Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

I love how the Great Depression just doesn’t exist anymore for these idiots.  They weren’t able to get the “FDR made the Depression worse!” meme off the ground, so now they’re just going to pretend it never happened.

Either that, or Thiel’s heavy drinking has killed more brain cells than he realizes and he’s developed huge gaps in his memory.  I wonder if he’s also forgotten Vietnam and the Civil War.

Space travel?

Dude, if you want to play John Galt there are plenty of places in Montana and Idaho that you can run off to, build a cabin, and live off the land. The Big Gummint won’t bother you there, Thiel!

Christ, the Unabomber was a sociopath who hated society, too, but at least he had the spine to try living apart from it.

I had no idea that Kim Jong Il was a fan of “Waterworld”. That explains a lot. BTW, is “Waterworld” not science fiction? Wikipedia has it listed as such, though that hardly seems authoritative…

No, Ben D.,  please don’t send another of these dipshits to Idaho. The political landscape is already littered with Orange County, CA, refugees and their Luxury SUVs, attempting to get away from it all in their 8 bedroom “cabin”.

actually modern day feudalists who object to any government functions that don’t involve taxing the middle class to create an army to ransack other nations and take their wealth. 

I have argued that Libertarians are all, in their secret-selves, selfish petty-Kings/Queens.  They really do seem to want some bizarre universe where they are the Lord and Master of their Kingdom of 1/5 Acre in the Suburbs…  Where they can tax airplanes flying over and sue the neighbor in their petty court for BBQ smoke that drifts over the fence and each one has his/her own private army to do what he/she commands…

I certainly don’t see them as “Republicans that like dope and/or hookers.”  They are NOT in between Republicans and Democrats, though the spin it that way.  They are Radically Right of the Republicans and do not, in their most extreme cases, believe in the legitimacy of government.  Those that do believe in a legitimate role for government seem to limit it to defense, many of whom believe the “best defense is a good offense.”

No, Ben D., please don’t send another of these dipshits to Idaho.

Alright, alright. The Alaska tundra then. I’m sure that’s sparsely populated enough for him. Let’s see how long he lasts without any Big Gummint or any “parasites” to get in his way. It would make a good reality, show, actually. They could call it “Going Galt” and see which libertarian lasts longest living off the land.

He’s got like 750 million. What’s stopping him from buying an island and living there? As Ben D. pointed out with the unibomber, if you fucking hate society so much, and can’t stand our government, why the fuck are you here? He literally has the means to take his money and run.

Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.

This statement is remarkably similar to those made by Fascist/proto-Fascist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideologues .....

Dude, stop copying from the 1920’s/30’s….

This statement is remarkably similar to those made by Fascist/proto-Fascist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideologues .....

MMhmm. Or before them, supporters of absolute monarchies. Anyone who hears the phrases “Democracy is bad because…” should just discount the speaker right there.

I find Thiel’s attitude about the US political scene to be a little odd. If things are really so terrible for libertarianism politically, then why do the Tea Baggers exist? Why does the Financial Sector of the economy all but rule our government? Why is the US government giving billions of dollars to the banks? It’s as if he cannot even appreciate the ultra-capitalist, semi-feudalist system that he exists in because he’s holding out for this wierd ideal image of what he thinks an ultra-capitalist, semi-feudalist system should look like.

Let’s see, the 20s were the decade when unbridled speculation led to the downfall of both the US economy and the existing social aristocracy. When income inequality was at its highest level until now. They were the decade that cemented the position of organized crime in the US shadow economy and got us used to the idea that half the population or more would be wink-and-a-nudge lawbreakers. The decade when international cooperation went into the toilet, making another world war both more likely and more deadly.

And that’s what he describes as “the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics.”  I bet he doesn’t even feel lucky that the Securities and Exchange Commission is the only reaosn he’s go a nickel to his name.

It’s clearly that Obama’s election and the stimulus have brought the bugf*ck crazies out of the woodwork, but they don’t seem to be getting a lot of traction thus far.

It would make a good reality, show, actually. They could call it “Going Galt” and see which libertarian lasts longest living off the land.

I’d watch that.

Especially if they let the guys from Survivorman and Man vs Wild do the color commentary.

I read this and thought “this guy played Bioshock and decided that the only problem with the Randian Utopia was that it was underneath the sea instead of on top of it. Other than that: Fer-pect!”

<blockquote>And that’s what he describes as “the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics.” I bet he doesn’t even feel lucky that the Securities and Exchange Commission is the only reaosn he’s go a nickel to his name.</blockqutoe>

And that started with the collapse of 1920-1, he says, blithely thinking of the happy old days of the 1920s, when the market could work its creative destruction. Oh, well.

Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom for me and a few other guys like me and only! us and democracy are compatible.

Fixed that for him.

Damn.  I like Facebook.

I’ve posted on political message boards for years.  Since early 2002.  First the netscape rate bush board, and then until recently, a smaller board.  And I have always gotten the strong impression that Libertarians tend to be very sexist.  It’s of note to me that others have seen it in completely different Libertarians than the ones I have been dealing with.

And I have always gotten the strong impression that Libertarians tend to be very sexist.

They also all tend to be 1)white, 2) male, 3) straight, 4) childless, and 5) hard science guys.

Oh, God, why did you not quote at length?  Commercializing space will keep it politic-free?  Escaping to live with Ariel and Sebastian under the sea?  A deadly race between politics and technology?  Take away all that money and he’s any one of a series of basement-dwelling trivia-stuffed malcontents that I’ve known over the years.

I got that impression from interacting with them on political message boards.  It was the result of sexist statements they tended to make.  I can think of one libertarian I’ve come across during these years on the internet who was clearly not sexist.  But just one.

