Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate
SonicSpike sends this story from NY Magazine:
Rand Paul appears to be making a full-court press for the affections of Silicon Valley, and there are some signs that his efforts are paying off. At last week's Sun Valley conference, Paul had one-on-one meetings with Thiel and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. ... Next weekend, Paul will get to make his case yet again as the keynote speaker at Reboot, a San Francisco conference put on by a group called Lincoln Labs, which self-defines as "techies and politicos who believe in promoting liberty with technology." He'll likely say a version of what he's said before: that Silicon Valley's innovative potential can be best unlocked in an environment with minimal government intrusion in the forms of surveillance, corporate taxes, and regulation. “I see almost unlimited potential for us in Silicon Valley,” Paul has said, with "us" meaning libertarians.
Today's Silicon Valley is still exceedingly liberal on social issues. But it seems more skeptical about taxes and business regulation than at any point in its recent history. Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.
Today's Silicon Valley is still exceedingly liberal on social issues. But it seems more skeptical about taxes and business regulation than at any point in its recent history. Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.
Says Zuck. Paul nods head, "anything you say, boss".
Republican is just another word for "I have my money and I want to keep it."
How you see the world depends on where you are in it.
On business regulation and social issues, Paul is fairly sane. But his refusal to acknowledge that America needs to take a leading role in foreign affairs makes him totally unsuitable as a President. If America withdraws, than China and Russia will just fill the void (as they are already doing), and it won't be to anyone's benefit.
Rand Paul's not libertarian, he's Republican.
Rand Paul is also about "state's rights" which is a dog whistle for allowing a simple majority of a gerrymandered state legislature to bust unions, make it harder for minorities and poor to vote, to hold jobs, and to eat.
He also believes lower taxes (no floor on that) will increase tax revenues. Always. Use your science degrees and do the simple math, it doesn't work. It's a corporate giveaway.
And ladies, if you like no access to birth control, having rape blamed on your clothing, and being subjected to a state-sanctioned rape called "trans-vaginal ultrasound" before you're even allowed to consider an abortion (if you can even get to a clinic), then Rand Paul is your man.
A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for lunacy.
Stop giving the lunatic a podium.
> Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators
Every Tesla vehicle comes with a minimum of $7,500 subsidy from the federal government plus a bunch of state government subsidies like $2,500 and single-driver privileges in HOV lanes in California. They are the last company that should be laying claim to libertarian ideals.
Mark Zuckerberg is a known aspie and sociopath, an ideal tea party target
Is it a democracy?
Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.
http://insideevs.com/uaw-looks...
CEO Elon Musk says Tesla is union neutral, so that’s the automaker’s stance.
Then there's the whole "government run amok" thing... where it should really say "state government run amok." The protectionist policies adopted haven't been federal, they've been state level. Texas, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey have outright bans; Georgia and Colorado have severe restrictions on selling; and Ohio and New York have legislation pending. Musk has said, if the states keep fucking with him, he will use the federal courts to deal with the issue.... so again, the problem isn't the federal government, it's the states.
With Uber, again the problem isn't unions, and it's not the federal government.. it's city governments.
Perhaps this should be a case study on smaller governments causing more problems than they should, and those that promote "small government" lying and trying to blame "big government" and unions.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
...longer, better patents and copyrights, more EULAs.
This is really what we need, aspiring politicians appealing to plutocrats.
I read that as Paul had one-on-one meetings with Thief and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
jcpenny, sears, bestbuy, and more retailers have loosing 100s of millions a quarter in bad sales. we will see commercial property hit the fan, and when they do, liberty will be the only solution. we werent perfect but we had more freedom than all other countries and so you saw our wealth balloon. we need feedom back, and prosperity will follow
The idea that economic policy and social policy are tied at the hip in the two mainstream parties is ridiculous. Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind. In the US, they're essentially an outcast who has to decide which is more important to them, their personal values or what they think is the best direction for the economy, because voting for third parties is viewed as a lost vote.
Politics in the US needs drastic reform away from the two party system.
How does Rand Paul have a liberal social policy? He's perfectly happy with letting states bar gays from marrying, eliminating abortion and birth control, making it difficult for minorities to vote, and allowing businesses to discriminate.
What part of that is liberal social policy?
Where the hell are people getting their news on Rand Paul?
