Is there a HN, that's not affiliated with this muttonhead? I love the content here, but I feel gross coming here knowing it's affiliated with such a sleazy billionaire.
I agree. If NZ let him buy his way to citizenship, then what's the problem? He didn't break any laws, he followed the rules, and he got his citizenship legally. What's the story here?
We like to think we live in a world with one set of rules. But of course we live in a world with multiple sets of rules, one for if you're a billionaire, one for if you're a racial minority, one for...
> We like to think we live in a world with one set of rules
Different people, and hence different societies, have different values. These values, which vary over time, give rise to systems of laws. I wouldn't want to be bound by a different culture's system of values.
On the topic at hand, most countries have an "investor visa" [1] or "extraordinary person" exception [2]. Even some EU countries grant citizenship in exchange for investment [3]. Economic prerogatives matter.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I guess I wasn't talking about different laws or mores in different countries. I was talking about the same country with different rules depending on who you are.
It isn't legal - he was granted an exception to the rules after being denied because he had a change of heart and donated $700m - for the first time ever - to the disaster fund, then applied again immediately. In NZ you must actually live there to gain citizenship, even if you pay.
It appears the Internal Affairs Department may legally approve citizenship under "exceptional circumstances". And he is not alone: "one to two dozen [applicants] a year...are approved for citizenship by the minister of internal affairs under 'exceptional' circumstances" [1].
Why? That minister got the NZ public $700m USD in disaster relief in an exchange that cost them virtually nothing. If anything he should be given an award for outstanding excellence in the field of defrauding rich yanks.
lol, that oath though! Doesn't matter, still rich. Everyone aspires to have that flexibility when they find out about it and see it within their grasp. And its great - for the individual - how the rules disappear.
Are you familiar with the US naturalisation oath? It goes like this:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
As a born NZ citizen as well, are you serious? More rich people that are - generally speaking - racist, sexist, anti-democracy and have tendencies to sue news organizations into the ground while calling it "charity"? He can ultimately do what he wants, but I don't think we need more of these types of people.
Also, the idea of rich people/foundations/etc supporting lawsuits for ideological reasons is hardly new. Do you similarly oppose the Southern Poverty Law Center, who successfully filed (valid) lawsuits against the Aryan Nations with the goal of shutting them down? Or the Conservation Law Foundation, and all their donors?
Whataboutism is a perfectly valid argumentation technique. If you argue against person X for doing Z, but not against person Y who does the same thing, it suggests you might actually just have a grudge against X.
I'm asking whether you actually object to funding valid lawsuits against people due to speech you object to, or whether that's simply a cheap attack line.
What exactly in this article do you believe is racist or sexist? From what I can tell, Thiel made one factual statement - that women (and welfare beneficiaries) vote for policies he considers harmful. Do you think that factual statement is wrong?
If I made a similar factual statement - say "white people were more likely to support Trump" - does that imply I'm biased against white people?
I agree that we don't want more racist, sexist and anti-democracy people here. I don't believe Thiel is.
But rich people I have nothing against, I welcome wealth coming into the country. And suing a private company, well let the case stand on its merits, I don't take issue with that.
If we're talking about the same piece, what he wrote is more nuanced:
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.[0]
This seems similar to the claim "if white people didn't vote, Trump would have lost in a landslide", which almost nobody takes to mean white people shouldn't vote.
> 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.
If you read the original essay[1] you will see that he is making a descriptive and not a proscriptive point. He is not saying "we should not let women vote, because then we could have capitalist democracy". He is saying "women are not attracted to libertarian politics, and they have the franchise, therefore capitalist democracy is not going to happen. Therefore, we should go beyond politics to make it happen". He suggests three ways of making it happen: Cyberspace, outerspace, seasteading.
I think you're crazy. We are in dire need of more people willing to give money to tech ventures that will help North America's GDP growth. Let's not try and interpret the political stuff - Losing a venture capitalist like Thiel is a direct hit to our ability to innovate. Hell, the guy is giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to ambitious, smart High School students. That's not something to overlook.
Thiel supported Trump and built an escape plan. It's not that he doesn't have a skin in the game, but if the game turns bad, he can bail and leave "us" behind.
I see where you're coming from. But I won't weigh someone's politics when determining if they are a good American or not. Politics are too complex to interpret good and bad, but giving money to tech ventures is decidedly good for our economy.