So it’s more an impression I was given.  By Libertarians.  I’m sorry if that upsets you.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, BenD - I have to defend science-types here.  I find most of the libertarians I know, at least, the ones who sound like Douchy Facebook up there, tend to wish they were hard science guys, but really do something more mundane and just read a lot of astronomy magazines.  I found alot more of these guys when I was hanging out with self-described “techies” than with actual scientists.  Government, especially federal, pays for a huge chunk of research, especially the fundamental stuff that tends to suck up money like a sponge but rarely turns a profit by the end of the fiscal quarter.  Most PhDs are at least smart enough to not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Ben, yes to the first 4, in fact the biggest libertarians I’ve recently posted with, were all of those things.  But I’m not sure about the hard science.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, BenD - I have to defend science-types here.  I find most of the libertarians I know, at least, the ones who sound like Douchy Facebook up there, tend to wish they were hard science guys, but really do something more mundane and just read a lot of astronomy magazines.

Fair ‘nuff. I should have said self-described. Nevertheless they like to make fun of English majors and lawyers an awful lot.

As for the hand that feeds them…weeeelll…we do have Glenn Reynolds. A professor at a public University. How hate government. Figure that one out!

Ben, yes to the first 4, in fact the biggest libertarians I’ve recently posted with, were all of those things.  But I’m not sure about the hard science.

Ben’s impression that they tend to be hard science guys is not always far off the mark IME of studying with/working with CS/engineering colleagues professionally. 

Nevertheless, those in the hard sciences are also present at all points of the political spectrum. 

Most CS/engineering classmates/co-workers IME tended to either be extreme libertarians…..or radical-progressives of the DFH variety.  YMMV, of course.

The Libertarians I come across tend to be in the IT industry.  And, yes, they also have a tendency to be misogynists.  No wonder there are so few women in that field…

True, and they also have a pretty narrow view of what science counts - anything pertaining to their field (hey!  Computer science has science right in the name!) space, anything nuclear, evolution usually mangled and probably segueing into social darwinism or evo-psych, and more recently anything nano.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, BenD - I have to defend science-types here.  I find most of the libertarians I know, at least, the ones who sound like Douchy Facebook up there, tend to wish they were hard science guys, but really do something more mundane and just read a lot of astronomy magazines.

Though this variety of libertarian exists….I encountered plenty of extreme libertarians who were hard science dudes…..they tended to be the “I have mine, f*%k everyone else” variety. 

They also seem to have a peculiar love affair with a certain large dominant software company….and are against something “socialistic” like the GPL open source license…..

True, and they also have a pretty narrow view of what science counts - anything pertaining to their field (hey!  Computer science has science right in the name!) space, anything nuclear, evolution usually mangled and probably segueing into social darwinism or evo-psych, and more recently anything nano.

From having attended a math/science oriented urban public magnet high school and having studied/worked with CS/engineering people, it can be distilled as:

Any field which they felt requires high level math above and beyond Calc II/Stats for Econ majors is counted as “rigorous” science.  The more…the merrier/respectable….

Anything else is regarded by them as complete “fluff” and thus, frivolous. 

And this feeling is held by many within the STEM fields….regardless of political affiliation though it isn’t exhibited as strongly among those who are progressively inclined in the DFH sense IME….

YMMV, of course.

Sorry, Exholt, I’m going to put CS/Engineering (well, mostly CS) slightly outside of hard sciences, not because they’re easier (engineering isn’t, and CS doesn’t have to be) but because the focus is so much more practical application of things that are already known rather than figuring out new or fundamental things.  What you guys lose in snooty academic prestige you generally gain in overall career earnings, so suck it   This probably selects sciency-libertarian types to Engineering, though, since engineers still get to take a fuckload of physics classes with the advantage of making way more money right out of school.  So, thanks for taking those guys off my hands, is what I guess I’m saying.

those were probably engineers then. cause real scientist don’t have SHIT we don’t “have ours”

Though many were engineers/CS….there were also quite a few research physicists, chemists, and mathematicians in the group I have encountered over the years.

wow, i didn’t even get 3 paragraphs and he compares writing an alternative newspaper at Stanford to the WW1 trenches. That’s some awesome hyperbole.

wow, i didn’t even get 3 paragraphs and he compares writing an alternative newspaper at Stanford to the WW1 trenches.

I hope you’re kidding, but you’re probably not. That’s only slightly less offensive and inane than comparing it to the holocaust.

Sounds like Exholt works more in industry than in academia.  Which is also where we’d put our libertarians.  I guess we have to remember that it does take all kinds, and when it comes to Americans in STEM, there’s a place for pretty much everyone who manages to get their credentials.  Even the pricks.

My area of physics happens to be one which has lots of commercial applications, and we benefit not only from government grants but also quite a bit of industrial support, so I see a decently mixed bag.  A PhD in physics or chemistry who was politically libertarian enough to be obnoxious about it does have non-directly-government-funded options, but he’s still kidding himself.  Government grants and loans provide the capital for tons of tech companies; I know of companies that have one or two commercial products but in the meantime make payroll by doing R&D;for the military, which is one of the few institutions in this country that always has cash to throw around. 

Anyone who loves technology loves government spending.

God, that expression on his face..what a wanker. 

Interestingly, research has demonstrated that the “smile” with only one side of the mouth pulled back and to the side is, in fact, an expression of deep contempt. 

No surprise, I suppose.  Reading his article, I felt my face assume the same expression.

i think his awful comparison nicely encapsulates his experience of the world: through books, computers, and as useful metaphors for why his life matters, while completely missing the point where other people suffer. That’s why the 1920s were so awesome for him.

“Dude, if you want to play John Galt there are plenty of places in Montana and Idaho that you can run off to, build a cabin, and live off the land. The Big Gummint won’t bother you there, Thiel!”

“No, Ben D., please don’t send another of these dipshits to Idaho. The political landscape is already littered with Orange County, CA, refugees and their Luxury SUVs, attempting to get away from it all in their 8 bedroom ‘cabin’.”

Personally, I’m selfish.  So much so that as far as I’m concerned, Thiel and the rest of the Galt Gang can go play Mac McMac in Idaho and Montana as much as they like.  I just want them kept out of Washington State*, please God.  Here’s why:

“I have argued that Libertarians are all, in their secret-selves, selfish petty-Kings/Queens.  They really do seem to want some bizarre universe where they are the Lord and Master of their Kingdom of 1/5 Acre in the Suburbs… Where they can tax airplanes flying over and sue the neighbor in their petty court for BBQ smoke that drifts over the fence…”

That’s a more bloodlessly accurate description of much of rural King County and parts of rural Pierce County than I like to contemplate or than you probably know.  Congratulations.