"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
And given the overwhelming historical association between "liber"tarian ideology and slavery, it's probably more accurate to just call it according to its real preoccupation: Moneytarianism.
No doubt such a viewpoint would find a receptive audience in some of the shallower minds and uglier spirits of Silicon Valley.
But the philosophical core of the region and the tech industry remains fundamentally progressive. That's why it remains the king despite decades of conservative "small government" states desperately trying and failing to replicate it on any remotely competitive scale.
longer, better patents and copyrights
Isn't "longer" and "better" a contradiction here?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
It's coming to Congress.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Quit getting your information from fox and infowars. Apply your critical thinking and math skills.
T-shirts that got their wearers in trouble at conference.
Draper Labs: When you really want it there on time
Draper labs specializes in missile guidance systems, and the shirt had a picture of a launching missile. Some of their work as been space program supportive, but it would have been a lot cheaper without the military angle, and we'd have actually gotten to see the results in industry, not hidden away as Top Secret.
Lincoln Labs: When you care enough to send the very best
Lincoln Labs helped design the H Bomb: the shirt had a picture of a mushroom cloud. Lincoln remains up to its armpits in Reagan era "Star Wars defense" projects, It's amazing the billions that can go into research for "defense" that is far more effective as treaty violating offensive weapons. If you don't believe me, read up on Peter Hagelstein, one of the core developers of the nuclear bomb triggered X-Ray laser technology, one of the only technologies out of that amazing technology pork barrel that actually looked like it might work.
If you went to delude a bunch of technically sharp, politically naive people into burning billions of dollars on bad national politics, it sounds like just the sort of place to start.
I think its due to the nature of the voting system (winner take all, even if you don't poll a majority). But it also seems to be endemic to many democracies, they tend to gravitate to two party systems. The UK has Labor and the Conservatives, the Germans have Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.
But even in countries with larger third parties, they're seldom major parts of government. I think the current coalition government in the UK is one of the few times the Liberal Democrats have been in government. In Germany the FDP has mostly been a kingmaker rather than a majority party capable of forming its own government.
We just started using ranked choice voting for elections in Minneapolis, which in theory eliminates the "lost vote" problem by allowing you to make third parties your first choice but still vote "defensively" by making some other candidate a secondary choice.
So far it doesn't seem to have led to a lot of radical change in outcomes other than making the election results take a couple of extra days due to the calculations involved when there's a dozen candidates.
Silicon valley doesn't care about longer copyrights - their industry hasn't existed long enough to benefit. That's more a music/movie industry thing.
The stores you mention are failing because they sell to the middle class. They are a barometer of the health of our middle class.
It has a lot to do with government.
Over the past few decades, unions have lost much power, the tax laws have been written to favor the wealthy, business regulation has been reduced, and add in offshoring (tax breaks there) and automation, and we are seeing the middle class get eroded.
The wealth disparity in this country is destroying it and businesses - at least big business - do not care because the USA is only maybe half of their revenue. They do not care if we go broke because foreign markets are growing to compensate. That is why corp profits are at record level while we are stagnate here.
Do not let the policy makers fool you - we ARE recovered. There is NO economic recovery because this is all there is.
The Valley has long had a handful of superrich libertarian types. Thiel is one of the better known, and is really more of a Wall Street type who now makes investments in the Valley. He made his money in hedge funds, not in technology. He's been involved with various Republican and Libertarian causes since the '80s.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind.
In some kind of relative sense, yes, but there is no mainstream party in most of the west that supports policies like Rand Paul's. In most of Europe, the "economically conservative but socially liberal" parties have economic policies to he left of the Democrats, including support for national healthcare.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Greed is a disease more deadly than heroin, hardening your heart and turning you into a right-wing monster, driven to amassing ever more power and lucre until you feel absolutely justified in bending society itself to your warped, dystopian world view. Rockefeller, Walton, Koch, Ellison, Zuckerberg; all the same fuckers.
For specifically the Liberal Democrats it is the only time they have been in government. However if you see the Liberal Democrats as the successors to the old Liberal party and they themselves to the Wigs then they have been in government many many times in the past. It was just a long gap from the 1930's to 2010.
Where does the GP say anything about Paul having a liberal social party?
Silicon valley doesn't care about longer copyrights - their industry hasn't existed long enough to benefit. That's more a music/movie industry thing.
