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.
"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.
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?
> libertarianism is the safe way to be right-wing in Tech
The deeper lie is that libertarianism is right wing. So-called right wing Libertarianism is fallacious - ultimately a product of the corporate neutering of political organization just like the main parties.
I certainly understand why right- "Libertarianism" is highly appealing - stick to these small core set of axioms, and you will be free, and everything that appears to be bad will actually be justified because it's merely a result of people exercising freedom. It makes it sound like we just need to simplify things. If we just perform a rewrite and avoid giving into the temptation to make bloat, don't you know we will all be free?
The fallacy is easy demonstrated, but requires the reader to suspend the mainstream indoctrination asserting a dichotomy between government and corporations (promulgated in the "Libertarian" dogma by the lemma that a corporation is definitionally incapable of exercising coercion).
In actuality - a government is a corporation, and corporations can exert coercive power like government. What we consider a corporation is merely a partial version of what we consider a government. If we're in need of a particular product or service and there are many corporations to choose from, we feel more free (just as if we could choose between multiple governments!). If there are only a handful of corporations to choose from, especially if the executives all implement similar policies in lockstep, then the dynamic feels much less free. If there is only one corporation to choose from, then we have a de facto government that can coerce us up to the limit of needing that product/service.
Essentially any authoritarian/totalitarian government can be transmuted into an axoimatic right-"Libertarian" utopia simply by reframing its government as a singular corporation with which every citizen has a lifelong contract of onerous terms. And so the only way to approach libertarianism is to set the metric as a society's constructive outcomes for its citizens having effective freedoms.
As for the original topic, the Thiel quote shows that Thiel never actually was a libertarian, or at least least as long as he's been relevant. Rather the only "freedom" he is interested in is his own "freedom" to coerce others. And as he's gained more power, that "freedom" mask has been slowly flaking off.
This is the exact shape of Silicon Valley's surveillance industry as a whole - "disrupting" the world merely to make centralized web/apps that exert fine-grained top down control. "Freedom" for their founders, not for their users. That's not freedom, it's just new systems of control. And now that this new crop of nouveau riche have entrenched themselves, they want to shamelessly start exercising their power.
What is also an example of stunning ignorance here is that a corporation (and by extension capitalism) cannot exist without the laws and the coercive power of the government to enforce them. One can argue a government is whoever can enforce rules for markets to function.
This, I think is the heart of the lie that people miss. Which leads to myths being established that companies/markets are something different from governments and not an extension.
There is a whole body of thought about corporations existing outside of governments, anarcho-capitalism. In fact, the way I equated corporations and government relies on assumptions from this view.
You're coming around to the equating from a different angle, but it feels a bit lacking to me because corporations certainly can exert pressure on governments and asserting that corporations are reliant on governments would seem to downplay this dynamic.
Corporations that competed with governments had armies historically, trade corporations like Hansa or East Indies operated that way. So as long as they aren't fielding armies they are not competing with governments, just influencing them a bit.
In the large as to their goals, effects, and competition with each other, sure. I was talking about individual freedom, and in that context they are both capable of applying coercion to individuals.
Thank you for taking the time to write this thought-provoking response. It brings to mind themes of “The Unincorporated Man” [0].
Valley techno-capitalism has always existed in the context of (and as a function of) the military. I broadly agree with your characterization of corporate power as a tool governments use to delegate and aggregate economic control.
Over generational time scales I think regulatory frameworks will develop sufficient to mitigate tech’s worst excesses.
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 seems like you lumped liberal and libertarian together, is that accurate? If so, why? Aren’t they quite different economic and political philosophies?
That split seems to have happened before I was born, a loong time ago, ;) Don’t they mean different things in Silicon Valley today, and wouldn’t both libertarians and liberals take issue with being lumped together today?
There was no such split in most countries, so internationally it is weird to differentiate the two. Liberals are right wing in most places (they want small government with low taxes).
Or put a slightly different way: libertarians were always lying about their noble anti-government ideas. They just hated the thought of the government helping women, minorities or the poor. And anything that threatened fossil fuel interests.
When they see the chance to seize the government and actively punish those groups they drop their fake ideals immediately.
> Or put a slightly different way: libertarians were always lying about their noble anti-government ideas. They just hated the thought of the government helping women, minorities or the poor. And anything that threatened fossil fuel interests.
This is an extremely lazy form of argument and isn't really worthy of HN.
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.
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.
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?
> but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite;
The Democratic establishment are in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is very favorable to corporations and the wealthy.
The Republicans think even the status quo isn’t billionaire friendly enough. They want to go as far as possible as quickly as possible to eliminate even more of the middle class. Their real goal is to disenfranchise labor entirely, hence the push for “AI” and eliminating jobs.
Of course billionaires prefer one over the other. But from the perspective of the left, both are unacceptable. Neither of these options will actually pull in the other direction, tax the rich, restore the wealth of the middle class, etc.