*It’s true that Eastern Washington is politically conservative, but it has yet to be discovered by the modern-day Atlas Shrugged-toting counterparts of Marie Antoinette, her sheperdesses, and their swains, and I’m sure the Eastern Washingtonians would like to keep things that way.  (A matter on which they’ve got my heartfelt sympathy.)

CS/Engineering (well, mostly CS) slightly outside of hard sciences, not because they’re easier (engineering isn’t, and CS doesn’t have to be) but because the focus is so much more practical application of things that are already known rather than figuring out new or fundamental things.

This is why engineers are overrepresented amongst the woo-woo fringe and in groups like creationists.  It’s called the “Lies told to children” problem.  See, we’re all taught or pick up things about how the world works that are close enough for getting by with our normal lives, sort of like the things you might tell a kid who isn’t mature enough to understand the precise reason something happens.  “A baby comes because a mommy and a daddy love one another”, that sort of thing. 

We do the same thing for more advanced topics for adults.  Good example: for everyday stuff, Newton’s Laws are good enough.  If you need great precision, you have to add Einstein and company.  Normally this isn’t a big deal, but engineers tend to be smart enough to recognize that what they were led to believe growing up (the lie told to children) isn’t actually an accurate description of the world.  The problem is that they might be smart/well read enough to realize there’s a problem, but they’re unlikely to be trained in the specialty in question, and don’t consider the possibility that there are people who do know more who know that the “problem” the engineer has identified isn’t a problem at all once you are an expert and understand the subject.

And the few who think this way go off on their merry engineer way and start theorizing about things that they actually don’t know that much about, and if an actual expert takes notice and points out that said engineer’s theory is a complete crock of shit, why then clearly the Establishment is trying to keep me down!  I’ve discovered a sooper-secret!

And the few who think this way go off on their merry engineer way and start theorizing about things that they actually don’t know that much about, and if an actual expert takes notice and points out that said engineer’s theory is a complete crock of shit, why then clearly the Establishment is trying to keep me down!  I’ve discovered a sooper-secret!

Perfect example:

Global warming denial.

Sounds like Exholt works more in industry than in academia.  Which is also where we’d put our libertarians.  I guess we have to remember that it does take all kinds, and when it comes to Americans in STEM, there’s a place for pretty much everyone who manages to get their credentials.  Even the pricks.

Agreed.  To be fair, I’ve also met plenty of CS/engineering people who are radical progressives of the DFH variety in “industry”....including several senior and middle-level project managers with whom I keep in touch with to this very day. 

Then again, certain areas of science academia do seem to have a strong extreme libertarian presence from what I heard from/observed in its graduates/saw firsthand during my visits to a certain Cambridge, Mass institute….

I agree that this particular pathological thought pattern is well represented in libertarianism, both in the rich, and in convenient idiots for the Republican party.  There are, however, many strains of libertarianism that show that libertarianism needn’t be this.  These pesple make the other 5% look bad.

Also, regarding what those who snob on non-science/non-“rigorous enough” science fields or people who study/work in them…..the behavior is not really due to libertarian proclivities….though they almost always exacerbate the nastiness of such….

It has far more to do with academic/professional…or “intellectual snobbery” where anyone who cannot perform in fields requiring mathematics above calc II/Stats for Econ majors is looked down upon and ridiculed.  And though libertarians IME gleefully indulge in this behavior…..there are plenty of others all across the political spectrum….including progressives DFH who do likewise….though they tend to be less nasty about it.

Yeah, my impression of libertarians has been that, on the whole, they’ve got just enough math to be whacko fucking cranks and not enough math to be good at keeping up with current science.  Thus their fascination with Einstein and the Michaelson-Morley experiment and suchlike.  Given that science is the art of going to spackle over what looks like a small gap in Established Knowledge and finding the Vallis Marineris yawning wide under your feet, they seem desperately unequipped to handle the ambiguity.

Which would be fine, except they like to think their century-old whacko crank science actually means something in the world, and people in the media (with a few notable exceptions) eat that shit up.

I got that impression from interacting with them on political message boards.  It was the result of sexist statements they tended to make.

My experience with libertarians is that they’re extremely condescending to women, which is that much more frustrating.  It’s relatively easy to fight back against obvious misogyny, but how do you fight back against a sneer?  And libertarians just can’t figure out why their events are such sausage fests.

It would make a good reality, show, actually. They could call it “Going Galt” and see which libertarian lasts longest living off the land.

And no elimination challenges.  Whoever manages not to starve to death wins.

You know, it’s hard to understand how people like that can reconcile such elitism and raving misogyny with the word “libertarian”. Unless of course they aren’t anywhere near as logical as they think they are and they really only care about themselves…. nah, couldn’t be…

Everything about this guy (especially the picture) suggest that he’s under the mistaken impression that he’s some kind of smoking hot stud.

@ BrianX: I suspect that a lot of conservatives, particularly younger ones, call themselves libertarians because it’s more “fashionable” than self-identifying as a conservative.

I work in software in Silicon Valley. And I would say there is a small but very vocal minority of libertarians. They also tend to be into evo psych. I think the problem is, as other mentioned, they are smart analytical people. Libertarianism appeals to them because it seems to be a neat elegant solution to a problem. Also it confirms their belief that they are special and superior people.

I think the problem is, as other mentioned, they are smart analytical people. Libertarianism appeals to them because it seems to be a neat elegant solution to a problem. Also it confirms their belief that they are special and superior people.

The summary of the what they do is summed up by the following sentence: “I only learn enough to convince myself that my views are correct”.

After all, once you’ve got scientific confirmation that you’re right, why would you bother going further and risk finding out the scientific consensus has changed in the last half century?

Perfect example:

Global warming denial.

