right to do whatever they like - so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms or rights.
I've always hated this definition, because it's so empty. The whole debate of politics is what happens when the freedoms and rights of different people come into conflict. Different groups define these freedoms and rights differently, and think different responses are appropriate when there is conflict.
The difference between a libertarian and say a conservative is not that one believes people should be free to do what they want and the other does not. It's that one defines "freedom" narrowly and the other defines it more broadly.
Take something like prostitution. A libertarian would say you have the freedom to sell your body or to buy sex for money. A conservative might believe that people should have the freedom to create cohesive communities based on traditional values, and having your kids see prostitutes on the side of the road undermines that. Similarly, the two react differently when coercion in prostitution brings the prostitutes' rights in conflict with her pimp's. A libertarian might say that we have other laws to deal with abuse and coercion and that banning prostitution is unnecessary. A conservative might note that such abuse is endemic to prostitution and that banning prostitution could prevent the burgeoning of an extremely abusive and coercive business. A liberal might swoop in and say we should legalize prostitution, but regulate it to prevent the downsides.
Or consider something like workers rights. A libertarian would say that people get paid what they deserve when everyone can freely bargain. A liberal might point out that employers have vastly superior bargaining positions. Interestingly, what liberals say about employees and bargaining is not dissimilar to what conservatives say about prostitutes: when you look at the circumstances most prostitutes find themselves in, how "voluntary" are their actions really? Libertarians perceive "voluntary action" to be extremely well defined: basically, if you did it, it must have been the product of your totally free exercise of will. Both liberals and conservatives take more nuanced views (though in different contexts).
Well yes. Libertarianism is davka the project of destroying politics by rendering all available decisions a matter of either private fiat by a property-owner or property-ownership disputes through the court system. The whole idea is that the elected government should have nearly zero power to actually gather or direct collective, social effort.
I think deciding half the nation eschews logic and intellect in favor of dogma and 'political points' is an extremely unfortunate move. People are not the pastiches you see on TV and HuffPo.
(I vote Democrat.)
I think a good number of small-l libertarians would consider voting Republican if they were a reasonable alternative and if Obama was actually the socialist he's made out to be. But the fact is, they're not and he isn't. Half of the political system is in fact impervious to reason.
Exactly. And a lot of libertarians (like me) are to busy making stuff to vote. Plus, we don't want that 'lessor of two evils' guilt hanging over our heads.