Your argument is bad for two reasons. One, being 'up to the task' is subjective. Two, nobody but Peter Thiel knows why he got the citizenship. My argument is good because I argue 'If you invest in tech, you help the economy, and that is good' which has no assumptions or opinions in it.
what if Thiel decides he doesn't like you, or people like you, and swings his influence hammer at your government and creates a hostile political climate for you, and your friends, and family?
He has already demonstrated his willingness and ability to do this. Why do you trust him?
As an example of the disconnect between most commenters on here, and the rest of the country:
Imagine that you own a pizzeria in a small town of 2,000 people. Imagine that you hold social beliefs that, 50 years ago, would have been considered not just banal, but so unremarkable that the alternative is not even seriously considered by anyone. 30 years ago, that alternative was not actually legal in any country in the world. Today, it's still (barely) a minority belief.
Now imagine someone asks you to violate that social belief, and you say no. And as a result, a gigantic media firestorm erupts. The President of the USA makes fun of you. The CEO of the world's largest public corporation writes an op-ed decrying your beliefs. People trash your online reputation. Anonymous people threaten to burn down your restaurant. Eventually you're forced to close because there has been such a tremendous backlash.
The system in power in the USA has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to do this. Why would people who disagree with these things trust it to have that kind of power? Why wouldn't they try to burn it all down or replace it?
I don't understand your point. How far along the reductio ad absurdum should we go?
You described the holdouts of the 1950s era of American culture. Suppose there was a holdout from the 1850s era of American culture. Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people.
so...where do you draw the line? by what means do we determine by what means, and under what circumstances, people might express their cultural preferences? I think there is a difference between a "media firestorm" (emergent phenomenon) and the directed effort of an eccentric billionaire.
> Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people.
We do give deference to that, as long as they are our allies and not actually within our borders.
More seriously though, there is no means by which we can determine how people might express their cultural preferences. I simply believe (unprovable) that the elite / bourgeois / urban class overreached (by creating a situation allowing those emergent phenomena to happen), and there was a reaction. If there were a critical mass of people who did believe in slavery, then I guess there would have to be a civil war or something to settle the issue. There is no way around the fact that public morality is enforced socially / by other people.
It's fundamentally hypocritical of Thiel to stick America with a maniac from whom the vast majority of citizens can't escape, while he has a perfect backup plan. One of his many hypocrisies.
My favorite Thiel hypocrisy is that he pretends to be Libertarian while building an enormous company to generate wealth for himself, by explicitly giving the state more power.
That said, he'll get defended because of three things:
1) while it's gross, it's normal. Most countries let rich people buy citizenship in some form or fashion.
2) Thiel is a bully, and everybody knows it. pg and sama are so afraid of him that they pretend that a citizen asking them to criticize thiel directly is directly equivalent to the HUAC. That's absurd on it's face, but pg and sama repeat it, because they are cowards and afraid of the nasty and brutish Thiel.
3) all the dumb fuck sociopathic cunts on this site think they'll be billionaires some day; and they look forward to murdering niggers and controlling women and otherwise ruining the world. So to them, Thiel is basically a hero. They love his hypocrisy. They love that he says one thing, does another, and that even quite powerful people are afraid to admit that he's completely and totally full of shit.
So yeah... it's hypocritical. But who cares. HN is run by cowards who fear Thiel's vengeance (and love his money); and it's populated with delusional losers who think they'll be Thiel.
This just feels nasty. It feels like left-leaning media outlets (note: I'm left leaning) are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to discredit anyone who has the gall to disagree with their narrative that Trump is a disaster (note: I think Trump is a disaster, so far).
I don't much care for Peter Thiel. I didn't exactly mind that he funded legal action against Gawker in itself, what bothers me there is the same thing that bothers me about this:
Money should not affect the outcomes of legal actions, directly or indirectly. Similarly, money should not allow you to become a citizen of a country you've never lived in, on a whim.
Sadly we're not close to removing money from the equation in either of those areas (and many more), and we probably never will be.
All of that aside, Thiel's use of his money to get a leg up is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. It's one example among a sea of examples. And the only reason it's getting this level of scrutiny is because Thiel has taken "unpopular" stances.
Detailing the citizenship gymnastics of an individual who is for policies restricting citizenship for a certain class of people is most certainly news. It points to the hypocrisy of a world where refugees are not allowed entry while billionaires roam the world like its their private property and the same billionaires work to enact those restrictive policies.
Sorry, can't resist sometimes...the world has become a rather strange place lately.