It is an example, because it also shows the “lies told to children” thing.  Most people call it “global warming” because, in simplistic terms, that’s what will be the end result, but the path from A to B isn’t necessarily a straight line.  It’s why a lot of the experts prefer “climate change”, because that takes into account things like having as part of the process involve some reasons possibly getting cooler for some period of time.

That should have been “some regions”, not “some reasons”.

My experience with engineers and libertarians is that a) They’re much more prevalent in the computer side of things (I.e. controls engineering) than they are elsewhere (such as chemical engineering). And b) The less competent the engineer, the more likely he is to be convinced that he is a special snowflake being held down by the system (or whatever), and that in a libertarian paradise his *true* *specialness* *would* *shine*!!!

My husband’s replacement from his last job is this sort. We’ve actually been regretting that this was an in-company promotion, because my husband is essentially doing two jobs because this doofus can’t hack the position (if we’d moved, he’d have to manage or get fired) - but he’s convinced of his own brilliance, and can’t understand why my husband doesn’t agree with how the system holds competent engineers down. The fact that the competent engineer has been promoted twice in five years has escaped his notice, probably because it would require him to notice his own standing.

Incompetent female engineers can and do suffer the same blindness, but seem much less likely to ascribe their failures to the system, and hence less likely to become libertarian.

I went to CS for some of my undergrad.  I had one guy actually tell me that every person on earth should write their own word processor, rather than use one developed by a team of other people.

Generally speaking, these are folks who interact with the world in a deeply weird way.  They are literally incapable of seeing any benefit from association with other human beings.  They also have no idea of how courtship, family, and children work.

It does seem like we’re overgeneralizing here about computer science/engineering folks and libertarians, but it does hold true for my limited experience (ie the one I fell in love with) so I don’t really have any counterexamples for you. It’s good to hear that there are some dirty-fucking-hippies in the fields, though, too. Come to think of it, my best friend the female chemical engineer is one….

As for this guy, I love space and I find PayPal very useful, but what a douche.

From the article:

As an entrepreneur and investor, I have focused my efforts on the Internet. In the late 1990s, the founding vision of PayPal centered on the creation of a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution — the end of monetary sovereignty, as it were.

That’s a funny description for a fucking escrow service.  He wanted to create a new currency by setting up a method to transfer existing currency.  GG

In the 2000s, companies like Facebook create the space for new modes of dissent and new ways to form communities not bounded by historical nation-states.

That’s right, now this douchebag is taking credit for helping invent the idea of online communities.  Maybe he should try googling “usenet” sometime.

By starting a new Internet business, an entrepreneur may create a new world.

Do you get the feeling this guy spends a lot of time ganking noobs in World of Warcraft?

I can understand why Amanda declined to quote this moron at length.  Every single sentence is just as stupid as these.

Thiel is like a lot of venture capitalists that hang around Silicon Valley. They all seem to entertain somewhat goofy theories and have egos as big as the Hindenberg. But I’m curious why we’re talking about engineering/CS types when guys like Peter are nothing of the sort. Few of the “money guys” are. Remember, they are essentially salesmen, pitching blue-sky ideas to the actual investors. They are an important part of the Silicon Valley machine, but they aren’t the guys inventing, building and running things.

One feature of the engineer mind that leads to phenomena like Thiel is an obsession with “logical consistency.” They can work up a world view that is completey detached from reality, but it’s OK as long as it is self-consistent.

My experience with libertarians is that they’re extremely condescending to women, which is that much more frustrating.  It’s relatively easy to fight back against obvious misogyny, but how do you fight back against a sneer?  And libertarians just can’t figure out why their events are such sausage fests.

Well, they are extremely condescending to everyone who isn’t a libertarian regardless of gender, I think.  They all seem to share this feeling of specialness because they are smarter than republicans or democrats, all of whom have been taken in by the two-party system, which only they have been brilliant enough to reject for the real truth of libertarianism.  But there is extra contempt for women who disagree with them, and they’re quick to go to the kind of name calling that announces what they are.  No there’s definitely no big mystery regarding why libertarianism attracts mostly men.

Sara - a very good point. They’re actually Aristotelian, in that they believe you can discover Truth by the exercise of pure reason, untainted with any consideration of actual reality. This is the sort of thinking which lead Aristotle himself to assert that flies have four legs - and this guy is no Aristotle.

As for seasteading, all I can think of is:

Under the sea,
Under the sea,
There’ll be no accusations,
Just friendly crustaceans
Under the Seeeeeeeeeeeeea!

Dunc is right.  We should stop arguing about where the libertarians live and start making fun of this guy line by line.  This could start with “I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years” as though that were inherently commendable and not the battle cry of a man retaining the smug persecution complex of an ignorant boy, OR his disbelief in the “ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual.”  Before he gets his head frozen, someone should remind him that the future will have its own douchebags and will not need to thaw out and reinvest in ours.

CS/Engineering yeah they skew libertarians. As a hard scientist I would like to distance actual scientists from engineers.

Wow. I’m an engineer and I’m highly offended by all the comments on here about engineers.  I am a real scientist, and I’m not a Libertarian.  Most of the jobs that I have applied for require a degree in either chemistry or chemical engineering, because the fields overlap so much.  I only knew maybe two Libertarians in college, out of the hundreds of engineering majors in my classes.  There are cranks and pseudo-scientists in every field, and of course that includes engineering.  Remember, 50% of all engineers (and scientists) graduated in the bottom half of their class.  Don’t judge all engineers based on a few crazies.

Remember, 50% of all engineers (and scientists) graduated in the bottom half of their class.  Don’t judge all engineers based on a few crazies.

Unless they graduated from Texas A&M;University, alma mater of Neil Boortz, and where quite a few engineering undergrads come out convinced that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to fund biology departments.  Sadly, when those engineers (chemical in my case) get out and start working in the chemicals/petroleum industry, they find that A&M;was a liberal mecca in comparison to what their industry management believes.  (Thank god MY ChemE degree was a MS.)

Closer to topic:  I actually have degrees in both computer science (late 90’s) and chemical engineering (2008).  Computer Science undergrad featured more small-l-libertarians (there’s nothing quite so weird as a wingnut conservative from India), while ChemE featured more typical neocon whatever-Democrats-want-must-be-bad.

