Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Bosses Are Globalists, Not Libertarians (economist.com)
From a report via The Economist: In a recently published survey of 600 entrepreneurs and executives in Silicon Valley, conducted by David Broockman and Neil Malhotra of Stanford University and Gregory Ferenstein, a journalist, three-quarters of respondents said they supported Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. But although technology-firm leaders hold views that in general hew much closer to Democratic positions than Republican ones, they are far from reliable partisan ideologues. As you might expect from captains of industry, Silicon Valley executives are much more likely to support free trade and to oppose government regulation of businesses than your average Democrat is. For example, just 30% of tech bosses believe that ride-hailing companies need to be regulated like the taxi industry, compared with 60% of Democrats.
Given their combination of socially liberal attitudes and a preference for free markets, you might call Silicon Valley executives libertarians. However, libertarians generally advocate shrinking the state as a share of the economy, which technology bosses resolutely do not. When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could," just 24% agreed. In contrast, 68% of Republican donors concurred with that statement. Moreover, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are just as likely to favor redistributive economic policies, such as universal health care and higher taxes on the rich, as an average Democrat is. The outlook of our new robot-building overlords is far more communitarian than, say, the doctrines of Ayn Rand.
Given their combination of socially liberal attitudes and a preference for free markets, you might call Silicon Valley executives libertarians. However, libertarians generally advocate shrinking the state as a share of the economy, which technology bosses resolutely do not. When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could," just 24% agreed. In contrast, 68% of Republican donors concurred with that statement. Moreover, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are just as likely to favor redistributive economic policies, such as universal health care and higher taxes on the rich, as an average Democrat is. The outlook of our new robot-building overlords is far more communitarian than, say, the doctrines of Ayn Rand.
Yup, globalists. Just as bad as socialists, and worse for the American workforce.
I can't help but think, that anyone who thought they were "libertarians," were the same type to get all their information from one of the main news networks while they cook dinner. You don't have to agree with someone's position to understand it, and most people don't even understand their own sadly.
They are Corporatists, not Globalists. All Hail the Corporation.
Isolationism and nationalism simply won't work in the long term. Eventually you end up with a bunch of Kim Jong Uns who will either want to prove their manhood or take your stuff. Nationalism always results in war, people who think of themselves as superior will end up fighting others or factions within themselves. We need to figure out how to get along with everyone. Globalisation will happen, either through genocide or through more peaceful means.
Globalization is a means to lower business operating cost. It's that simple. Libertarianism is about maximizing personal freedom of everyone not just corporations. Do you see most companies doing this? Apple locking people into their platform and not interoperating with other platforms. Comcast locking you into archaic price models because it's what's best for them, not you. The US Chamber of Commerce rubbing elbows with politicians to slant things in their favor at your expense. They do not represent the true views of Libertarians which would be promoting this country to be as free as possible for all citizens. Companies don't want humans to be free. They want them locked in as loyal consumers and to pay the highest prices possible.
We'll make great pets
Most of us give up on Ayn Rand when we get out of puberty and start reading books for adults. Others, however, never develop beyond adolescence and become Fed chairmen or Speakers of the House and base their horrible policies on their childish dogma and set the stage for economic ruin.
Of course they are globalists, statists, and socialists. Corporations would much rather sell to a huge, monolithic government with deep pockets than have to actually compete in a free market.
Just look at the Military Industrial Complex that lives and dies at the government teat. $400 hammers and $1200 toilet seats. They love every minute of laughing all the way to the bank.
I've noticed that there is often a difference between the political views of immigrants vs the political views of native born citizens. This is not a surprise. Native born people are brainwashed in a particular school of propaganda, and immigrants are usually brainwashed in very different school of propaganda. I think native born leaders have a lot more compassion and innate understanding of the issues facing poor rural blue collar workers. In contrast, immigrant tech leaders have very little loyalty to poor blue collar people living in rural areas of the United States and probably view them with contempt.
Anyway, it would be interesting to see how the politics of these leaders breaks down by immigrant vs native born.
spiritless abuse victim digitarian depopulationers' drivel.. cease fire stand down,, there's moms & babys in all of our towns... thanks again
Like Apple's obsession with making it's documents be .doc and not sharing the specification for the format?
"you might call Silicon Valley executives libertarians"
Wait you were serious?
Nationalism is a form of collectivism.
Libertarianism celebrates the individual.
The convenient boxes (stereotypes) people come up to denigrate others break down sooner or later.
News at 11.
capitalism has its ideology for how the world should be ruled
communism has its ideology for how the world should be ruled
Islam has its ideology for how the world should be ruled
zionism has its ideology for how the world should be ruled
christianity has its ideology for how the world should be ruled
fascism has its ideology for how the world should be ruled
how about letting everyone have their own little piece to live in peace instead
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I'm going to guess (but have no evidence to support) that entrepreneurs and executives in Silicon Valley are far more likely to have come from a middle class or poor family than the average Wall Street executive.