Anyways, in less hyperbolic terms: this is news because it paints Thiel as a hypocrite for supporting an unsuitable candidate while having a "backup" in case things go south in his own country.
After the violence at UC Berkeley- do you see a rational alternative explanation of why people would be thinking about a plan b?
The younger generation seems to have abandoned the cherished principle of free speech. When that happens- the only alternative to quitting is violence. What else should Thiel (or any of us who disagree with these antifa criminals) be considering? Should it be violence first?
> The younger generation seems to have abandoned the cherished principle of free speech. What else should Thiel (or any of us who disagree with these antifa criminals) be considering? Should it be violence first?
No it shouldn't be and its not. Please don't hold an entire generation or an entire section of people responsible for the actions of a few. It is the same mistake many people make when they associate Islam with terrorism.
And to answer your first question: you were pointing out the irrelevancy of this as news. I am pointing out why its relevant and you seem to have agreed on that as well. Let's not go on a tangent.
Occam's Razor is not a tangent. The simplest explanation for his behavior is not that his citizenship effort is a hedge against Trump. Consequently, this is a disturbing article.
> money should not allow you to become a citizen of a country you've never lived in
This is the purview of a country's citizens. New Zealand's laws allow the Internal Affairs Department to legally approve citizenship under "exceptional circumstances"; around "one to two dozen [applicants] a year" are granted this exception [1].
Lot's of countries have some variation on it, including the USA (see comment below on obtaining a green card by investing), Hong Kong, and many others. The most blatant might be St Kitts & Nevis, USD 250,000 for one passport [1] with no residency requirement, but there are plenty of others [2].
> That's essentially like South Carolina selling US citizenship to boost its budget
I get what you're saying, but the reason it's not is important. South Carolina cannot issue citizenship independent of the federal government. Those rules were agreed to up front. The EU's weren't. So Malta will be Malta.
Just to explore this idea that it's unfair to let money play a factor in citizenship--
What do you think of the Green Card Through Investment program? https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-job/gree... It is a "money for green card" program. The idea is that it encourages investors to get access to the US if they're going to be putting money into our economy. It makes sense if they want to be closer to their investment and be able to monitor and guide it.
> Entrepreneurs (and their spouses and unmarried children under 21) who make an investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States and who plan to create or preserve ten permanent full time jobs for qualified United States workers, are eligible to apply for a green card (permanent residence).
But didn't get down to this:
> You must invest $1,000,000, or at least $500,000 in a targeted employment area (high unemployment or rural area). In return, USCIS may grant conditional permanent residence to the individual.
The problem is we shouldn't let people in just because they are rich. A bunch of money flooding in from say china could cause problems in the us just like it did in vancouver. And I also disagree with the whole idea that you should be able to buy a visa or residency just with money. We don't need more invesetments in the us by rich, overly entitled people that have no interest in their communities - we have enough disinterested rich people already. We need people working for a better life, immigrants who are trying to do something with their life.
And the only reason it's getting this level of scrutiny is because Thiel has taken "unpopular" stances.
It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "unpopular." It's because he's very close to the new administration, and was instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so).
> was instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so).
This is vague supposition. No one can quantify how much/how little Thiel had to do with Trump winning. If dollars spent on a campaign = being president, then Trump would not be president. If this election proved one good thing, it's that money can't buy you a general election in the United States.
> It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "unpopular." It's because he's very close to the new administration
It doesn't matter if this scrutiny is because "he's close to the new administration." I don't want to only read about corruption of people "close to X administration that I dislike." I'd like to read about corruption regardless of which narrative, party, worldview, etc the people involved in the corruption subscribe to.
To put it another way, the fact that Thiel likes Trump does not make this valid news.
No one can quantify how much/how little Thiel had to do with Trump winning.
Right, it isn't quantifiable; it require qualitative analysis. Like most significant events and forces in history.
In brief response to what you (and the other commenter) were saying: yes, even at $1.25m, Thiel's donation to the campaign wasn't a game changer (or even close to one). But his strategic significance (serving on the Executive Committee of Trump's transition team, and as one of his top financial advisors), in addition to his (perceived) intellectual "gravitas", far outstripped the significance of his cash donation.
Sure, you're free to offer your opinion on which factors tilted the election. But I would urge you to qualify that opinion with an introduction like "in my opinion..." I say this because, to me, it's not obvious at all that Thiel had a significant impact in the election and you stated it so matter-of-factly that I smiled to myself.