That said, ChemE was FAR more gender balanced - close to 1:1 male:female ratio for ChemE, but 80%+ male for CompSci.  The many women majoring in ChemE seemed to be moving the Overton window toward the Texas center (still right of USA, but left of Old Skool Texas A&M;).  I expect in another decade the ChemE’s at A&M;might be almost centrist in political outlook.

As for this choad, I would go with “doesn’t have the mathematical chops to handle traditional engineering, so overcompensates with delusions of grandeur because he lucked out with a dot-com that survived the crash.”

It’s why a lot of the experts prefer “climate change”,

Personally I think it should be called “Climate disaster”, that’s the best description.

This is another classic case of The Good Old Days(TM) that never actually existed.  He says things went downhill because of women voting.  To accept that, first you have to accept that things have actually gone downhill.  Personally, I love air conditioning, the internet, and not having polio.  Essentially, this guy is saying that women should vote simply because they don’t vote the way he wants them to.  He’s arrogant enough to think that the right to vote should depend on whether or not someone agrees with him.  That misses the entire point of democracy.

You can also think of it as overgrown Galileanism: the idea that you can get interesting results by creating abstract models that lack most of the characteristics of the real world. Galileo missed a few percent by ignoring air friction on falling bodies, but these folks (along with many economists, some theoretical engineers and plenty of would-be philosophers) are so in love with the idea of creating elegant models that they abstract away the actual thing they’re trying to understand. It’s sorta weird, because many of these folks are among the frontliners defending the idea of “science” (see lots of issues of the Skeptical Inquirer) while having no idea that their own version of science is as faith-based as anything they rail against.

Another thing: “Libertarians tend to be engineers” is NOT the same thing as “all engineers are libertarians”.

Oh fuck.  I know who this guy is.  He was in my class at Stanford.  I apologize.

As for his wanking about The Stanford Review being like fighting in the trenches of WWI?  That’s because The Stanford Review is Fox News by and for Stanford Students.  Despite being the ‘conservative’ Bay Area school (vs. ‘liberal’ Berkeley) the Review was widely mocked by the student body for its idiocy.  Apparently, he’s still pissed at us for not ‘getting’ how right he was.

Stanford is an interesting place…lots of big brains wasting their potential; lots of people who work their asses off to beat out students with higher IQs who don’t think they need to study; lots of people that you just can’t figure out how they got in.  Oh, and Olympic athletes.

17,800+ applicants for a class of 1500.  More straight A students and perfect SAT applicants than could get in, and they let him in.  Why?

Peter Thiel was a chess champion from Germany.  That’s how he got in.  Shame he didn’t take advantage of it to learn anything about his fellow humans.

It’s annoying that’s he’s so wealthy and that wealth confers such power in our society.  Anyone who seriously writes that freedom and democracy are mutually exclusive should be mocked and then ignored.

Well, the thing is that CS and Eng people tend not to talk about politics in general (I mean, I’m one of the few who will start arguing it among other CS people) except when it gets in their faces, and that tends to create a certain amount of libertarian-skewed sampling bias, because (right-wing) libertarianism is the philosophy based on the idea that no one has any right to get in our faces (even when they actually do).

That has been my experience with most STEM people though some I’ve encountered from high school to the working world tend to be quite vocally political. 

One issue I’ve seen which tends to serve as a good litmus test to get the politically vocal among them out of the woodwork…..discuss the GPL open source license, whether SCO’s IP litigation was justified/not, or whether Microsoft was a harmful monopoly or not. 

Libertarians I’ve met tend to be respectfully against GPL (“too Marxist/socialistic”), approve of SCO’s actions (“Protecting their IP”), and that Microsoft was a big victim of overzealous government regulation.  They also tend to be far more inclined to be impatient when they meet non-technically inclined people who cannot pick up technical concepts “as quickly” as they did and attribute it to their “stupidity” or “lack of intelligence/common sense”. 

The DFH CS/Engineers I’ve met tend to be pro GPL, disgusted by SCO’s IP litigation, and felt Microsoft has been a monopoly who used their dominant position for ill against smaller companies/innovators and that the US government let them off too easily.  They also tend to be comparatively more understanding when they meet non-technically inclined people who cannot pick up technical concepts as easily as they did…...though they can also be impatient at some points….though not to the nasty extent of their libertarian counterparts in the CS/Engineering field.

Oh, and can we blame Reagan for AIDS since that started under his watch?

Wrong thread.

Another thing: “Libertarians tend to be engineers” is NOT the same thing as “all engineers are libertarians”.

OK, I understand that not all of you were implying that engineers are Libertarians, but when someone says specifically,

As a hard scientist I would like to distance actual scientists from engineers.

you can see why I would be offended by that, since I consider myself to be both an engineer and and actual scientist.

Stanford is an interesting place…lots of big brains wasting their potential; lots of people who work their asses off to beat out students with higher IQs who don’t think they need to study; lots of people that you just can’t figure out how they got in.  Oh, and Olympic athletes.

Regarding people that you can’t figure out how they got in, how much of that is due to legacy/developmental admissions practice common at many private Ivy-level/Ivy schools?

17,800+ applicants for a class of 1500.  More straight A students and perfect SAT applicants than could get in, and they let him in.  Why?

Out of curiosity, how many in that 1500 end up making it to senior year and graduation? Is it true that the hardest part IYE is getting in and that once in…you almost have to go out of your way to f^%k up academically as several high school classmates/older relative who attended recounted from their experiences there in the 1980’s till late 1990s?

Let’s see, the 20s were the decade when unbridled speculation led to the downfall of both the US economy and the existing social aristocracy. When income inequality was at its highest level until now. They were the decade that cemented the position of organized crime in the US shadow economy and got us used to the idea that half the population or more would be wink-and-a-nudge lawbreakers. The decade when international cooperation went into the toilet, making another world war both more likely and more deadly.

It’s also the decade that saw a massive revival of the Ku Klux Klan, to a peak of political power it hadn’t seen since Reconstruction.  Klansmen openly ran for office and lynchings were horryifyingly common.  How optimistic.