Silicon Valley was born from military research and spending. Radio technology in 1909. Unless you want the founding of Moffett Naval Air Station? 1933. Or World War 2? Or if you really want to nail it down to solid state electronics, Shockley leaving Bell Labs and the transistor's rise in 1953.
Silicon Valley not only powered the modern entertainment industry, it protected it militarily.
Now what was that again about Silicon Valley not being old enough? I think a lawn might need a bit of respect here.
you quote a science fiction writer?
How many comments have you made in this thread? Seriously, give it a break, people are allowed to disagree. You sound like a person who would be a lot happier in another country, one that shares your values. America sounds like it's just not for you. Luckily, we live in a globalized world and borders don't mean what they once did. Perhaps Venezuela or Bolivia would be a better fit.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I doubt he'll be willing.
Good luck with that. Or does a corporation's gathering of consumer data not count as surveillance? Only difference with govt surveillance is the stated purpose, and without regulation there's no way to prevent commercially gathered consumer data ending up in the hands of security agencies.
Keep in mind that these are the same people who think that President Obama is a "socialist." In the political arena labels are meaningless epitaphs.
In the case of both the UK and Germany it is also due to the voting system favouring larger parties over smaller.
Not necessarily true. In the Netherlands you have plenty of choice and usually three parties or more are needed to form the government. It gives voters much more freedom to punish party decisions they don't like. Currently there are 10 parties in congress and 3 of those form the government. See also this http://www.parlement.com/id/vh8lnhrptxwt/zetelverdeling_tweede_kamer_1946_heden graph that shows the percentage of votes each party got since WW2. Blue are liberal oriented parties, green are christian based and red is socialist oriented.
In most of Europe, the "economically conservative but socially liberal" parties have economic policies to he left of the Democrats,
Not in terms of tax progressivity. American has managed to export Reaganomics to the world. "Socialist" France, to take but one example, has a much lower top marginal tax and higher income concentration than America had in our golden era -- 1950s and 1960s. Details here.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
You're asking AC how many comments they've made in a topic? Are you OK?
We love you buddy. Don't stop posting.
"No abortions for all, miniature American flags for others!"
George Bush left Obama a stable Iraq. It didn't have to go down the tubes.
"Today's Silicon Valley is still exceedingly liberal on social issues." GREAT! So are libertarians! Except the pretend ones who only use the guise of libertarianism to protect corporate interests... which isn't particularly libertarian, either.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Minority rights are already sufficient. The last thing we need is to give even more voice to the wackos.
Well, that helps explain why KSB's sci fi went out of its way to have such screwed up economic models.
I just find it fascinating that left leaning people always proclaim how they are such fans of diversity and inclusion, yet revile any thoughts that might stand in opposition to their own.
This is circular logic with a touch of hypocrisy. So people that value diversity and inclusion are supposed to welcome those that oppose diversity and inclusion even when doing so will result in less diversity and inclusion? The republican party is for the most part dominated by older white men - of which Rand Paul is one. There is a reason well over 90% of blacks, 70% of hispanic and a majority of women lean to the democrats. In case you were wondering why it has a little something to do with the republican party having earned a reputation for not valuing diversity and inclusion. There is a difference between accepting the idea that others might disagree with you and acting to support those you disagree with to the detriment of your own principles and interests.
God forbid people be open minded towards new ideas, or even old ones.
So it's ok for conservatives to not be open to liberal ideas but it's not ok for liberals to be cool with conservative ideas? Nice double standard you have there.
Paul had one-on-one meetings with ... Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Well now there is a truy hideous beast to consider: What do you get when you cross Rand Paul's megalomaniacal motives with a sociopath who has the means, opportunity, and willingness to perform mass psychological experiments? Let's find out!
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The idea that economic policy and social policy are tied at the hip in the two mainstream parties is ridiculous. Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind. In the US, they're essentially an outcast who has to decide which is more important to them, their personal values or what they think is the best direction for the economy, because voting for third parties is viewed as a lost vote.
I think you missed a "does not" in there.
It's similar to the opposite (which I count myself as): liberal economic policy, but conservative social policy.
As a Catholic, I would either have to vote for a party that supports gutting social programs that help the poor, or a party that supports killing children (i.e., abortion).