To me, claims like "X individual was crucial to Y historical event in some vague way that involves 'intellectual gravitas'" seem absurd. That doesn't square with my view on how humans make decisions. It's difficult for me to imagine a human whose decision to vote for Donald Trump hinged on Peter Thiel's endorsement of Donald Trump.
I'd also bet money that most Americans who know who Peter Thiel is, and have strong feelings about him, live in CA and voted for Clinton.
Wait, are you saying that if Thiel had simply done nothing during the campaign that Trump wouldn't have won? I don't see it. All he did was give $1.25M (less than 0.5% of Trump's total war chest) and make some public statements in support. How is that a "crucial" or "instrumental" part of Trump's election?
It is a part of the phenomenon of being "surprised by a Trump win". Listening to the news from just one bubble and interpreting everything through it, it does seem like it should have been some extraordinary Russian interference, extreme statistical fluke, a secret cabal of white supremacists, FBI coups or something like that. It is unimaginable that people simply voted for him.
I'm not taking sides but might be best to try to understand why sixty three million of your fellow citizens voted for your unimaginable or possibly only for 'a-complete-change- because-previous-administrations-had-done-nothing-to-sort- out-the-dreadful-state-America-is-in' and Hillary appeared to them to be the last person likely to alter that.
Please see my response to the sibling comment of yours.
As to red states -- no, he didn't single-handedly flip all those rust belt counties of course (if you're looking for a finger to point for that fail, there's good evidence by this point that Hillary's own people did more than their share to basically hamstring their own efforts on that particular front). And of course you can't point to any single factor as solely responsible for a loss of this magnitude -- as I'm sure you understand perfectly well.
However, there's good reason to believe that Thiel's endorsement provided a very significant moral boost to Trump's flagging (and in the view of many, basically doomed) campaign at that point -- in addition to the his serving as one of his closest advisors (in particular, as one of his main financial advisors) during this -- yes -- crucial juncture in the campaign.
I think you're missing the point of some people's disgust: why does one of Trump's figure heads need citizenship in another country to begin with? If he is so in with the Trump administration, why this move?
Frankly, I lost all respect for Thiel joining forces with Trump. Granted, he's a capitalist and that's fine, but throwing your lot in with a bigoted administration escapes me. If the party you are part of represents openly a disdain for gays, immigrants, and women, what is even the point of belonging to that. Seems like you could find or form your own pro-capitalist party minus all the divisiveness.
I think like many that voted for Trump, Thiel will probably see that he was not so 'smart' when he threw his lot in with such a devicisive and destructive administration.
> If he is so in with the Trump administration, why this move?
At the very top of the article (you did read the article, right?) it says that Thiel got his NZ citizenship in 2011, well before throwing his lot in with Trump.
Would you lose respect for someone if they joined an organization to influence it in a way to prevent it from doing evil?
Not saying this is what Thiel is doing, but there's no way to know so far what his intentions are and people seem to be disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'd say consulting the book Peter Thiel wrote in which he describes multiculturalism as existing "to destroy Western Culture" might be a reasonable way of gaining insight into his intentions.
And if he ever flies there, they could change the rules while he is in the air and then deport him. Ah, no, a civilised state wouldn't do that, forget it.
For one, because the citizens of NZ are concerned about the precedent it sets, and because it's explicitly against our immigration policies, and because the documents show a troubling standard.
1. Thiel arranged application through notorious figure Mark Wheldon (connected to senior govt figures and instrumental in gutting govt accountability in NZ media over several years)
2. Thiel gives a million dollars to the Earthquake fund
3. Thiels letter reads [paraphrasing] "Our applicant is anxious that his application for citizenship not be affected by his donation"
4. Application was subsequently approved in large part on the basis of the donation
This is very much seems to be a "Please ignore this bag of money on your desk" transaction. If NZ policies allowed that, that would be one thing, but it explicitly disallows that.
Thiel's money-for-citizenship deal has been highly prominent in all major sources of national news in NZ for several days.
It feels like left-leaning media outlets (note: I'm left leaning) are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to discredit anyone who has the gall to disagree with their narrative that Trump is a disaster (note: I think Trump is a disaster, so far).
Isn't this a bit of a double standard? I recall many months of Clinton email articles, hashing and rehashing it.
I agree it's nasty, but I don't think the left is worse than the right here. In fact, I think the right is far worse, because this story is unlikely to be rehashed for 9 months.
First, many of the media outlets that obsessively covered Clinton's emails were explicitly pro-Clinton. That story was, like it or not, actual news on some level. As exaggerated and politicized as it got, people were interested in it because Clinton was a presidential candidate, regardless of her views and party.