@ BrianX: I suspect that a lot of conservatives, particularly younger ones, call themselves libertarians because it’s more “fashionable” than self-identifying as a conservative.

Sadie:

I’d say that’s a fair evaluation, but it also points out just how very non-self-aware these people are. So very, very little of what they say has any real meaning; it’s all just codewords for the same old right wing crap.

“Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.”

No matter where this guy comes from this is seriously bent thinking. I notice he spends not a second wondering why women and the great unwashed are ‘tough’ for Libertarians? He ever consider that they, using their own abilty to think things through - we all have brains you know -  decided that their best intrests are served elsewhere?

And i’m not sure if he thinks a) before 1929 unemployed people couldn’t vote? or they voted for their ‘betters’

argg. these people give me a headache.

His points?  You mean like the point where he can’t take his ball and go home until he’s built his completely self-sufficient underwater kingdom?

professorfate

Maybe you have a headache because you completely miss his points.

Libertarian

Or the point hit you square between the eyes and the stupid, it burns.

I love when the authoritarian mask slips…it is obviously absurd to muse that “freedom and democracy” could be in conflict, but his sense that “capitalist democracy” gets at something true. No question which side he’s on when the two are placed in opposition, but I think he misjudges which one most everyone else prefers.

Maybe you have a headache because you completely miss his points.

His point that he doesn’t understand correlation != causation?

Libertarian, there was a system where wealthier people were given more votes than the poor. It was used in Imperial Germany. It didn’t work out so well.

He referred to “welfare beneficiaries.”

The internet began as a government comm network and was initially developed with public money, providing Thiel with the very foundation on which to build his little e-fiefdoms.  Thiel is a welfare beneficiary standing on the shoulders of Uncle Sam and marvelling at how far he can see on his own.

woman(sic), as a group, are likely to be more concerned about security and less concerned about liberty than men

Considering how long women weren’t allowed to have liberty, what would you expect?

That group depends on the gov’t for benefits so is not likely to be disposed toward less gov’t.

Every group, including Libertarians, depends on the government for benefits.  You drive on public roads, you are protected by police and military, and you are offered free education.  People who receive money from the government spend it on the product or service that your company provides, giving you job security.  People who get better free education grow up to have better jobs and be better consumers.  People who get free healthcare are less likely to carry a contagious disease that they will spread to you.  They are also less like to miss as much work, so they can earn more and spend more and be better consumers.

Also, there is one reason why women don’t want the label of Libertarian, and it is because there are too many misogynist men in the group.  It’s not about different priorities.  Women should value liberty more than men, since we are at a greater risk of losing it.  I am a woman who once considered the label of Libertarian, until I realized that the reality of it is very different from the theory of it.  Libertarians should be the most socially liberal group, but often they are the opposite.

*thinks about it*

Nope. Democracy* and freedom—not in conflict.

*“Democracy” as commonly understood by anyone past the sixth grade.

It’s not about who is wealthier.

Of course it is. What do you think would be the end effect of disenfranchising people who receive
government assistance? A wealthier electorate.

In the sense that “freedom” means “doing whatever the fuck I want regardless of how my actions affect my neighbors” then yes, having people vote on which rules to abide by does restrict the freedom of individuals.  To which most thinking people reply, boo fucking hoo.  So when Douchy Facebook whines that franchising poor people and women is adversely affecting his freedom, it’s hard for the rest of us to muster up sympathy.  He’s wealthy enough to do anything he wants short of eating puppies on live TV, he’s wealthy enough to buy a whole bunch of land somewhere, there are places where it would probably be easily affordable for him to bribe the government to leave him alone, so why doesn’t he do it?  What’s stopping him?  Probably the fact that America’s still a nice place to live, especially if you’re rich, despite the taxes and yammering, voting women.  He likes the amount of money he can still make here, and benefits greatly from being a fantastically rich man in a country so wealthy and with a police force so good that he doesn’t have to worry about being guillotined and having all his shit stolen when the peasants revolt.

You’re using the sixth grader definition of democracy, libertarian.

There are a fair number of GAY white, wealthy and/or deluded about likelihood of becoming wealthy, childless, misogynist men. This guy Thiel isn’t the only one. The small proportion of Republican gays (perhaps 30 to 35% of self-identified gay men) are predominantly of this type, though most aren’t that extreme, and I would hope that most outgrew Rand. It’s all about the tax rate. Forget about at least half of the “A Gays”, stick with the Bs and Cs, they have more common sense.

Are you really so dense that when people use the word “democracy” you think they mean direct democracy?

They mean representative, constitutional government with courts to protect minorities. Congress can’t vote to establish a religion for example. They can’t vote to outlaw a political party.

They can, however, vote to raise taxes on the top one percent of earners which, as we know, you hold as the ultimate violation of “freedom”.

The fact is that when you have a democracy, the majority can vote to restrict other peoples’ freedom. In that way, Ben, democracy conflicts with freedom.

Ah, H. L. Mencken minus the insight & humor.  Of course, Mencken was a critic of the excesses of democracy, not contemptuous of the whole concept like Herr Thiel.

You belong to a fringe and lunatic group, so no wonder you hate democracy. Your ideas aren’t popular because for 99 percent of people they don’t produce good outcomes.You’re railing against representative government for the same reason, ironically, as the Bolsheviks did.

BTW, please tell me how a libertarian government is supposed to gain power and impliment its agenda? Military coup? Police state? So much for the Non-aggression principle” huh?

Libertarian, do you think that blacks are less free than in the 1930’s? Do you think women are less free? Gays?  The poor? Who is less free and how?

Wow, more Silicon Valley rich asshole bullshit. I swear, the number of selfish rich people in here is unparalled anywhere in the country. Especially the closer you get to Palo Alto, where the combination of extreme wealth + “I went to Stanford so I’m smarter than you” really pisses me the fuck off.

His kind of “I have my money, the rest of society can go ahead and fuck off” attitude is extremely common here.

As Kyso said, in a democracy people can vote to restrict others’
freedom, which has been happening more and more since about
1930 . . .