If you have that kind of background you tend to go one of two ways. To generalize, either you believe that all of your success is 100% due to your own brilliance and hard work, with almost none of it due to luck or any help you got from anyone else, in which case you end up on the Libertarian/Republican side of the chart. Or you believe that even though you worked hard you also got a lot of benefits from society and got some lucky breaks along the way (and probably know a lot of people you grew up with who weren't as lucky) and feel like you should pay it forward, in which case you end up on the Democratic/Socialist (or apparently Globalist) side of the spectrum.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I never got any indication that they were anything other than collectivist, globalists.
If they were libertarians, they would have been trying to break the stranglehold the political left has on California politics.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Given the manor in which the survey was conducted (not described in pdf), the 691 likely did not did not assume that their responses were really anonymous or confidential.
In this political climate, the wrong words or opinions could bring the mob/antifa/media down upon a person.
-anonymous executive
So, you're telling me they're 1960-70's east coast, international republicans. What a surprise for major business people.
Just like Hillary.
Fake News? Like Republicans are any closer to being Libertarians than Democrats.
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
No, it's more things like the propritary 'lightening' connector for only Apple phones, the 'extended' bluetooth protocol on their new earplugs, the closed off app store for iOS.
Kay, now. Come back with your bulleted list of rebuttals.
have the cleanest IT closets in the world. Rumor has it there's a miracle worker somewhere in the Valley.
If you put a granola bar under your pillow, the next morning the Closet Fairy will have repaired all the broken keyboards, eaten the granola bar, AND humble-boasted about it on every social network known to mankind.
Try to appease everyone on your way to a huge payday...then turn into a well paid speaker who wears nice clothes while sitting on stage with legs crossed telling others how their success lies within.
As long as its not progressive.
If you are anti union, you're not progressive.
These things are not mutually exclusive at all. "Left" does not mean you want a communist central leadership. "Right" does not mean you want a fascist central leadership.
-I- want global coorperation for our global problems, and I want as much freedom as possible without destroying the world in exploding anarchy.
Do I need to explain this further? Labels mean nothing, as everyone has a different meaning attached to it.
FTA: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/f...
We gathered a random sample of all individuals listed as founders or CEOs of companies in Crunchbase in 2013, 8,499 individuals in all. We then manually searched for emailaddresses for these individuals. In most cases we were able to gather personal email addresses
Most of them probably said what they thought the researchers wanted to hear.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
But only of ultra high net worth people.
There are handful of companies that have monopolized a market segment and are making money hand over fist. The rest of them are rolling in borrowed money aka venture capital, and their leaders are coastholes with upper middle class upbringing whose circle of influence are other upper middle class coastholes from Yale and Harvard. No wonder they come up bogus "disruptions" like Juicero and blow through hundreds of millions. The only reason these ppl are left leaning is because .. otherwise .. the pitch forks are coming.
the us needs Medicare for all that is the big part about losing jobs in the usa
A persistent denial of evidence is called the Fallacy of Invincible Ignorance. It occurs when no objective faults in fact or errors in logic are identified, and person attempts to dismiss an argument - Invincible Ignorance.
Isolationism and nationalism simply won't work in the long term.
Oh, yes, they will instead, and they already have in the past. Before the WTO (1995), when tariffs, borders and strict control of immigration were the norm, the middle class of most western countries used to live and feel far better than now: higher job and financial security, generous welfare state (except in the US), reasonable expectation that future generations would live better, culturally homogeneous countries where everybody share similar values, celebrate Christmas and other local holidays.
Two decades later, we see the obvious reaction to globalization and free movement of goods, capitals, and people: Trump is president of the USA, the British chose to exit the EU, and anti-establishment and/or far right parties are skyrocketing in the polls everywhere for the first time since the 1920s. Nothing like this could have happened 20-30-50 years ago, it would have been unthinkable.
There's no way you can persuade hundreds of millions of people that they are living better now than in the pre-globalization era, simply because it's blatantly false. Most importantly, if the democratic party's future candidates will share your "ideas", you can be sure that Trump will easily have a second term, no matter how many questionable jokes he posts on twitter.
Rich people wanting government to stay the hell out of their business of using their power to get richer.
That's new... how? That might only change when (not if, more "as soon as") they're the ones owning the politicians to add that aspect to their power base.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Coercive authority is what results in war. Individual human beings don't just collectively "up and war", like ants obeying their instincts. Human beings follow a leader into war. They need somebody to tell them to go to war, and that somebody is coercive authority -- our reliable old friend from the very beginning of human history.