Second, I absolutely think right-leaning media that harps on non-issues solely because they paint the left in a negative light deserves the same criticism I made above. This just happens to be a case of the reverse.
I agree with you but this isn't harping as much as presenting facts. Of course the media will be interested in the life of a person who has been an important figure in the tech sector and yet has been against almost everyone else in that sector in his pro-Trump stance.
Now, if CNN has hosts talking about this fact over and over again for 6 months, that would be "harping."
> This just feels nasty. It feels like left-leaning media outlets (note: I'm left leaning) are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to discredit anyone who has the gall to disagree with their narrative
I'll even go further and say because of their scrapping the bottom of the barrel they've pushed people away. With CNN's "don't read these documents, it's illegal for you but different for the press, come to use for interpretation" to talking about grabbing genitals for days on end with their panel of experts. After a while people see through it and they become just as much of a joke those who they criticize.
Author of this article was from Gawker so for him it's probably personal issue not left/right issue.
And the fact that you can get NZ citizenship by stating that you are rich and could be useful with track record that you were in some other country is intersting in itself.
The person of Peter Thiel is not intersting at all. Trump has way dumber advisers we can laugh at.
Peter Thiel has demonstrated a willingness to use his money to influence politics in the US. If he now does the same in NZ, is that now not a "foreign influence" on their country? Just because he did some paperwork and bought himself citizenship?
Wow, Peter. Real classy. When you're not harvesting the blood of the young or scheming with tyrants, you're buying your way into a island paradise on the other side of the world, escaping the American dystopia of your own creation.
Some of us aren't billionaires who can buy our way to happiness.
"In the first seven days after Donald Trump’s election, 13,401 Americans registered with New Zealand’s immigration authorities, the first official step toward seeking residency—more than seventeen times the usual rate. "
Well, today is Check your Backups day (http://checkyourbackups.work). Everyone should have a backup, Peter Thiel is no exception ()
So what if he "bought" his citizenship? Is that illegal? If not, that "makes him smart". There are plenty of places that will grant you, if not citizenship, then permanent residency, as long as you bring in cash. Or will at least have a fast-track path.
On that note, if you are young, try to get citizenship in more than one country. Or, if you have kids, do that for them. That way, you limit the amount of influence a given government can have on you. If things go south, you have a backup plan.
() Disclaimer: I dislike the guy, but I feel this piece of news is weak.
in the wake of public outrage in that country shows that
Thiel would have been denied citizenship on the self-
admitted fact that he has never lived in the country and
has no plans to do so
pieter theil bought himself a novelty post-appocalypse passport for $700m.
NEWS FLASH: Billionaire gets what they want by spending millions of dollars
I think it helps to imagine Peter Thiel as a comic book supervillain. He wants to live forever, so of course he's going to have a remote HQ to flee to in an emergency.
He may or not be a bad guy, but I think it's pretty clear that he has one standard for himself and another standard for others.
As a New Zealand citizen who is a dual national of a country that I've never visited, I'm not necessarily opposed to non-residents becoming citizens.
I am concerned though, about people who are well known for using their giant stack of cash to influence politics and legal cases being given citizenship.
I do think that the outcome of the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker case was a good thing, but I don't think that Theil funding it was a good thing. Billionaires funding legal cases of unrelated people based on a personal vendetta isn't a road I want society to go down, especially such a target approach. If he was giving aid to various people suing various yellow journalism outlets for slander/libel, I'd be inclined to believe that he was being at least slightly altruistic.
And then there's the amount of money he's put into politics. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if he supported Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, it's the amount of money he gave.
I get the impression from the man that all he cares about is himself, and he'll just throw money at things to get what he wants.
103 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadDifferent people, and hence different societies, have different values. These values, which vary over time, give rise to systems of laws. I wouldn't want to be bound by a different culture's system of values.
On the topic at hand, most countries have an "investor visa" [1] or "extraordinary person" exception [2]. Even some EU countries grant citizenship in exchange for investment [3]. Economic prerogatives matter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EB-5_visa
[2] https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/temporary-worker...
[3] https://www.ccmalta.com/publications/malta-citizenship-inves...
It appears the Internal Affairs Department may legally approve citizenship under "exceptional circumstances". And he is not alone: "one to two dozen [applicants] a year...are approved for citizenship by the minister of internal affairs under 'exceptional' circumstances" [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/business/peter-thiel-new-...