This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening.
Republicans started going after CDL drivers who were issued licenses when they can’t read road signs in English.
The result is basic economics…truckers who speak and read English get paid more now.
Whether we are talking about healthcare, student loans, public school or even housing…everywhere the federal firehose gets aimed in the name of helping things get more expensive and hurt the middle class.
The disaster that is the ACA was easy to see coming before it was even formed. The Ben Carson plan is the only economically viable plan that could have reduced the cost of healthcare, but we got ACA instead and costs have skyrocketed every since.
Look, I think that redistributive policies impact markets in unpredictable ways, often with negative externalities on prices. But the idea that Mr 300 million dollar gilded ballroom is practicing anything remotely resembling fiscal responsibility is bananas.
Yes, health care costs will probably go down, as demand falters when poor folks die from lack of healthcare. Yes, education costs will probably fall if you dramatically reduce the number of people who can afford education. But personally? Not a great trade off.
I think it's a mistake to project any kind of ideology onto these freaks. They'll say anything as a means to their personal ends. Why do you think Thiel has been babbling about the antichrist?
The fact that you can win an election just by "pumping hundreds of millions" into a campaign that includes many highly unpopular policies seems like the underlying problem here?
Money in politics is a problem, but pumping hundreds of millions into a campaign doesn't guarantee a win. In the last presidential election, the losing candidate actually spent more.
The Democrats have their problems, and no one should give them a free pass. The Atlantic hit the nail on the head when they called it the HR-ification of the Democratic Party. The party apparatus is mostly just appropriating positions, that's their idea of leadership. Hillary Clinton's weaponization of rules and procedures against Bernie Sanders is a great example of that.
That is a far cry from the open corruption of the Republican party however. Allowing the CEO of ExxonMobil to become the Secretary of State. Doing pay for play and accepting lavish gifts from Silicon Valley royalty. The Trump coin grift and dishing out pardons for crypto scammers.
Technocracy shouldn't be inherently wrong choice. Especially when states really do depend increasingly on technology and productivity. In that view selecting a CEO in high role in government is probably a reasonable option. What are alternatives? Career politicians? Career bureaucrats? Maybe a CEO with proven history could be reasonable choice.
Now if oil companies are bad or good, is much more political question. And really up to voters. Vote for party which supports your political direction.
People who aren't so boxed into the status quo (ideologically and financially) that they can't fathom anything being more important than technology, "productivity", and the almighty GDP. People whose top priority is to actually listen to society with an open mind, and find ways to improve the quality of life of everyone.
Technocrats hear about the mental health problems plaguing society and rush to invent a robotic therapist and stronger psychiatric medication to try to curb the symptoms instead of treating systemic causes that have lead to the situation, like the role of our economic system, exploitation that people face, lack of access to mental health services.
A CEO who's guaranteed to be invested into maintaining the status quo is the worst possible option, it's a comical conflict of interest. What does a "proven history" look like, anyway?
We need to figure out a way to link the compensation of our representatives to how well the bottom half of society is doing to get the incentives aligned. Any ideas?
So, the side that is more open about their corruption is the one that deserves to be voted out? That leaves the more secretive and professionally corrupt in power, right?
Embargoes are just the beginning of the problems with this idea. After you renounce the protection of nations, they are free to literally nuke you. The very first thing that would happen to seasteaders is that a navy would roll up and sink their shit.
Libertarianism is "freedom" only for the top slice and always has been.
Depending on how principled you want to be about what happens to the underclass, you have a choice. Either exert control privately, by removing state protections for people and using corporate strength. Or you can co-opt the existing government to act on your behalf. You can mix and match, where you weaken parts of government which protects and strengthen that which controls.
Whether the jackboots have a national emblem or a company logo on them doesn't make a lot of difference to the necks.
There are quite a few scifi novels of libertarian societies that rely on constant surveillance to assure that NAP isn't violated. I'd say the central theme is that eventually technology will solve these disputes so the fundamental system shouldn't allow any political leeway that will slow progress (why solve technical problems when you can just be made whole by the government).
Someone else might want to live were you live, who gets to decide who lives there? You both live in identical virtual copies. The goal is to sidestep politics entirely wherever it appears
Where it falls apart (aside from its total amorality) is that technological progress is secondary to scientific progress and if science says in 100 billion years the universe is over, then there is no technical solution, I don't want people increasing entropy and killing me sooner before then.
> the far left would say that both parties are the same
This is a hyperbole. The two parties are not exactly the same, though they are the same on a number of issues, such as support for the military-industrial complex and Israel. Here's what Noam Chomsky said: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies."
The way I would put it is that there are sane billionaires and insane billionaires, though they both have the economic interests of the billionaire class at heart. The insane billionaires want to disrupt everything and eat the world, while the sane billionaires just want to keep the quiet status quo of their dominance, and so they play "nice".
> maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign
I doubt that Musk's money changed the election outcome. Indeed, Musk's financial meddling in the subsequent Wisconsin Supreme Court election turned a lot of people against his candidate, who lost. The purpose of Musk's contributions was to buy influence with Trump, which worked, at least for a while.
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.
What about the title is clickbait? I don’t think this fits into my standard definition of clickbait. It feels colorful, but an accurate description of the point that is trying to be made.
Usually clickbait to me has some attempt to deceive the reader that the point their trying to make is more salacious than it actually is.
It’s not a clickbait title, it succintly sums how the author percieves the dominant feeling of these people
> Silverman: I think it’s [the anger] pretty palpable. That’s one reason why I call it a “gilded rage,” it’s that you hear it from them. We do hear from these people directly on social media and these long interviews they give on podcasts—some of them have their own podcasts—or speeches they give publicly. They’re all content creators now.
> The emotion that often comes through is this sort of wounded anger, they feel victimized. Some of it is a bit in the style of classic right wing victimology, but it’s also, “the people don’t appreciate them enough and the world they’re trying to make,” whether it’s tech critics or regulators. But I think also they share a lot of the anti-woke grievances of the last few years, Musk very explicitly in his transphobia. The sense that progressive politics has somehow gone too far and has made everyone else’s lives oppressive and miserable seems to be an idea they share, despite all their wealth and power and the fact that I don’t think those left wing ideas had a major effect on tech. But, in some cases, I think it’s also personal. You hear someone like Bill Ackman say that, “Harvard turned his daughter into a Marxist,” or Elon Musk has talked a lot about his child coming out as trans. He said, “the woke mind virus killed my son.” That’s how he came up with this idea of “the woke mind virus”. He seems very angry about that.
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.
The libertarians I know are all authoritarian with regards to their own property, including their shares of stock. They object to centralized control, not to control. They see authoritarian control of their own company as an example of a decentralized locus of control. If there are libertarians who disdain detailed control of their own property I haven't met them.
If they leverage their property to help centralize control, they're something other than libertarian.
Indeed, yes, I've believed for a long time that if corporations were governments they'd be authoritarian dictatorships. Hence why I refuse to work at any corporation. I was part of a startup once, and that was pretty "libertarian" I guess e.g. we arrived when we wanted, took off when we needed, worked on what needed to be done, were all paid the same, chose our own roles and titles. I liked it, but it couldn't have lasted.
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 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?
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 would be helpful to drive an actual discussion if you were explicit about what you find so objectionable about Krugman's argument. Is it that he dares to criticize someone behind Substack using Substack? If so, that seems overly simplistic. One can appreciate the platform and look to benefit from it while thinking other activities of the person behind the platform are worth of criticism.
Or is your problem that Krugman criticized Andreessen's foray into monetizing monkey JPGs, despite Krugman presumably lacking appropriate monkey JPG industry credentials? Again, if so, it would be more helpful to outline why you think Krugman is wrong instead of substituting umbrage for argument.
No it’s almost certainly true. If you’d like some estimates you should read up on scott Alexander’s pre and post substack revenues. For writers with large followings substack is like a 10-100x monetization boost over other options.
Source: my publishing company published three books of Scotts essays during COVID, hit number one two and four on the essay category on Amazon, and generated less than one fiftieth of Scott’s first year of substack revenues based on his public comments.
Perhaps you missed the point of my story - publishing books is not lucrative. Or the second point - I have direct knowledge of economics for famous authors
Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008 which comes with a substantial monetary award so it seems doubtful that he needs to live off of Substack revenue.
That said I wouldnt be surprised if he makes more at substack annually than he did for the prize - about $1mm.
As to his own investment returns we don’t know, but early as 2016 he cautioned that apple google and Microsoft might be overvalued. If you imagine that diversification/defensive portfolio construction mindset stuck with him and he therefore underperformed the nasdaq since then we might expect something like 3xing his grant, meaning at 10% annual yield if he converted to using it for income he’d see 250-350k a year in income from the prize.
To be clear, I generally like Krugmans writing, I’ve learned a lot reading his essays, and I think he should make as much as he wants to make doing what he wants to do. But I’d like some intellectual rigor from him even when he’s talking about people he dislikes.
I wouldn't be commenting on this thread because I knew it would end up like this, but your comments are measured, thanks.
Krugman's move to Substack has, unfortunately, turned him into a bit of a culture war fighter. When he analyzes economics on his blog he's (IMO) top notch, which to me is amazing given his age (guess he won the Nobel for a reason.) His articles on the Argentina Swap Line, whether you agree with him or not about how it was done to bail out Bessent's buddies, were very well thought out. But when Krugman opines about politics I find that he largely thinks about it from the culture war lens of today. I directionally agree with him but just sorta take his politics with a grain of salt. IMO that's the best way to treat Krugman's writing.
