This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.
First, this is a blanket ad hominem about an entire group of people. Second, it's bullshit.
There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic libertarian. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's the purists on all sides of issues that present the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying.
If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.
There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall.
Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!
To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.
PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.
In general I think arguments about the Peltzman effect in transportation are not that convincing.
If they were discussing the requirement to wear seat belts by the government/the requirement to add them to cars, Thiel would have responded quite differently.
edit, grammar mistake.
Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean", you're likely one of them, or pretty close. There's no point in clarifying it, it's like describing the color red to a blind person.
The article does confirm the stereotypical image of the libertarian-as-a-robot.
And you think the problem with libertarians is that they don't have any empathy? You're brushing aside millions of people as "basically robots" and "lacking humanity" because they have different opinions than you.
We all have varying degrees of empathy and ability to understand and act on the intentions and emotions of others, but those of us who are on the lowest end of the empathy scale tend toward libertarian ideals. It is no coincidence.
FTFY.
A world does not exist where either of these extreme models are true.
You know, I think he's on to something there. Modern sci-fi really doesn't seem to have a whole lot left to say about potential advances in technology, and the tone does seem to have shifted away from the optimism of yesteryear. The best new scifi I've read lately was a post-apocalyptic zombie story trilogy, for crying out loud.
His comment resonated with me as well. However I think there's a libertarian explanation for the decline of Utopian Sci-Fi. It existed out of a general optimism about problems too large for a ragtag group of individualists to solve. Space travel, etc., is the realm of big governments, and exploration of the universe is the stuff of political hegemony.
The real world has gone way beyond that to a place where Peter Thiel is wealthy enough to fund his own space explorations. The problem for Sci-fi is that market based approaches to solving problems are a lot less glamourous than those undertaken by the state. There is also (quite often) far less drama, a simple profit motive, and rather boring incremental progress.
State actions are always impossible to disconnect from the propaganda story accompanying them. Scientific advancement, often undertaken by governments solely for the purpose of warmaking, has been the locus of much propaganda, and it wasn't until the 50s were over that the nation started to get a clue.
That said I hope someone writes a story that proves me wrong.
What a sad view of the world!
Artistic creativity is boundless.
You make a good point. Have we reached a point where we've already imagined all of the wonderful things we could possibly imagine? Well, vis-a-vis technological progress anyway. I don't know, but it is a bit disconcerting to see sci-fi seemingly no longer pushing the boundaries of what might be possible.
Facebook IPO. SpaceX. RelayRides & AirBnB liability concerns. Google & Apple taking over the world, etc...
They mean 125^100.
But I do wonder - do schoolkids these days memorize this trivia or do they just reach for a calculator/wikipedia ?
I personally don't see the need for memorizing items I will not use more than once. It clogs my brain and impedes my memory.
Having said that I kind of envy your Indian schooling, that's some important information right there, and I've learned a lot of it over time for my own projects.
Thiel's nose is bulbous? I needed to know that for some reason? It just read like a fawning article about some rich guy to me. The author met with Thiel in this fancy coffee shop, Thiel recently bought 2 multi-million dollar houses blah blah blah. Great, just not anything I personally care that much about.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/the-po...
I don't think anyone ought to have the right to vote, except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces) -- the rest is just giving groups the right to do things individuals can't.
Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please.
Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels.
It's funny that, further up the thread, someone suggested than Libertarian arguments against the seatbelt center around the notion that, once legislated, nothing potentially better than the seatbelt could ever be tried, thanks to the heavy hand of government. It's egregiously incongruent to hear that argument, and hear another that suggests the permanent muzzling of 50% of the population would lead to a better world.
I can identify the fact that people die in car crashes, and this in no way makes it understandable that I would prefer cars not exist (for the record I don't).
Why? This is a huge subject and text to dump on you, so sorry about this:
I don't think he did. Gawker is terribly sensationalist.
This argument neglects the fact that there does not exist any such beast as the 'free market' except in the platonic form - real transcational characteristics of goods and services, as well as the characteristics of the medium of exchange, always lead to a particular form of market emerging. Specifically, because of the fact that capital compounds capital - it is in the very nature of unregulated markets to concentrate resources in the hands of a few.
Why should we therefore be satisfied with 'free' markets that lead to enormous concentrations of resources in the hands of small numbers of individuals, far skewed away from the distributions of human ability according to measures of intelligence, aptitude or what have you? A market is a physical system to be engineered to produce the social outcome of most benefit. How you decide what is of 'most benefit' has some contention, but I'm pretty sure concentrating resources created by a majority in the hands of a minority is not it.