We really need ranked ballots so that our more diverse parties can gain a foot hold via people's first (and second?) choices, and we can then hold our noses for our third choice on the ballot for a "mainstream" party as a last resort.
This is unfortunately true. The political system in the U.S. is a mess, mostly due to political parties. A bias or favoritism toward one particular party doesn't leave room for real change in direction. A third party will probably divide the voter base more with creating another self-serving platform.
It's interesting to observe, despite the so called differences between the two parties, they are both really they same. Both parties may use different speeches and relabeling tactics, but with the same end results (which we are lead to believe are somehow different). It's all about manipulating the voting base long enough to gain the political power, financing/funding, and support one requires to achieve that position.
Does this mean that Rand Paul will make "interesting posts" that Facebook thinks I want to read that end up in my newsfeed? Does this mean autoplay videos of Rand Paul will be "posted" by my "friends"?
Facebook is already making me doubt the validity of anything I see on the internet, and frankly, I don't care which game of thrones character I am, I don't care that 99% of people can't name a movie with the letter "S" in it, and I don't care that some friends want a one word response about how we met. And I really don't care that someone's cancer will be cured if they get a million "likes".
So, really, what's being added here by Rand Paul? All it's going to do is confirm that I'm fed up with facebook, and my "friends" aren't important enough for me to have to put up with it.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Didn't Tesla get a massive loan from the government to fund their development? One they paid back early?
The federal government hasn't caused any big problems for Tesla. It's State governments that are the problem. Legislators for State governments are protecting auto dealers (also known as unnecessary middlemen) to the detriment of both auto manufacturers and car buyers.
As much as I like Rand Paul for some of his stances, I'm sure Rand Paul could give a rat's ass about net neutrality, which is a cornerstone for tech innovation.
Thank you. This is why I still come to slashdot.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies"
When are you going to run for office? I'd vote for you despite the mycilliae. ;)
I don't know if you'd be any good at governing, but you've already demonstrated a greater grasp of current political realities than any ticket in my US state... I'd totally give you a shot.
"aspiring politicians appealing to plutocrats."
Please. When WASN'T it that way?
Oh yeah, when the politicians WERE the plutocrats. Would that be better?
(Assuming we're not sprinting to that endpoint already.)
-Styopa
Slashdot has become a haven for pro right-winger stories. So frustrating to read this site.
The most generic story gets skewed. Anything with a remote link to technology gets wrapped into a political story.
But the philosophical core of the region and the tech industry remains fundamentally progressive.
Never underestimate the power of a god. And make no mistake about it; to many in The Valley, Zuck is a god. Even among those for whom he is not, most worship at the temple of Facebook with more dedication, trust, and fervor than the average Christian. If that temple begins to emit a message, it will have a significant distorting effect on perception, just like the church -- and traditional religion doesn't have the power of computer aided psychological operations.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
In the political arena labels are meaningless epitaphs.
Oh, how I wish that were true. Unfortunately, I think the word you were looking for was 'epithets'.
I thought the bulk of Tesla's opposing regulation was from state governments, not Federal government.
given the overwhelming historical association between "liber"tarian ideology and slavery
That is complete BS. The libertarian ideology and associated economic-centric thought has always been against slavery.
Indeed, the term "the dismal science" in reference to economics first occurs in Thomas Carlyle's 1849 tract entitled "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question", where he found it was "dismal" in "find[ing] the secret of this Universe in 'supply and demand,' and reducing the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone." Instead, Carlyle felt that the "idle Black man in the West Indies" should be "compelled to work as he was fit, and to do the Maker's will who had constructed him." Carlyle's view was attacked by early libertarians such as John Stuart Mill (whose "On Liberty" addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.)
But the philosophical core of the region and the tech industry remains fundamentally progressive. That's why it remains the king despite decades of conservative "small government" states desperately trying and failing to replicate it on any remotely competitive scale.
San Jose became a tech hub because of Stanford (a private university) and Moffett Field (military spending on radio and later aerospace technology). It is unclear to me that "progressive" economic policies had much to do with it. If anything, the annoying level of government control over building (i.e. artificially inflated house prices) and horrific public schools of Silicon Valley are a huge negative (I would never work there without a pay rise to afford private school for my kids, for example), not to mention the high level of taxation on high income workers for California state income tax.