EDIT: 700k, not 700m. Still, not a bad deal.
If that's the world you want to live in, then yeah, I guess there's no story here.
Here's one thing he can do now: http://www.elections.org.nz/parties-candidates/registered-po...
Are you familiar with the US naturalisation oath? It goes like this:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization-test/nat...
Also, the idea of rich people/foundations/etc supporting lawsuits for ideological reasons is hardly new. Do you similarly oppose the Southern Poverty Law Center, who successfully filed (valid) lawsuits against the Aryan Nations with the goal of shutting them down? Or the Conservation Law Foundation, and all their donors?
https://www.splcenter.org/seeking-justice/case-docket/keenan...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxonmobil-lawsuit-conse...
I'm asking whether you actually object to funding valid lawsuits against people due to speech you object to, or whether that's simply a cheap attack line.
If I made a similar factual statement - say "white people were more likely to support Trump" - does that imply I'm biased against white people?
But rich people I have nothing against, I welcome wealth coming into the country. And suing a private company, well let the case stand on its merits, I don't take issue with that.
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.[0]
This seems similar to the claim "if white people didn't vote, Trump would have lost in a landslide", which almost nobody takes to mean white people shouldn't vote.
[0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
> 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.
If you read the original essay[1] you will see that he is making a descriptive and not a proscriptive point. He is not saying "we should not let women vote, because then we could have capitalist democracy". He is saying "women are not attracted to libertarian politics, and they have the franchise, therefore capitalist democracy is not going to happen. Therefore, we should go beyond politics to make it happen". He suggests three ways of making it happen: Cyberspace, outerspace, seasteading.
[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
He has already demonstrated his willingness and ability to do this. Why do you trust him?
Imagine that you own a pizzeria in a small town of 2,000 people. Imagine that you hold social beliefs that, 50 years ago, would have been considered not just banal, but so unremarkable that the alternative is not even seriously considered by anyone. 30 years ago, that alternative was not actually legal in any country in the world. Today, it's still (barely) a minority belief.
Now imagine someone asks you to violate that social belief, and you say no. And as a result, a gigantic media firestorm erupts. The President of the USA makes fun of you. The CEO of the world's largest public corporation writes an op-ed decrying your beliefs. People trash your online reputation. Anonymous people threaten to burn down your restaurant. Eventually you're forced to close because there has been such a tremendous backlash.
The system in power in the USA has already demonstrated its willingness and ability to do this. Why would people who disagree with these things trust it to have that kind of power? Why wouldn't they try to burn it all down or replace it?
You described the holdouts of the 1950s era of American culture. Suppose there was a holdout from the 1850s era of American culture. Should we give deference to their cultural preferences which include all of the following: ownership of human beings as property (only if they have dark skin, though), subjugation of women who are legally disenfranchised, and enthusiasm for genocidal military actions against indigenous people.
so...where do you draw the line? by what means do we determine by what means, and under what circumstances, people might express their cultural preferences? I think there is a difference between a "media firestorm" (emergent phenomenon) and the directed effort of an eccentric billionaire.
We do give deference to that, as long as they are our allies and not actually within our borders.
More seriously though, there is no means by which we can determine how people might express their cultural preferences. I simply believe (unprovable) that the elite / bourgeois / urban class overreached (by creating a situation allowing those emergent phenomena to happen), and there was a reaction. If there were a critical mass of people who did believe in slavery, then I guess there would have to be a civil war or something to settle the issue. There is no way around the fact that public morality is enforced socially / by other people.
That said, he'll get defended because of three things:
1) while it's gross, it's normal. Most countries let rich people buy citizenship in some form or fashion.
2) Thiel is a bully, and everybody knows it. pg and sama are so afraid of him that they pretend that a citizen asking them to criticize thiel directly is directly equivalent to the HUAC. That's absurd on it's face, but pg and sama repeat it, because they are cowards and afraid of the nasty and brutish Thiel.
3) all the dumb fuck sociopathic cunts on this site think they'll be billionaires some day; and they look forward to murdering niggers and controlling women and otherwise ruining the world. So to them, Thiel is basically a hero. They love his hypocrisy. They love that he says one thing, does another, and that even quite powerful people are afraid to admit that he's completely and totally full of shit.
So yeah... it's hypocritical. But who cares. HN is run by cowards who fear Thiel's vengeance (and love his money); and it's populated with delusional losers who think they'll be Thiel.