The point about women, I think, is this:  woman, as a
group, are likely to be more concerned about security
and less concerned about liberty than men (although
I think this is much less true than it used to be).  Therefore,
women, as a group, are less likely to be libertarians.

Complete fucking bullshit. What you call the “freedom” of libertarianism is really oppression: the ability to exploit workers, the ability to discriminate in hiring, the lack of a social safety net for children and the elderly (for whom women still largely function as primary care givers), etc.

Most women know how lucky they are to have been born into a westernized country, and how lucky they are to enjoy the REAL freedoms other men and women have died to give them: suffrage, ability to serve on a jury, ownership of property, equal pay, education, access to divorce and at least some measure of reproductive rights.  In a libertarian society, most of the laws providing a floor for the socioeconomic and legal treatment of women would be wiped out in favor of a market-based free-for-all, in which those people lacking power would inevitably lose more of it, and those people with power would inevitably gain more.  And why would it be any different when the ultimate cultural “value” of individuals in such a society would be self-preservation and self-interest?  There are no benefits to charity or altruism: they’re seen as morally BAD.  There’d be no incentive to elevate the least among us, because they’d be thought undeserving of elevation because they were unable to elevate themselves.  It’s a sick cycle.

Libertarianism is a recipe for the entrenchment and exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities.  Women, who’ve been the ultimate historical victims of such inequalities for thousands of years, generally recognize that, and seek to preserve the laws you think are restrictive that sane people think are freedom-giving, and thus vote sensibly: generally, liberally.

Although, yes, I realize equality is not the goal of a libertarian: paying as little in taxes as possible is the goal.

You know, liberals know that in a capitalist system freedom = the thickness of one’s wallet.  The difference is that while you love that, we think it’s despicable.

Geez.

When I hear libertarians whine about restricting people’s freedom, I notice that at the same time so many of them are in favor of “tort reform” and restrictions on “frivolous” litigation, even though litigation is pretty much the only avenue that’s supposed to be available for redress of grievances in libertopia. It’s almost as if they want one class of people to be able to use to coercive power of the government to enforce their beliefs about what certain contracts say, and other classes of people not to be able to use that same power to enforce theirs…

Anyone else love how quickly the “arguments” of libertarian turned into pithy one-liners? It’s so cute Like a teenager who wants to be a rebel but can’t quite figure out what that means…

I got a big laugh reading Thiel’s comments.  What a dork—typical Randian/Libertarian drivel.  And hey, I’m speaking as an engineer in Silicon Valley (ground zero, or so it would seem from the comments above).

I recall one libertarian engineer I worked with wanted to move to Idaho and live on the banks of a river in some sort of libertarian utopia.  I told him to go ahead.  I’d buy the property upstream and piss and shit in his drinking water every chance I got—not because I didn’t like him (well, I didn’t—he was incredibly ignorant and self-righteous), but because the river provided me with the easiest way for disposing of my waste.  And he wouldn’t be able to do a damn thing about it, because if he did, he’d be imposing upon my freedom.

[I have to add, because of the accusations here linking engineering and libertarianism—I’ve been an engineer in the valley for more than 30 years, and I’ve found libertarians to really be a small minority of the overall engineer population (although, at times, they are a very vocal minority).]

“It’s almost as if they want one class of people to be able to use to coercive power of the government to enforce their beliefs about what certain contracts say, and other classes of people not to be able to use that same power to enforce theirs…”

...nah, that couldn’t be it.  Must be something else…

***

Somebody mentioned the idea of a Survivor-type show with a bunch of libertarians as the guinea pigs.

I would really enjoy seeing these Great Minds struggling for dominance with each other in their Galtopia, as each tries to screw all the others in order to come out on top.  At the same time, each would be trying to avoid doing any of the mundane scutwork that civilization requires to function. 

I’m guessing it would go Lord of the Flies faster than just about any other group.  I say give them weapons and stand back…

So your position is basically that, since this guy is morally inferior, you (or I guess the collective “we”) deserve to have 90% of his money. How is that different from the libertarians saying the poor deserve to have nothing because they don’t try harder (and are hence morally inferior to those who are successful)?

No, we just want 90% of his income over a certain amount.  We’re not completely greedy.  And Amanda clearly stated that she only wants it for his own good: he’s clearly going crazy with nothing but money and yes-men around him.  We’re trying to help.  And buy ponies.  That’s all we want, is help and ponies.

Ponies?  WTF?  Booze and blondes—that’s what I want.  And lots of each!  Come on, Thiel.  Help make this poor engineer’s dream a reality!

Dear Lib - I used the term “great unwashed” in a semi ironic joking vein, trying and I guess failing to underscore the contempt and I might add the publicly acceptable contempt those with cash have for people on the dole. It’s a matter of faith for the libetarian (and many others)  that people are on the dole because they are “lazy’ - no combination of birth, economic circumstance, illness and just plain old bad damn luck is enough to engender the slightest sympathy or understanding (I mean New Orleans Jesus people - the mood was the DK’s Kill the Poor without Irony). Cause god fobid the idea that blind chance has something to do with where folks end up in this society - cause if you ditch the evil social dawinist bs, all the rich have is, well, more money. With the same vitures and vices of the rest of humanity - which I think is what kills them.

There is that old saw that comes to mind “The poor hate to be governed unjustly the rich hate to be governed at all”

I’m a white male - that puts me at near top of the pecking order (my parents weren’t rich)  - I did nothing I repeat nothing to deserve that - complete accident of birth - but I know I’ve been able to get a job quicker when I lost one, people listen to me more respectively because I’m male and white, and I don’t have store security follow me around while I shop in a store with expensive gadgets in them. Nothing to do with me. The actual me.

Oh and Kipp - Just give it - the guys’  a complete jerk there are better folks you could be defending.

PF.

No Kipp, we don’t believe people should pay taxes because they are morally inferior.  I’d explain further, but since you’re a moron it’d be useless.

