I have so many questions - but seasteading. Isn't the problem that to have true economic freedom you have to have free trade? I mean like 100 billionaires on an island like Greenland, if they get embargoed by all the other countries -- like how many people do they have to have on their island to have the economic base to keep being billionaires and having their "freedom"
Because - like I want to live on an off-grid homestead in the middle of nowhere - that's my idea of freedom, but I don't get the impression that's Peter Thiel's definition of freedom. So maybe this is why they're realizing they have to have authoritarianism over the largest economy of the world in order to have their "freedom".
But one thing I think that's notable about a sort of schism in political thinking; is that it's interesting that the far left would say that both parties are the same and that both are bought by billionaires, but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite; maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign?
I told myself this would be rage bait and I shouldn’t click. And I clicked. So I got what I deserved.
But
> Andreessen struck me as interesting because he made Netscape, the first real usable browser and it really did change things in a fundamental way. Then he ends up—caricaturing, but not too much—flacking Bored Ape NFTs. Obviously not a stupid man, but it’s got to feel like something of a comedown.
Krugman trying to take the piss while he literally makes his living off substack, an a16z funded platform designed to give creators very different platforms and thus finances than they had six years ago, and clearly doesn’t even know it is infuriating. Earlier he makes fun of Andreessen making fun of experts, and … it would be hilarious irony if people didn’t so heavily credential him to opine on things like this.
okay I stopped there. Perhaps the rest of the interview is super well informed and therefore based on reality enough to draw some useful conclusions.
It's hard to take a book seriously when it leverages clickbait inspired titling to entice readers --I wish authors of serious topics would avoid this. It may have valid points, but when you are serious, you really should avoid the temptation lest you taint your opinion with crassness. It may preach to the choir; ideally you'd want to reach a wider audience.
SV was always authoritarian tho. Look at the structure of the companies, they are all run top down with a CEO and a strict corporate hierarchy (the notable exception being Steam I guess). That's how authoritarians prefer things.
Contrast with the way academic departments are run, where there is a Chair and a Dean, but faculty rotate and serve in those roles for limited terms.
I'm confused, is the assertion here that this is the first time silicon valley tech people and their companies got involved in partisan politics? Is it really short memory or selective memory?
Thiel pointed out that (paraphrasing): “libertarianism is the safe way to be right-wing in Tech, because it’s not politically credible. You can be safely ignored.”
Left authoritarians have more in common with Right authoritarians than with the broader Left. You saw this in Germany and Russia when their respective authoritarianisms collapsed and the same people simply changed teams.
The argument implicit in the headline is therefore perhaps better expressed as two thoughts: why did the tech right get tired of being ignored, and how did they go about flipping the authoritarian structures that already existed?
This transition isn't unique to Silicon Valley but rather is baked into the imperatives of libertarianism/liberalism itself. Once the fiction of gains for the broad working class cannot be upheld, the resulting unrest has to be quelled. At that point anyone in a position of influence has to either abandon liberalism (the economic side of it at the very least) or embrace authoritarianism.
"It's not really freedom when you are not free to try elevating yourself to god-emperor"
Libertarians hate it when others claim that the defining property of libertarianism is taking liberties with that entire "where another person's freedom begins" thing.
I think we leftists totally miss is that we have a two party system in America and most Americans think both suck and that we’re faced with choosing between the best of two bad options.
Someone like Paul Krugman can’t comprehend the libertarian might think that Trump is the best of two bad options.
It is a logical conclusion. Every form of libertarianism will eventually warp into authoritarianism after strongest entities emerge from chaos of competition. Competitive environment disappears the moment when at least one entity has enough mass to steamroll others. Major ideological flaw which libertarians refuse to see.
Someone flagged this interesting discussion that a lot of people need to hear, and is especially relevant to tech industry. I emailed hn@.
[flagged] Gilded Rage – Why Silicon Valley went from libertarian to authoritarian (paulkrugman.substack.com)
56 points by adamors 2 hours ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 50 comments
I'm not sure that have gone authoritarian beyond trying to get along with the president of the moment? They were shunning anyone even thinking of voting Trump not so long ago and will probably go back that way the next time the Democrats win.
17 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 33.8 ms ] threadBecause - like I want to live on an off-grid homestead in the middle of nowhere - that's my idea of freedom, but I don't get the impression that's Peter Thiel's definition of freedom. So maybe this is why they're realizing they have to have authoritarianism over the largest economy of the world in order to have their "freedom".
But one thing I think that's notable about a sort of schism in political thinking; is that it's interesting that the far left would say that both parties are the same and that both are bought by billionaires, but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite; maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign?
But
> Andreessen struck me as interesting because he made Netscape, the first real usable browser and it really did change things in a fundamental way. Then he ends up—caricaturing, but not too much—flacking Bored Ape NFTs. Obviously not a stupid man, but it’s got to feel like something of a comedown.
Krugman trying to take the piss while he literally makes his living off substack, an a16z funded platform designed to give creators very different platforms and thus finances than they had six years ago, and clearly doesn’t even know it is infuriating. Earlier he makes fun of Andreessen making fun of experts, and … it would be hilarious irony if people didn’t so heavily credential him to opine on things like this.
okay I stopped there. Perhaps the rest of the interview is super well informed and therefore based on reality enough to draw some useful conclusions.
Contrast with the way academic departments are run, where there is a Chair and a Dean, but faculty rotate and serve in those roles for limited terms.
example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-...
Left authoritarians have more in common with Right authoritarians than with the broader Left. You saw this in Germany and Russia when their respective authoritarianisms collapsed and the same people simply changed teams.
The argument implicit in the headline is therefore perhaps better expressed as two thoughts: why did the tech right get tired of being ignored, and how did they go about flipping the authoritarian structures that already existed?
Libertarians hate it when others claim that the defining property of libertarianism is taking liberties with that entire "where another person's freedom begins" thing.
Someone like Paul Krugman can’t comprehend the libertarian might think that Trump is the best of two bad options.
Krugman: They needed to own the government, or at least temporarily own the government in order to get out of their own messes?
Silverman: In a lot of cases, yes.
Here's HN from 2018 discussing an article on Silicon Valley being a left wing echo chamber https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406861