> Hey, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, was selling out all your principles worth it?
I don't think they have sold out their principles. These are their principles.
Thiel thinks democracy and freedom are incompatible. Thiel thinks women getting the vote was bad. Thiel's ambition is to "escape" democracy by seasteading or by building "freedom cities" or "network states":
luxury beliefs from people who have never imagined a world where their basic security and economic success was not guaranteed by the mere fact of being US citizens. Founders have so much power to just not take their money, so why do we take them seriously again?
This is a great highlight from this piece: "Take two recent stories that perfectly illustrate the difference in coverage. First, there’s the TikTok ban. Political reporters focused on which party would benefit from the ban, and who would get credit for being “tough on China” — the usual horse-race nonsense. Tech and law reporters, meanwhile, were highlighting how the legislation would actually weaken security protections and create dangerous precedents for government intervention in private companies. (Not to mention how it would undermine decades of US work promoting an open internet.)"
Most of the political press is chasing clicks, without realizing they are just cheerleaders for their own demise. The open internet is going away. And nobody is doing anything about it.
If someone shouts, "2+2 is not four! It's something else!" Is it polite to stay silent?
Calling it polite is specious, isn't it? Is it considerate to withhold criticism in the face of lies and untrustworthiness?
I think this conflation of non-confrontation with polite is really something quite obscene. Doesn't this equate self-censorship with consideration? What's being considered when you think "well this is stupid, it's obviously 4 and I have no idea why someone would yell something that silly - I suppose no one should take the carnival barker seriously enough to even acknowledge this".
That is not politeness. That is providing permission to spread ignorance.
Thought there were some really good statements in the article
> When you’ve spent years watching how some tech bros break the rules in pursuit of personal and economic power at the expense of safety and user protections, all while wrapping themselves in the flag of “innovation,”
We've all see tech startups get big by breaking the law and saying they were "innovating" and that it's "too expensive" to comply with the law like every other country.
> When someone talks about “free speech” while actively working to control speech, that’s not a contradiction or a mistake — it’s the point. It’s about consolidating power while wrapping it in the language of freedom as a shield to fool the gullible and the lazy
It's straight up doublespeak. And this administration +Musk is all about doublespeak. Just look at the recent court arguments. Depending on the case Mr. Musk is either "not employeed by the government" or is a "special government employee" whichever is more convenient to them at the time.
> If you do not recognize that mass destruction of fundamental concepts of democracy and the US Constitution happening right now, you are either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid. I can’t put it any clearer than that.
I think this is well said. Even if you agree with the positions Trump and Elon are taking and the things they are doing, the ends do not justify the means. Eliminating the co-equal branches of government so your side can rule by fiat is not a democracy, full stop.
John Adams said a republic is an empire of laws, not men.
These folks not only want an empire of men, and they're those men, they will eventually use violence to try to get it. And that's because what they have done is unforgivable. They will never be trusted again. They have no choice but to attempt a full assault in order to protect themselves now.
Some of them have publicly stated democracy is obsolete, and the republic must be swept away. This is not merely "not a democracy" it is a position statement. And that position is to be an enemy of the Constitution of the United States.
Millions have taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Not a president, not a party, not a country, not an office, not even a government - but a contract which binds civil society.
If the contract is broken, it isn't freedom or anarchy that's released. It's chaos.
15 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] threadI don't think they have sold out their principles. These are their principles.
Thiel thinks democracy and freedom are incompatible. Thiel thinks women getting the vote was bad. Thiel's ambition is to "escape" democracy by seasteading or by building "freedom cities" or "network states":
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump...
https://www.thenerdreich.com/trumps-weird-freedom-cities-and...
It's a juvenile perspective. It's John Galt cosplay.
They think they will build a utopia. In reality what they're proposing is garden variety authoritarianism.
Most of the political press is chasing clicks, without realizing they are just cheerleaders for their own demise. The open internet is going away. And nobody is doing anything about it.
Calling it polite is specious, isn't it? Is it considerate to withhold criticism in the face of lies and untrustworthiness?
I think this conflation of non-confrontation with polite is really something quite obscene. Doesn't this equate self-censorship with consideration? What's being considered when you think "well this is stupid, it's obviously 4 and I have no idea why someone would yell something that silly - I suppose no one should take the carnival barker seriously enough to even acknowledge this".
That is not politeness. That is providing permission to spread ignorance.
> When you’ve spent years watching how some tech bros break the rules in pursuit of personal and economic power at the expense of safety and user protections, all while wrapping themselves in the flag of “innovation,”
We've all see tech startups get big by breaking the law and saying they were "innovating" and that it's "too expensive" to comply with the law like every other country.
> When someone talks about “free speech” while actively working to control speech, that’s not a contradiction or a mistake — it’s the point. It’s about consolidating power while wrapping it in the language of freedom as a shield to fool the gullible and the lazy
It's straight up doublespeak. And this administration +Musk is all about doublespeak. Just look at the recent court arguments. Depending on the case Mr. Musk is either "not employeed by the government" or is a "special government employee" whichever is more convenient to them at the time.
> If you do not recognize that mass destruction of fundamental concepts of democracy and the US Constitution happening right now, you are either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid. I can’t put it any clearer than that.
I think this is well said. Even if you agree with the positions Trump and Elon are taking and the things they are doing, the ends do not justify the means. Eliminating the co-equal branches of government so your side can rule by fiat is not a democracy, full stop.
These folks not only want an empire of men, and they're those men, they will eventually use violence to try to get it. And that's because what they have done is unforgivable. They will never be trusted again. They have no choice but to attempt a full assault in order to protect themselves now.
Some of them have publicly stated democracy is obsolete, and the republic must be swept away. This is not merely "not a democracy" it is a position statement. And that position is to be an enemy of the Constitution of the United States.
Millions have taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Not a president, not a party, not a country, not an office, not even a government - but a contract which binds civil society.
If the contract is broken, it isn't freedom or anarchy that's released. It's chaos.