The problem is if you discuss this on HN you'll get assuredly downvoted. Any thread critical of Silicon Valley here brings out all the people with strong culture war beliefs, both pro and anti, and they turn into low thought slogs really quickly.
I'm pretty sure Krugman can take whatever criticism you give him, he's a sharp mind. Not sure I can say the same about the folks who opine on these threads here though.
Message well received. This dynamic seems endemic, sadly. I’ve recently banned myself from just these interactions because like you say there’s a lottt of energy in the topics, and that energy can be toxic and highly appealing to many, including me. Breaking my ban probably didn’t help anyone, just got a bunch of folks wound up.
I’m not sure HN really was any better 15 years ago, but in my mind it had higher quality discourse ca 2011. I still prefer it to any other online forum, but I find I’m more often than not frustrated engaging on anything but the least controversial of tech topics.
It’s sad when such a brilliant credentialed economist starts criticising things he’s either uninformed about or pretending to be.
It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. There’s plenty of real things to complain about for almost any given tech titan; this was lazy incorrect journalism and it’s beneath Krugman.
> It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers.
Nah, I think we need health skepticism of disruptors, since by definition "change" can be in either a positive or negative direction. Nobody should reject new ideas out of hand simply because they are new, but neither do shitty ideas get a free pass just because they're new and different. And the reality is that a lot of the push-back "change makers" get is because the change they are trying to make is bad.
My worry with this approach is that you don’t get enough people who believe change making is good, and society loses out. Calling out shitty plans and people is great. But probably it should be less than like 10% of the time spent if we want to encourage more change making.
My own belief - we need a lot more people who care trying to make good change - I don’t want to discourage them before they start.
You seem to be under some misguided notion that someone like Paul Krugman wouldn't be and could not remain relevant without substack. The man is in his 70s and had what most would consider a successful career (that he retired from) and he continues to have significant following of his writing, the idea that substack is somehow a requisite for this is laughable.
If Marc Andreessen wants to fund a platform that enables and allows people to call him out on his fascistic bullshit and insane disconnect with humanity, it seems like a trap to say people shouldn't use it to do just that.
Nope. I’m just saying Krugman’s substack is likely by percentage currently his primary revenue source.
In fact it’s what makes substack a great platform - unlike medium which came before it and ad networks which came before that - substack gives a large percent of the value directly to content creators. And it’s seen as valuable by people from all over the political spectrum, from Tabibi to Krugman.
And I think people should go ahead and take the piss all they want, but crucially, when they are as credentialed as Krugman, if they do it in an uninformed way, it is great to call them on it. Bite the hand that feeds by all means, but some intellectual integrity about whether or not has beens like a16z provide any value to the world should be expected.
> 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.
"How dare this vile journalist criticize a holy god techbro, while using a Web site?!"
Incidentally, here we are on HN, the lounge of junior techbros, which still systematically posts a piracy link for every paywalled news story. Krugman came from one of those revenue-starved news organizations that oblivious techbros are kicking while they're down. If some techbros then deign to toss Krugman some peanuts, for providing "content" on the techbro's property, Krugman should be thankful, and not dare bite the hand that feeds him?
There are bad people and idiots in this story, and it's not the journalist.
I think you’re stuck in some sort of weird culture war head canon here.
Building a platform that lets journalists choose their monetization and be independently wealthy enough to write what they want is awesome.
Using that platform to denigrate teams that built the same platform is intellectually lazy, terrible for inspiring the next generation of innovators and beneath Krugman.
Self-preservation
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.
Oligarichies always form, and those that sustain, devolve towards self-serving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
I came up with this idea, too, but was beaten to it by at least 100 years.
Great conversation. Mentioning Hughes, Chinese advances, pretty good.
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.
"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.
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?
> libertarianism is the safe way to be right-wing in Tech
The deeper lie is that libertarianism is right wing. So-called right wing Libertarianism is fallacious - ultimately a product of the corporate neutering of political organization just like the main parties.
I certainly understand why right- "Libertarianism" is highly appealing - stick to these small core set of axioms, and you will be free, and everything that appears to be bad will actually be justified because it's merely a result of people exercising freedom. It makes it sound like we just need to simplify things. If we just perform a rewrite and avoid giving into the temptation to make bloat, don't you know we will all be free?
The fallacy is easy demonstrated, but requires the reader to suspend the mainstream indoctrination asserting a dichotomy between government and corporations (promulgated in the "Libertarian" dogma by the lemma that a corporation is definitionally incapable of exercising coercion).
In actuality - a government is a corporation, and corporations can exert coercive power like government. What we consider a corporation is merely a partial version of what we consider a government. If we're in need of a particular product or service and there are many corporations to choose from, we feel more free (just as if we could choose between multiple governments!). If there are only a handful of corporations to choose from, especially if the executives all implement similar policies in lockstep, then the dynamic feels much less free. If there is only one corporation to choose from, then we have a de facto government that can coerce us up to the limit of needing that product/service.