I don't much care for Peter Thiel. I didn't exactly mind that he funded legal action against Gawker in itself, what bothers me there is the same thing that bothers me about this:
Money should not affect the outcomes of legal actions, directly or indirectly. Similarly, money should not allow you to become a citizen of a country you've never lived in, on a whim.
Sadly we're not close to removing money from the equation in either of those areas (and many more), and we probably never will be.
All of that aside, Thiel's use of his money to get a leg up is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. It's one example among a sea of examples. And the only reason it's getting this level of scrutiny is because Thiel has taken "unpopular" stances.
Should we expect a report on the brands of deodorant he prefers?
Anyways, in less hyperbolic terms: this is news because it paints Thiel as a hypocrite for supporting an unsuitable candidate while having a "backup" in case things go south in his own country.
The younger generation seems to have abandoned the cherished principle of free speech. When that happens- the only alternative to quitting is violence. What else should Thiel (or any of us who disagree with these antifa criminals) be considering? Should it be violence first?
No it shouldn't be and its not. Please don't hold an entire generation or an entire section of people responsible for the actions of a few. It is the same mistake many people make when they associate Islam with terrorism.
And to answer your first question: you were pointing out the irrelevancy of this as news. I am pointing out why its relevant and you seem to have agreed on that as well. Let's not go on a tangent.
This is the purview of a country's citizens. New Zealand's laws allow the Internal Affairs Department to legally approve citizenship under "exceptional circumstances"; around "one to two dozen [applicants] a year" are granted this exception [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/business/peter-thiel-new-...
[1] https://www.savoryandpartners.com/citizenship-investment-pro...
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27674135
That's essentially like South Carolina selling US citizenship to boost its budget.
I get what you're saying, but the reason it's not is important. South Carolina cannot issue citizenship independent of the federal government. Those rules were agreed to up front. The EU's weren't. So Malta will be Malta.
What do you think of the Green Card Through Investment program? https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-through-job/gree... It is a "money for green card" program. The idea is that it encourages investors to get access to the US if they're going to be putting money into our economy. It makes sense if they want to be closer to their investment and be able to monitor and guide it.
It's not good but it's not quite "here's a million dollars, now make me a citizen."
> Entrepreneurs (and their spouses and unmarried children under 21) who make an investment in a commercial enterprise in the United States and who plan to create or preserve ten permanent full time jobs for qualified United States workers, are eligible to apply for a green card (permanent residence).
But didn't get down to this:
> You must invest $1,000,000, or at least $500,000 in a targeted employment area (high unemployment or rural area). In return, USCIS may grant conditional permanent residence to the individual.
He's done absolutely nothing else to get it.
It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "unpopular." It's because he's very close to the new administration, and was instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so).
This is vague supposition. No one can quantify how much/how little Thiel had to do with Trump winning. If dollars spent on a campaign = being president, then Trump would not be president. If this election proved one good thing, it's that money can't buy you a general election in the United States.
> It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "unpopular." It's because he's very close to the new administration
It doesn't matter if this scrutiny is because "he's close to the new administration." I don't want to only read about corruption of people "close to X administration that I dislike." I'd like to read about corruption regardless of which narrative, party, worldview, etc the people involved in the corruption subscribe to.
To put it another way, the fact that Thiel likes Trump does not make this valid news.
Right, it isn't quantifiable; it require qualitative analysis. Like most significant events and forces in history.
In brief response to what you (and the other commenter) were saying: yes, even at $1.25m, Thiel's donation to the campaign wasn't a game changer (or even close to one). But his strategic significance (serving on the Executive Committee of Trump's transition team, and as one of his top financial advisors), in addition to his (perceived) intellectual "gravitas", far outstripped the significance of his cash donation.
To me, claims like "X individual was crucial to Y historical event in some vague way that involves 'intellectual gravitas'" seem absurd. That doesn't square with my view on how humans make decisions. It's difficult for me to imagine a human whose decision to vote for Donald Trump hinged on Peter Thiel's endorsement of Donald Trump.
I'd also bet money that most Americans who know who Peter Thiel is, and have strong feelings about him, live in CA and voted for Clinton.
'Dreadful'? If you're baffled by this, check the stats on US child mortality, median wage, educational attainment for starters. And maybe this guy has something - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/trump-how-did-this-happ....