There are of course other tech hubs in the country, including Austin, TX (home of Dell), where "normal" workers can afford housing. And every major company that may have been founded or has headquarters in Silicon Valley tend to have operations in other parts of the US or the world.
See "Machines of Loving Grace" documentary. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
In most of Europe, the "economically conservative but socially liberal" parties have economic policies to he left of the Democrats
Switzerland, Ireland, Estonia, and Denmark are now ranked more "Economically Free" than the US by the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom.
For example, government spending accounts for 33.8% of the economy of Switzerland, 40% for the US.
No, it really isn't. I'd say they're about right.
for keeping morons in the Obama camp .... see how easy that was?
I'm NOT a supporter of Paul or (even more so) of his father, but a post as dishonest and slanderous as yours requires debugging
"Rand Paul's not libertarian, he's Republican."
Technically true. He IS a Republican by party membership BUT he's way over at the libertarian edge of the party to such an extent that he worries the "social conservatives" and he terrifies the neocons, who will do anything they possibly can to stop him.
"Rand Paul is also about "state's rights" which is a dog whistle for allowing a simple majority of a gerrymandered state legislature to bust unions, make it harder for minorities and poor to vote, to hold jobs, and to eat."
Complete pile of stinking CRAP. "States Rights" is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the US founding and Constitution. The Federal government is supposed to do VERY FEW things the states cannot (like national defense, which it SHOULD do very well) and the rest is left to the states and the people. "States Rights" got a bad name because Democrats used it for many decades to cover their evil racist acts (slavery, segregation,"Jim Crow", etc) in one quarter of the nation. By your extremely distorted interpretation the federal government is the source of "good" and the states are "bad" and therefore whatever the people of a state vote for, the feds need to come in and overrride it - our founders specifically rejected that lunacy when they founded the nation.
"He also believes lower taxes (no floor on that) will increase tax revenues. Always. Use your science degrees and do the simple math, it doesn't work. It's a corporate giveaway."
Um, because that was proven true by both (Democrat) John F Kennedy and (Republican) Ronald Reagan. In both cases, taxes were simplified and cut dramatically and revenue into the government WENT WAY UP. History and Economics degrees are helpful here (science degrees are irrelevent on this point, and math degrees are of no value to this argument if misapplied). When government gets too big and taxes too much it actually suppresses economic activity AND incentivises money-hiding strategies. Currently US corporations are parking many billions of dollars overseas because if they brought that revenue home it would be taxed too much to be "worth it". Lowering the tax on that money would lower the barrier to it re-entering the US economy (and being finally taxed). The problem with the left in the US on fiscal matters is that most of you guys believe in static analysis: you presume people and businesses will behave the same without regard to the tax policies. This is why you are always wrong on economic projections; when taxes are raised to bring in X dollars, they always bring in fewer than X (because people change their behaviors to reduce thir tax exposure) and when you setup programs to give away Y dollars, they always cost far more (because people change their behaviors to become more eligible to get the cash). The left does not ignore these effects out of ignorance, but rather becaus it suits them politically - it helps them mislead the voters about the impact of big government.
"And ladies, if you like no access to birth control, having rape blamed on your clothing, and being subjected to a state-sanctioned rape called "trans-vaginal ultrasound" before you're even allowed to consider an abortion (if you can even get to a clinic), then Rand Paul is your man."
Ahhhh yes... you hit ALL of Nancy Pelosi's DNC "talking points" for the 2014 election (otherwise known as: "we're in trouble, let's try to get young single women to panic and run to the polls!"). Lets examine this garbage:
1. NOBODY is doing anything to take away "birth control". Birth control can be gotten for free from Planned Parenthood or very cheaply at places like Wall Mart, Wallgreens, etc. The ONLY thing that's happening here is that the courts have agreed that people with moral objections do not
At its heart libertarianism is just about minimizing the threat and use of force by the government to just those things which are truly essential government functions. However, Laws which protect people from the use of force by others are one of those essential government functions.
Real libertarians don't believe you can pollute your neighbors land or your neighbors air without legal consequences. A person depriving another of the use of their property (such as by polluting it) or violating their rights would be at the heart of what types of things a libertarian would want laws prohibiting or punishing. As to whether the particular circumstances of one person depriving others of their rights are best regulated by laws, regulations, criminal law or civil tort those are practical matters not about the ideals of liberty.