Essentially any authoritarian/totalitarian government can be transmuted into an axoimatic right-"Libertarian" utopia simply by reframing its government as a singular corporation with which every citizen has a lifelong contract of onerous terms. And so the only way to approach libertarianism is to set the metric as a society's constructive outcomes for its citizens having effective freedoms.
As for the original topic, the Thiel quote shows that Thiel never actually was a libertarian, or at least least as long as he's been relevant. Rather the only "freedom" he is interested in is his own "freedom" to coerce others. And as he's gained more power, that "freedom" mask has been slowly flaking off.
This is the exact shape of Silicon Valley's surveillance industry as a whole - "disrupting" the world merely to make centralized web/apps that exert fine-grained top down control. "Freedom" for their founders, not for their users. That's not freedom, it's just new systems of control. And now that this new crop of nouveau riche have entrenched themselves, they want to shamelessly start exercising their power.
What is also an example of stunning ignorance here is that a corporation (and by extension capitalism) cannot exist without the laws and the coercive power of the government to enforce them. One can argue a government is whoever can enforce rules for markets to function.
This, I think is the heart of the lie that people miss. Which leads to myths being established that companies/markets are something different from governments and not an extension.
There is a whole body of thought about corporations existing outside of governments, anarcho-capitalism. In fact, the way I equated corporations and government relies on assumptions from this view.
You're coming around to the equating from a different angle, but it feels a bit lacking to me because corporations certainly can exert pressure on governments and asserting that corporations are reliant on governments would seem to downplay this dynamic.
Corporations that competed with governments had armies historically, trade corporations like Hansa or East Indies operated that way. So as long as they aren't fielding armies they are not competing with governments, just influencing them a bit.
I don't get what point you're making. A government is a bunch of corporations agreeing to cooperate rather than compete?
That corporations without armies are not comparable to governments. The corporations that could rival countries historically did field armies.
In the large as to their goals, effects, and competition with each other, sure. I was talking about individual freedom, and in that context they are both capable of applying coercion to individuals.
Thank you for taking the time to write this thought-provoking response. It brings to mind themes of “The Unincorporated Man” [0].
Valley techno-capitalism has always existed in the context of (and as a function of) the military. I broadly agree with your characterization of corporate power as a tool governments use to delegate and aggregate economic control.
Over generational time scales I think regulatory frameworks will develop sufficient to mitigate tech’s worst excesses.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unincorporated_Man
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.
Can you characterize the binary choice in your last sentence in more detail? I don't see how one excludes the other
It seems like you lumped liberal and libertarian together, is that accurate? If so, why? Aren’t they quite different economic and political philosophies?
They're historically synonyms. The word libertarian was invented only after the word liberal was highjacked and warped into its modern meaning.
That split seems to have happened before I was born, a loong time ago, ;) Don’t they mean different things in Silicon Valley today, and wouldn’t both libertarians and liberals take issue with being lumped together today?
There was no such split in most countries, so internationally it is weird to differentiate the two. Liberals are right wing in most places (they want small government with low taxes).
Or put a slightly different way: libertarians were always lying about their noble anti-government ideas. They just hated the thought of the government helping women, minorities or the poor. And anything that threatened fossil fuel interests.
When they see the chance to seize the government and actively punish those groups they drop their fake ideals immediately.
> Or put a slightly different way: libertarians were always lying about their noble anti-government ideas. They just hated the thought of the government helping women, minorities or the poor. And anything that threatened fossil fuel interests.
This is an extremely lazy form of argument and isn't really worthy of HN.
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.
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.
Here's HN from 2018 discussing an article on Silicon Valley being a left wing echo chamber https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406861
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?
> but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite;
The Democratic establishment are in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is very favorable to corporations and the wealthy.
The Republicans think even the status quo isn’t billionaire friendly enough. They want to go as far as possible as quickly as possible to eliminate even more of the middle class. Their real goal is to disenfranchise labor entirely, hence the push for “AI” and eliminating jobs.
Of course billionaires prefer one over the other. But from the perspective of the left, both are unacceptable. Neither of these options will actually pull in the other direction, tax the rich, restore the wealth of the middle class, etc.
This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening.
Republicans started going after CDL drivers who were issued licenses when they can’t read road signs in English.
The result is basic economics…truckers who speak and read English get paid more now.
Whether we are talking about healthcare, student loans, public school or even housing…everywhere the federal firehose gets aimed in the name of helping things get more expensive and hurt the middle class.
The disaster that is the ACA was easy to see coming before it was even formed. The Ben Carson plan is the only economically viable plan that could have reduced the cost of healthcare, but we got ACA instead and costs have skyrocketed every since.