This is clearly false. Peter Thiel didn't turn rural and suburban counties red in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
As to red states -- no, he didn't single-handedly flip all those rust belt counties of course (if you're looking for a finger to point for that fail, there's good evidence by this point that Hillary's own people did more than their share to basically hamstring their own efforts on that particular front). And of course you can't point to any single factor as solely responsible for a loss of this magnitude -- as I'm sure you understand perfectly well.
However, there's good reason to believe that Thiel's endorsement provided a very significant moral boost to Trump's flagging (and in the view of many, basically doomed) campaign at that point -- in addition to the his serving as one of his closest advisors (in particular, as one of his main financial advisors) during this -- yes -- crucial juncture in the campaign.
Frankly, I lost all respect for Thiel joining forces with Trump. Granted, he's a capitalist and that's fine, but throwing your lot in with a bigoted administration escapes me. If the party you are part of represents openly a disdain for gays, immigrants, and women, what is even the point of belonging to that. Seems like you could find or form your own pro-capitalist party minus all the divisiveness.
I think like many that voted for Trump, Thiel will probably see that he was not so 'smart' when he threw his lot in with such a devicisive and destructive administration.
At the very top of the article (you did read the article, right?) it says that Thiel got his NZ citizenship in 2011, well before throwing his lot in with Trump.
Not saying this is what Thiel is doing, but there's no way to know so far what his intentions are and people seem to be disinclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why not? NZ gets a bunch of money and never needs to do anything for it (especially if Thiel never lives there).
1. Thiel arranged application through notorious figure Mark Wheldon (connected to senior govt figures and instrumental in gutting govt accountability in NZ media over several years)
2. Thiel gives a million dollars to the Earthquake fund
3. Thiels letter reads [paraphrasing] "Our applicant is anxious that his application for citizenship not be affected by his donation"
4. Application was subsequently approved in large part on the basis of the donation
This is very much seems to be a "Please ignore this bag of money on your desk" transaction. If NZ policies allowed that, that would be one thing, but it explicitly disallows that.
Thiel's money-for-citizenship deal has been highly prominent in all major sources of national news in NZ for several days.
Support for point #4 was from this letter: https://twitter.com/badtom/status/826667476096315393
Isn't this a bit of a double standard? I recall many months of Clinton email articles, hashing and rehashing it.
I agree it's nasty, but I don't think the left is worse than the right here. In fact, I think the right is far worse, because this story is unlikely to be rehashed for 9 months.
Second, I absolutely think right-leaning media that harps on non-issues solely because they paint the left in a negative light deserves the same criticism I made above. This just happens to be a case of the reverse.
Now, if CNN has hosts talking about this fact over and over again for 6 months, that would be "harping."
I'll even go further and say because of their scrapping the bottom of the barrel they've pushed people away. With CNN's "don't read these documents, it's illegal for you but different for the press, come to use for interpretation" to talking about grabbing genitals for days on end with their panel of experts. After a while people see through it and they become just as much of a joke those who they criticize.
And the fact that you can get NZ citizenship by stating that you are rich and could be useful with track record that you were in some other country is intersting in itself.
The person of Peter Thiel is not intersting at all. Trump has way dumber advisers we can laugh at.
Some of us aren't billionaires who can buy our way to happiness.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-f...
So what if he "bought" his citizenship? Is that illegal? If not, that "makes him smart". There are plenty of places that will grant you, if not citizenship, then permanent residency, as long as you bring in cash. Or will at least have a fast-track path.
On that note, if you are young, try to get citizenship in more than one country. Or, if you have kids, do that for them. That way, you limit the amount of influence a given government can have on you. If things go south, you have a backup plan.
() Disclaimer: I dislike the guy, but I feel this piece of news is weak.
I think it helps to imagine Peter Thiel as a comic book supervillain. He wants to live forever, so of course he's going to have a remote HQ to flee to in an emergency.
He may or not be a bad guy, but I think it's pretty clear that he has one standard for himself and another standard for others.
I am concerned though, about people who are well known for using their giant stack of cash to influence politics and legal cases being given citizenship.
I do think that the outcome of the Hulk Hogan vs Gawker case was a good thing, but I don't think that Theil funding it was a good thing. Billionaires funding legal cases of unrelated people based on a personal vendetta isn't a road I want society to go down, especially such a target approach. If he was giving aid to various people suing various yellow journalism outlets for slander/libel, I'd be inclined to believe that he was being at least slightly altruistic.
And then there's the amount of money he's put into politics. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if he supported Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, it's the amount of money he gave.
I get the impression from the man that all he cares about is himself, and he'll just throw money at things to get what he wants.