As for the common good, libertarians just believe that charity is better than having the government put a gun to your head telling you what to give and who to give it to.
Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society that just cold turkey dropped public welfare and benefits, but I think moving towards a system of voluntary charity and looking for ways to keep the government out of our homes and bedrooms is much much better than a system of forced taxation to deal with individual needs.
If the charities and social groups aren't up to the task, then as a practical matter I would rather see people taken care of then not, but I would also rather elect someone who sees that as a slippery slope of government coercion and dependency than someone who doesn't see the inherent (but sometimes necessary) evil in using force to take from one person to give to another.
In terms of practical policies, I think that libertarian values are simply put that government, taxation and the use of force by the government are sometimes necessary evils to be minimized as much as practical. Versus the alternative view that just sees government, taxation and the use of force by government as necessary without acknowledging the "sometimes" or evil parts of that statement.
A Libertarian is an anarchist with a trust fund. (defn.). More to the point, what's wrong with paying taxes? I make money, I pay for public security, fire protection, streets, roads, schools, hospitals. These are things I could not afford by myself, but I wants roads that are paved and lit at night. I want a hospital so that when I get sick or injured, I can go there and get better. I want schools so that instead of becoming criminals, kids in my town can get jobs and help pay for what I can't afford on my own. I can't afford my own private doctor, but I can afford to pay rent on one. Why is it ok for a corporation to hold (several) lawyers on retainer, but holding one doctor on retainer is objectionable? Oh, and the government *should* regulate up to the point where it interferes with my civil liberties. I don't want to have paint in the kids milk. I don't want to eat meat from the 4 headed cow. I don't want to drive the 'no fault' used razor blades and bailing wire truck. I like strong consumer protection laws, and I *really* like anti-monopoly laws that keep corporations from cornering the market and robbing everyone around them blind. Every day I hear corporate shills yelping that the 'government should stay out of the market, and not try to control or manipulate it'. And my thoughts are: "why should they be the only ones left out?" Every corporation I've ever seen has done all they can (and a lot of it illegal) to manipulate and skew the 'free' market. Freedom on the battlefield means a strong army. Freedom in the market needs strong controls and an occasional government beat-down. Like every game, you need a referee.
In a "free market", people can still come and bulldoze your house. Who is going to stop them?
In a libertarian capitalist free market you would have a few options in order of preference 1) Ask them to stop which is your freedom of speech. 2) Point a gun at them and ask them not to or shoot them if they don't stop. 2nd amendment 3) Call the police and have them sort it out if there is still time or arrest them after the fact if they did not have permission. 4) Go to court to seek damages and/or a restraining order which the police would be obligated to enforce. Or were you thinking of something else?
Sorry, but more parties does not help this problem; it's entirely caused by trying to operate a system outide of its design specs
1. Consider places like Great Britain and Israel ... more parties but no better results.
2. The US was designed to have maximum freedom for a self-regulating and moral people (generically protestant Christian - by culture and traditions NOT by individual religious "faith"). This system (think of it like any other engineered system) had very few laws, a very small central federal government (which generally affected no individual citizens with taxes or regulations) and left most things to the states (which were similarly structured and hands-off) and to the people themselves. Social services were left to churches, social welfare societies (things LIKE the Shriners, "Wounded Warriors", the Red Cross, etc) and people were generally free to do what they wanted with their lives and their property as long as they were not messing with other people. Our legal system could have its complexities in part because few people sued eachother because people were more self-regulating. That society did NOT require people to be of any particular religion (there were Catholics, Jews, agnosticts, etc) but it presumed everybody had the general worldview and self-control that was compatible with small government. Now, however, we are operating the system outside the specs Part of the population is self-regulating and wants small government that is mostly not involved in our lives, but part of the population wants to replace churches, charities, and family members (husbands/fathers) with government agencies while increasing all the social costs by removing many of the limits on human behaviors which used to be in place; The society is being torn by two sides trying to pull in opposite directions, and no compromise is possible on many of the issues... more parties cannot fix this. It will self-correct back to small government in about 30 or 40 years... the US Government will run out of options in about 25 years when over a hundred trillion dollars in unfunded mandates kick-in (there's not enough cash on earth to pay for all the social spending promises it has made; Social Security is already "in the red" and Medicare also already "in the red" will go bankrupt in less that 20 years). Just like Space Shuttle Challenger, a big powerful system operated outide its specs will eventually fail - spectacularly.