Look, I think that redistributive policies impact markets in unpredictable ways, often with negative externalities on prices. But the idea that Mr 300 million dollar gilded ballroom is practicing anything remotely resembling fiscal responsibility is bananas.
Yes, health care costs will probably go down, as demand falters when poor folks die from lack of healthcare. Yes, education costs will probably fall if you dramatically reduce the number of people who can afford education. But personally? Not a great trade off.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truck-driver-wages-downshi...
Facts, in my HN?
>This is quite literally the opposite of what is happening.
No it isn't. Parroting unproven narratives and lies manufactured by the state department only discredits your claim.
I think it's a mistake to project any kind of ideology onto these freaks. They'll say anything as a means to their personal ends. Why do you think Thiel has been babbling about the antichrist?
The fact that you can win an election just by "pumping hundreds of millions" into a campaign that includes many highly unpopular policies seems like the underlying problem here?
Money in politics is a problem, but pumping hundreds of millions into a campaign doesn't guarantee a win. In the last presidential election, the losing candidate actually spent more.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris...
The Democrats have their problems, and no one should give them a free pass. The Atlantic hit the nail on the head when they called it the HR-ification of the Democratic Party. The party apparatus is mostly just appropriating positions, that's their idea of leadership. Hillary Clinton's weaponization of rules and procedures against Bernie Sanders is a great example of that.
That is a far cry from the open corruption of the Republican party however. Allowing the CEO of ExxonMobil to become the Secretary of State. Doing pay for play and accepting lavish gifts from Silicon Valley royalty. The Trump coin grift and dishing out pardons for crypto scammers.
Both sides is a gross oversimplification.
Technocracy shouldn't be inherently wrong choice. Especially when states really do depend increasingly on technology and productivity. In that view selecting a CEO in high role in government is probably a reasonable option. What are alternatives? Career politicians? Career bureaucrats? Maybe a CEO with proven history could be reasonable choice.
Now if oil companies are bad or good, is much more political question. And really up to voters. Vote for party which supports your political direction.
> What are alternatives?
People who aren't so boxed into the status quo (ideologically and financially) that they can't fathom anything being more important than technology, "productivity", and the almighty GDP. People whose top priority is to actually listen to society with an open mind, and find ways to improve the quality of life of everyone.
Technocrats hear about the mental health problems plaguing society and rush to invent a robotic therapist and stronger psychiatric medication to try to curb the symptoms instead of treating systemic causes that have lead to the situation, like the role of our economic system, exploitation that people face, lack of access to mental health services.
A CEO who's guaranteed to be invested into maintaining the status quo is the worst possible option, it's a comical conflict of interest. What does a "proven history" look like, anyway?
We need to figure out a way to link the compensation of our representatives to how well the bottom half of society is doing to get the incentives aligned. Any ideas?
Rex Tillerson wasn't even a terrible Secretary of State, all things considered. We've certainly had much worse.
So, the side that is more open about their corruption is the one that deserves to be voted out? That leaves the more secretive and professionally corrupt in power, right?
I mean, that’s what happened, whether we like it or not.
Embargoes are just the beginning of the problems with this idea. After you renounce the protection of nations, they are free to literally nuke you. The very first thing that would happen to seasteaders is that a navy would roll up and sink their shit.
Libertarianism is "freedom" only for the top slice and always has been.
Depending on how principled you want to be about what happens to the underclass, you have a choice. Either exert control privately, by removing state protections for people and using corporate strength. Or you can co-opt the existing government to act on your behalf. You can mix and match, where you weaken parts of government which protects and strengthen that which controls.
Whether the jackboots have a national emblem or a company logo on them doesn't make a lot of difference to the necks.
There are quite a few scifi novels of libertarian societies that rely on constant surveillance to assure that NAP isn't violated. I'd say the central theme is that eventually technology will solve these disputes so the fundamental system shouldn't allow any political leeway that will slow progress (why solve technical problems when you can just be made whole by the government).
Someone else might want to live were you live, who gets to decide who lives there? You both live in identical virtual copies. The goal is to sidestep politics entirely wherever it appears
Where it falls apart (aside from its total amorality) is that technological progress is secondary to scientific progress and if science says in 100 billion years the universe is over, then there is no technical solution, I don't want people increasing entropy and killing me sooner before then.
> the far left would say that both parties are the same
This is a hyperbole. The two parties are not exactly the same, though they are the same on a number of issues, such as support for the military-industrial complex and Israel. Here's what Noam Chomsky said: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies."
The way I would put it is that there are sane billionaires and insane billionaires, though they both have the economic interests of the billionaire class at heart. The insane billionaires want to disrupt everything and eat the world, while the sane billionaires just want to keep the quiet status quo of their dominance, and so they play "nice".
> maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign
I doubt that Musk's money changed the election outcome. Indeed, Musk's financial meddling in the subsequent Wisconsin Supreme Court election turned a lot of people against his candidate, who lost. The purpose of Musk's contributions was to buy influence with Trump, which worked, at least for a while.
Exaggeration maybe, hyperbole? I literally can’t go a day browsing Reddit without seeing like 10 people say both sides are the same.
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.
What about the title is clickbait? I don’t think this fits into my standard definition of clickbait. It feels colorful, but an accurate description of the point that is trying to be made.
Usually clickbait to me has some attempt to deceive the reader that the point their trying to make is more salacious than it actually is.
Leveraging gilded age to gilded rage is a bit sophomoric to me. Are they raging? It’s unnecessary. It’s okay for a blog post but not a book.
Yes, they are raging, watch interviews with Marc Andreesen, he seethes. I think this is spot on, if not undersold.
It’s not a clickbait title, it succintly sums how the author percieves the dominant feeling of these people
> Silverman: I think it’s [the anger] pretty palpable. That’s one reason why I call it a “gilded rage,” it’s that you hear it from them. We do hear from these people directly on social media and these long interviews they give on podcasts—some of them have their own podcasts—or speeches they give publicly. They’re all content creators now.
> The emotion that often comes through is this sort of wounded anger, they feel victimized. Some of it is a bit in the style of classic right wing victimology, but it’s also, “the people don’t appreciate them enough and the world they’re trying to make,” whether it’s tech critics or regulators. But I think also they share a lot of the anti-woke grievances of the last few years, Musk very explicitly in his transphobia. The sense that progressive politics has somehow gone too far and has made everyone else’s lives oppressive and miserable seems to be an idea they share, despite all their wealth and power and the fact that I don’t think those left wing ideas had a major effect on tech. But, in some cases, I think it’s also personal. You hear someone like Bill Ackman say that, “Harvard turned his daughter into a Marxist,” or Elon Musk has talked a lot about his child coming out as trans. He said, “the woke mind virus killed my son.” That’s how he came up with this idea of “the woke mind virus”. He seems very angry about that.
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.
Most small businesses run this way too, though. There are just fewer levels of hierarchy in a small business.
My family was run this way as well. How many time did I hear my dad say "This isn't a democracy." :P
The libertarians I know are all authoritarian with regards to their own property, including their shares of stock. They object to centralized control, not to control. They see authoritarian control of their own company as an example of a decentralized locus of control. If there are libertarians who disdain detailed control of their own property I haven't met them.
If they leverage their property to help centralize control, they're something other than libertarian.
Your line of logic isn't specific to silicon valley -- corporations everywhere are largely run top-down by a CEO in a corporate hierarchy.
Indeed, yes, I've believed for a long time that if corporations were governments they'd be authoritarian dictatorships. Hence why I refuse to work at any corporation. I was part of a startup once, and that was pretty "libertarian" I guess e.g. we arrived when we wanted, took off when we needed, worked on what needed to be done, were all paid the same, chose our own roles and titles. I liked it, but it couldn't have lasted.
That’s the point the interviewee is trying to make. The libertarian era was an anomaly not the actions of today.
[flagged]
Someone flagged this interesting discussion that a lot of people need to hear, and is especially relevant to tech industry. I emailed hn@.
Thanks, it is now unflagged.
Money/Power?
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?
example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-...
The criticism was "authoritarian" and not "partisan" as you claim
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 would be helpful to drive an actual discussion if you were explicit about what you find so objectionable about Krugman's argument. Is it that he dares to criticize someone behind Substack using Substack? If so, that seems overly simplistic. One can appreciate the platform and look to benefit from it while thinking other activities of the person behind the platform are worth of criticism.
Or is your problem that Krugman criticized Andreessen's foray into monetizing monkey JPGs, despite Krugman presumably lacking appropriate monkey JPG industry credentials? Again, if so, it would be more helpful to outline why you think Krugman is wrong instead of substituting umbrage for argument.
> makes his living off an a16z platform
That's some record level grandstanding.
No it’s almost certainly true. If you’d like some estimates you should read up on scott Alexander’s pre and post substack revenues. For writers with large followings substack is like a 10-100x monetization boost over other options.
Source: my publishing company published three books of Scotts essays during COVID, hit number one two and four on the essay category on Amazon, and generated less than one fiftieth of Scott’s first year of substack revenues based on his public comments.
Check up what the word grandstanding means.
Perhaps you missed the point of my story - publishing books is not lucrative. Or the second point - I have direct knowledge of economics for famous authors
Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008 which comes with a substantial monetary award so it seems doubtful that he needs to live off of Substack revenue.
Needs - who knows? Chooses to? Apparently.
That said I wouldnt be surprised if he makes more at substack annually than he did for the prize - about $1mm.