Well, I’ll be nice.  Here’s a little protip for ya:  Imagine how large Thiel’s fortune would be if he was born in a truly libertarian land of freedom.  Like Somalia.  Now try to imagine how the US and Somalia are different.

On a different note, can you libertarian fuckheads please stop saying that women vote for different reasons than men?  Everyone votes for their self interest.  When I vote to ensure that people like Thiel aren’t the only people in my country with any power it’s self-defense.  When he says that democracy and freedom aren’t compatible, it’s exactly as Amanda wrote: when he says freedom he means freedom to use his wealth to control the country for his own benefit.  We just had a little taste of that with the unregulated financial industry.

If you want more of that sort of shit, you’re my enemy because you’re actively trying to harm me and my family.  Some of us don’t have the luxury of disregarding the real world when he develop our philosophy.

“Congress can’t vote to establish a religion for example. They can’t vote to outlaw a political party.”

Well, Congress can’t do it alone.  But five SC justices and Congress can.  Remember, SCOTUS ruled that growing MJ on your own property for your own use affects interstate commerce.  It would be simple enough to rationalize how a national religion wasn’t a violation of the First Amendment.

All of the protections in the Constitution just provide obstacles for the Tyranny of Democracy to get around.  But in the long term, Democracy will always devolve into Tyranny.

Not that I have a better proposal for a form of government.

Of course, I am a white, male, straight, though childfull, engineer Libertarian.

The fact is that when you have a
democracy, the majority can vote to restrict other peoples’ freedom.
In that way, Ben, democracy conflicts with freedom.

Libertarian

So explain to me again how women, who make up 51% of the population, have so restricted everyone elses’ freedom?  Last time I looked the telebangilists 25%ers were still trying to take away their rights over their health and reproductive choices?

All you need to know about libertarian philosophy is that they consider the progressive tax to be an unconscionable limit to freedom, while they consider pretty much any way that corporations can screw a person to be the sacred free market at work.  So a 39% top marginal rate is the worst evil you could possibly inflict, while a company town where workers are trapped until the day they work themselves to death is hunky dory.

It’s not that I’m not worried about government taking away our freedoms, it’s that I’m also worried about the wealthy doing the same.  Never mind that throughout most of human history “the wealthy” and “the government” were one and the same.

Libertarians want to free us right back to the year 800.

Being rid of government and taxes means that someone else will have a monopoly of force—-we need to put limits on both the public and private sector’s ability to hurt people, .

What’s ironic is that most extreme libertarians I’ve encountered IRL with only one notable exception would not last 5 seconds in the very libertarian utopia they envision for all of us….physically or mentally. 

Heck…..my older aunts/uncles, and grandmother are better able to cope with a libertarian dog eat dog world…..and having experienced a form of it known as wartime chaos…...they want no part of it…..

And I’d like to reiterate that I seriously think that all high school student should have had at least one serious programming class…

Though I would be inclined to agree…..I think the benefits of this could only be maximized if the US completely revamps the way they teach/encourage the learning of foundational math from K-12. 

It is a problem when a sizable portion of college first-years IME struggle through basic arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc.  A problem when some of the mathematical topics are critical in designing and writing good programs.  It was one factor in the high washout rates I heard about and witnessed in many intro-level undergrad STEM courses.

Let’s not get into a discussion of the manifold failures of the K-12 system. 

To go back a step, I really would like to hear about how women and African-Americans are less free than they were in the 1920s.

With respect Mandos, I think most pros in any field wish kids were taught their field.  Doctors and nurses wish people were taught to take better care of themselves.  Economists wish kids were taught more about business and finance.  Historians wish kids were taught better history.  Hell, truckers wish kids were taught how to drive safely.

Frankly, the way schools are run, we’re almost asking too much just to have kids taught critical thinking.  We should be thankful they’re being taught to read.

Mandos: “I also do think that most people can and should have learned the basics of programming by grade 12.”

Well, I think that most people can and should have learned the basics of maintaining their own Model T by grade 12.  That includes machining their own parts, and disassembling/reassembling the car completely.  Maybe mining the ore for the metal and drilling for oil and building their own personal refinery while they’re at it.

Your attempt to defend your argument dig you even deeper, I’m afraid: “At least an end to put an end to the horrendous movies with ‘tech.’”  You really think that teaching kids “the basics of programming” would have that effect?  That’s like hoping that teaching them the basics of civics would put an end to movies in which One Man rides into town and saves America from the bad guys, whoever they are this week.

Sure, teaching basic programming (the IF bone connected to the THEN bone, etc.) would do no harm.  But the kind of programming whose basics I learned in the 80s has little to do with writing the kind of code that drives the programs on everybody’s home PC these days.

“They do get phys ed. classes in school with basic health these days, don’t they?”  Hahahahahahaha.  Guess again.  What’s “basic health,” anyway?  I’m not sure what you’re thinking of, but what the term calls up for me is something a lot less simpler than debugging C++.  And again: kids have been taught that germs cause disease in school for decades now, but magical thinking about contagion still overrides that knowledge for most people, as those of us who remember the early years of the AIDS epidemic can tell you.  And I still can’t get the college students who work in the cafeteria where I work to wash their hands.

but then, RobW (though I agree with his main point about professionals wanting their speciality taught to all kids): “Frankly the way schools are run, we’re almost asking too much just to have kids taught critical thinking.  We should be thankful they’re being taught to read.”  Well, if we could do something about the obsession with standardized tests that is wasting an enormous amount of school time these days, that could be helped a bit.  But most people want history, reading, and the other basics to be taught badly—by rote, with history based on American mythology (in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue and discovered a land without a people), as a painful ordeal to weed out the weak, and so on.  For example, when I mention that the best way we know to improve reading ability is to have everybody (the kids, the teachers, the staff) read every day for half an hour or an hour, whatever they want, most people go ballistic: “That’s stupid!  That will ruin everything!  They should be drilled on spelling and basic skills instead!  You just want the schools to promote mediocrity!  You hate excellence!”

Had to come back just to mention that Ed over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars is throwing a goddamn hissy fit over your post.  And, true to form, his yes-men are pulling out the usual garbage that trolls here like to pull out.