Both the Democrats and Republicans decided it was more important to get the budget that they wanted than to allow the government to continue to operate. Both sides had budgets they said they would pass. Republicans passed several budgets. Obama threatened to veto and the Democratic Senate wouldn't pick it up. You can argue about whether the programs that they were protecting were worth it or not, but pinning the shutdown on just the Republicans is absurd.
The conservative society of the 1950s should never have allowed the whackos of the 1960's "counter culture" to have more voice.
Funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot - the left in the 1960s used to demand that they be allowed to voice all sorts of crazy stuff while demanding that if THEY were in charge THEY would tolerate all speech and expression (usually accompanied by a Voltaire quote). Thus they held themselves up as intellectually superior in their "open mindedness". Now that THEY have the levers of power, however, the former left-wing radicals have implemented "speech codes" on the college campuses they now run, implemented "politically-correct" practices in the workplace (Mozilla ring any bells? Whatever happened to "I disagree with you completely, but I will defend-to-the-death your right to say it"???). The left, who used to insist that people had the right to evade federal laws that affcted them PERSONALLY over things like pot, and the draft NOW insists that government has the right to order people to buy commercial products they do not want (Obamacare) and order people to buy stuff they find morally objectionable for other people (that ACA abortion mandate)
It was a lie all along ... the left was NEVER "open-minded" and "tolerant" of dissent - that was all just decietful rhetoric designed to trick people into thinking the radicals could be trusted.... long enough to get into power and then oppress the people and suppress the ideas THEY do not like.
http://theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php
In Belgium we have the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, the Socialists, the Nationalists (two types, even), the Greens, and those are just the major parties of the north. I count 13 parties with seats in the federal government after the most recent election, and a coalition usually includes at least two northern parties and two southern parties, but often more.
The make-up of the government can change significantly, as well. For example, the big winner in the north of the country, the nationalist NVA party, didn't exist 15 years ago and now they've got the most seats of all parties (22%). Government negotiations this year are going to be a real pain because the Nationalists and the Northern Christian Democrats are at loggerheads with the Socialists and the Southern Christian Democrats, with the Liberals of both north and south are caught in between.
If you want a laugh, look up the Belgian political crisis of 2010-11. It took the government 541 days of negotiations to form a coalition. I believe that's a modern world record.
I support such voting systems, in the hope they will bring candidates to the center.
I don't "bank" with any banks... I bank with a credit union, for that express reason. How about you?
There are people who refuse to pay a portion of their taxes because it goes to war funds, and they think that's murder, and is against their deeply held religious beliefs. These actual real Christians are called Quakers, and no one pays attention to them, which is a shame. I also know a guy that hates what the US government does, so he purposely doesn't make any money so he doesn't have to pay taxes. He's a neat guy..... but these are anecdotes, not the average.
People who don't want to pay taxes, who rail against government, usually take for granted all that they get from living in a civil society. You drove to work on public roads. Your kids go to public school, your electricity works, your sewer works, your water flows when you turn the tap on. You are protected by police and fire departments. The businesses around you couldn't operate without courts and uniform laws. If you want an example of small government and freedom, go see Somolia. See how well that turns out.... They're super free to do whatever the local warlord tells them to do.
The "People's Republic of Austin" as it is derisively called here is the most "progressive" city in Texas by almost all measures and has been for a long time. The example of Austin only strengthens the argument that liberal, progressive politics and attitudes correlate positively with tech hub success.
Depends on from who's view.
Time to offend someone
I wonder why you would chose those two examples for this story. Rand Paul is socially conservative and economically regressive.
And at any rate, it's a bad choice for one reason: So do Americans. The Democrats gave up on any liberal economic policy back in the 80's
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Which are often backed or put in place by big traditional companies trying to keep out competition.
Table-ized A.I.
That's more to do with the fact that the U.S. is pretty far to the right of European countries -- i.e., it's not really a lack of choice as it is a lack of significant interest. We don't complain so much that there's no mainstream party in the U.S. that's outright fascist because that's a little too far to the right of us.
The brother hood of taxi drivers?
The national car dealers workers of America?
What American unions?
Car dealers are businesses.
Taxi is a combination of companies and businesses.
If you want to slant the say you are slanting.