As to his own investment returns we don’t know, but early as 2016 he cautioned that apple google and Microsoft might be overvalued. If you imagine that diversification/defensive portfolio construction mindset stuck with him and he therefore underperformed the nasdaq since then we might expect something like 3xing his grant, meaning at 10% annual yield if he converted to using it for income he’d see 250-350k a year in income from the prize.
To be clear, I generally like Krugmans writing, I’ve learned a lot reading his essays, and I think he should make as much as he wants to make doing what he wants to do. But I’d like some intellectual rigor from him even when he’s talking about people he dislikes.
I wouldn't be commenting on this thread because I knew it would end up like this, but your comments are measured, thanks.
Krugman's move to Substack has, unfortunately, turned him into a bit of a culture war fighter. When he analyzes economics on his blog he's (IMO) top notch, which to me is amazing given his age (guess he won the Nobel for a reason.) His articles on the Argentina Swap Line, whether you agree with him or not about how it was done to bail out Bessent's buddies, were very well thought out. But when Krugman opines about politics I find that he largely thinks about it from the culture war lens of today. I directionally agree with him but just sorta take his politics with a grain of salt. IMO that's the best way to treat Krugman's writing.
The problem is if you discuss this on HN you'll get assuredly downvoted. Any thread critical of Silicon Valley here brings out all the people with strong culture war beliefs, both pro and anti, and they turn into low thought slogs really quickly.
I'm pretty sure Krugman can take whatever criticism you give him, he's a sharp mind. Not sure I can say the same about the folks who opine on these threads here though.
Message well received. This dynamic seems endemic, sadly. I’ve recently banned myself from just these interactions because like you say there’s a lottt of energy in the topics, and that energy can be toxic and highly appealing to many, including me. Breaking my ban probably didn’t help anyone, just got a bunch of folks wound up.
I’m not sure HN really was any better 15 years ago, but in my mind it had higher quality discourse ca 2011. I still prefer it to any other online forum, but I find I’m more often than not frustrated engaging on anything but the least controversial of tech topics.
Krugman is 70+ with a successful career behind him. I don't think he needs Substack to make a living.
And what world to we live in if that should stop him from criticising?
It’s sad when such a brilliant credentialed economist starts criticising things he’s either uninformed about or pretending to be.
It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. There’s plenty of real things to complain about for almost any given tech titan; this was lazy incorrect journalism and it’s beneath Krugman.
> It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers.
Nah, I think we need health skepticism of disruptors, since by definition "change" can be in either a positive or negative direction. Nobody should reject new ideas out of hand simply because they are new, but neither do shitty ideas get a free pass just because they're new and different. And the reality is that a lot of the push-back "change makers" get is because the change they are trying to make is bad.
My worry with this approach is that you don’t get enough people who believe change making is good, and society loses out. Calling out shitty plans and people is great. But probably it should be less than like 10% of the time spent if we want to encourage more change making.
My own belief - we need a lot more people who care trying to make good change - I don’t want to discourage them before they start.
You seem to be under some misguided notion that someone like Paul Krugman wouldn't be and could not remain relevant without substack. The man is in his 70s and had what most would consider a successful career (that he retired from) and he continues to have significant following of his writing, the idea that substack is somehow a requisite for this is laughable.
If Marc Andreessen wants to fund a platform that enables and allows people to call him out on his fascistic bullshit and insane disconnect with humanity, it seems like a trap to say people shouldn't use it to do just that.
Nope. I’m just saying Krugman’s substack is likely by percentage currently his primary revenue source.
In fact it’s what makes substack a great platform - unlike medium which came before it and ad networks which came before that - substack gives a large percent of the value directly to content creators. And it’s seen as valuable by people from all over the political spectrum, from Tabibi to Krugman.
And I think people should go ahead and take the piss all they want, but crucially, when they are as credentialed as Krugman, if they do it in an uninformed way, it is great to call them on it. Bite the hand that feeds by all means, but some intellectual integrity about whether or not has beens like a16z provide any value to the world should be expected.
> 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.
"How dare this vile journalist criticize a holy god techbro, while using a Web site?!"
Incidentally, here we are on HN, the lounge of junior techbros, which still systematically posts a piracy link for every paywalled news story. Krugman came from one of those revenue-starved news organizations that oblivious techbros are kicking while they're down. If some techbros then deign to toss Krugman some peanuts, for providing "content" on the techbro's property, Krugman should be thankful, and not dare bite the hand that feeds him?
There are bad people and idiots in this story, and it's not the journalist.
I think you’re stuck in some sort of weird culture war head canon here.
Building a platform that lets journalists choose their monetization and be independently wealthy enough to write what they want is awesome.
Using that platform to denigrate teams that built the same platform is intellectually lazy, terrible for inspiring the next generation of innovators and beneath Krugman.
Not a piracy link, a link to a library.
'You can't protest against the state in the public square, it is the state that gave you the public square'