I wish I had mod points .... TROLL.
This kind of shit it just pathetic. But it works in Liberal crowds. People like you can't actually point to anything specific, so you toss out huge nasty sounding challenges, that have no basis in fact.
Take a look at Chicago, DC and NO, and tell me, what good has (D) policies done for the Minority Communities there?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
THANK and YOU!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Less government in the internet? Didn't the government create the internet? I am pretty sure most technology in our iPhones also came from the governments. Sadly, libertarianism is highly predominate amongst my programming peers, and Rand Paul is smart to gain their support. Seems like the perfect candidate for a workforce mostly composed of privileged white males.
The "People's Republic of Austin" as it is derisively called here is the most "progressive" city in Texas
Yeah, the state income tax rate in Texas is 0.0%. Oh my, quite progressive.
In Silicon Valley, for earnings between $49,774.00 and $254,250, you'll pay 9.3% income tax, and highest earners pay 12.3%.
You can carry an unregistered, concealed firearm in Austin. You can't in San Jose, and you'll need to register your handgun there as well (so it can be confiscated later :)
If Rand Paul is so great, then why is he afraid of this woman?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rachel-maddows-interview-rand-paul-519
(He hasn't appeared on her show in the four years since this interview.)
Politics in the US needs drastic reform away from the two party system.
You won't get it because the Democratic-Republican party is a still a single party that does not believe in the spirit of the law, and provides only the illusion that your vote either way actually matters to them.
I'm surprised to see all of the anti-libertarian sentiment in the comments above. I haven't seen this much anger at straw-man libertarian views outside of Salon. At least based on people's comments about libertarians, you'd think that libertarianism were some unified Kochtopus front ready to take away everything they hold dear, rather than a fairly divided set of political views and philosophies that share a few bits of common ground. I guess the angry folks don't read the same people I do.
"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
And given the overwhelming historical association between "liber"tarian ideology and slavery, it's probably more accurate to just call it according to its real preoccupation: Moneytarianism.
No doubt such a viewpoint would find a receptive audience in some of the shallower minds and uglier spirits of Silicon Valley.
But the philosophical core of the region and the tech industry remains fundamentally progressive. That's why it remains the king despite decades of conservative "small government" states desperately trying and failing to replicate it on any remotely competitive scale.
since american libertarianism has its roots in the 19th century abolition movement, this dreck is decidedly untrue. Progressivism is nothing but protecting the rich from the competition of the poor garbed in the language of fraternity
Are we STILL hearing this lie?
You would think after the de-regulation fiascoes of 83, 87, 2001 and 2007 NO ONE would claim Capitalism is self-regulating
Add in Bohpal, the hideous conditions of the Maquiladoras, the coal slurry poisoning of West Virginia, the toxic foreclosure mess by NON BANKS which were not regulated, the Ford Pinto, the debacles of patent trolls etc.. and by now any 'deregulation' drivel would be a laughingstock!
But not for the 1%, who see only barriers to higher profits
"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
wait what?
That is the most absurd thing I've seen in a long time in regards to criticism of libertarianism. Is it possible you have no idea what you're talking about?
Paul's appeal doesn't surprise me. There has always been an undercurrent of sentiments that embraced Randian ideas, and from the beginning. At the same time as there has been an idealistic and liberal thread. There is a sense that the political spectrum is a circle and that the right and left merge at the point furthest from the pragmatic center of American Politics. There is also the sense that techies are simplistic thinkers about complex social issues, and like many engineers, have a tendency to go half cocked. So myths about individualism and the rights of entrapaneurs get embraced before one has done the thinking through to consequences and side effects, like the half baked idea of that Silicon Valley business man to break California into six states including one named Silicon Valley. Maybe he is like Emperor Norton and wants to become the monarch of Silicon Valley. Some of these guys seem shady at the outset so possibly a tendency to be doing hard time they end up being Silly Cons.
I think Silicon Valley has seen brighter days. The reality of the effects of technology not driven by greater wisdom than some half-baked business plan is about to catch up with it, and the Bright Boys will be asked to pay up-front to deal with the anticipated risk of doing business in these parts. Good, maybe they should take their schemes to Texas and let the people there who put the like of Paul and Cruz and Perry pay the consequences. Maybe all the better if it turns out that Texas and California are in different nations, too.