Libertarianism does not eschew hierarchy or submission to authority; libertarianism merely requires that such social structures emerge through voluntary interaction between individuals.
Centralization that emerges from voluntary interaction is just a matter of efficiency; should that centralization become corrupted (that is, should it become a tool to impose on individuals against their will), then a libertarian culture is able to fall back on the less efficient, decentralized system of voluntary interaction between each individual (e.g., a free market), and thereby construct new, clean forms of centralization.
A libertarian society interprets imposition as damage and routes around it.
Gah, has Slashdot been infected by the alt-right cretins from Breitbart???
But their actions say way more than their mouths and they say that They're libertarians, they do want a social anarchism and they scream it every time they bend the laws protecting the society to fit their needs, the sole fact that they do despise to pay taxes that beneffit the whole society is more than a scream.
Sounds more like yet another slashdot poster with a silly agenda to smear libertarianism. I say "silly" because libertarianism is so far removed from mainstream politics that attacking them is like stomping on ants when the elephants are stampeding.
Interestingly, of all the political ideologies, none receives quite as much seething hatred and ruthless attack as libertarianism -- the philosophy of individual freedom and voluntary association. Can that even be put into perspective?
My personal theory is that the people who spend the most time attacking a political ideology that will never come to fruition are the people who are least confident in their own political ideology.
Silicon Valley is full of corporate whores? Whaaaaat?!
When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could" Of course they don't. And neither do most people when given historical context and an explanation of exactly what that means. And what it means is a complete private tyranny by the biggest capital players with no regard for labor. We've tried that before in various states and times (including in the U.S.) , and it got so bad for people that they were constantly on the threshold of revolt and business had a real fear of losing all of it. Furthermore, except for a few powerful players, it is bad for most business since a competitive market is a myth that has never and will never exist in a capitalist system.
No, libertarianism is more antisocial, it puts the selfishness nature of people above their social nature; It might have sense in a world without countries and without rules, but we're living in societies and they do impose rules like help other people in need, not to steal and not to kill, yet libertarians only see those rules as tyranism except when it beneffits themselves, like when they do want government grants and social beneffits but hates other people having it.
Libertarianism is more a thing for rich people, and people that want to be rich soon probably by a strike of luck.
... People who falsely believe Ayn Rand's Objectivism defines the entire thing, or those who falsely believe conspiracy theorists define them?
Most intelligent people I know who claim to be libertarian are interested in looking at all different philosophies related to a core idea that people have natural rights and freedoms, and these shouldn't be taken away by a central government.
In fact, while the majority of libertarians probably fall into a rough category of being socially liberal but fiscally conservative? It's possible to be a libertarian who believes in liberal fiscal policies. (I was initially at a loss to explain how that could even work, until I asked someone in that camp to explain it to me. Apparently, the gist of it is an idea that you could create a society full of unions, but these unions would completely dictate pay, because you'd have one for each type of job in demand. The idea that the employer would offer a salary would be gone. Rather, they'd decide what labor they needed to have done, and approach the proper unions to obtain the labor required.)
The point is, libertarian politics is (or should be) a very big "tent". There's room for the Randians, along with plenty of others with differing ideas about the details of how some things should work. The core principles remain the same, and they're the ones the "big 2" political parties in America today both choose to largely ignore.
To the US If we hadn't deposed the dictators of Iraq no and Libya (still a right bastard to his people but so are the Saudies and I don't see anyone calling to liberate then). We backed him into a corner. He knows that without nukes he'll eventually get deposed and hung when a US president needs a way to keep him and his party in power.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The reality is that "libertarians" originally, and in the European context, means something like "democratic socialist", or at any rate a left-leaning socialist philosophy. In the U.S. in the 1960's, this meaning was highjacked by thinkers like Milton Friedman who held a religious advocacy of the rights of capital over men. I mean, it takes a giant leap of logic to conclude that capital does NOT seek to do exactly what you say "isn't libertarian". Despite what so-called U.S. "libertarians" think, there is absolutely no a priori reason that capital owners will do what's best in the free and moral interest of men, and likewise there is no reason to think a "free market" involves an invisible referee that ensures fair play -- that's simply religious dogma.
Why can't people spell "lightning" correctly?
Wasn't this obvious??
It was founded by organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation specifically to propagandize a non-nationalist conception of money and to acclimate "the right" to this concept. The "gold standard" that libertarians champion has only existed as either part of the British Empire or as administered by the United Nations until the Nixon Shock.
Nobody is envious of a niigger gorilla nose, or a hispanic midget build, or any other physically inferior trait. You're probably an ugly minority or an ugly jewish fag.
"would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could,"
As opposed to, "would you like to see less government regulation" or "smaller government"
They're Libertarians and FYI Hillary Clinton is a Republican so stop thinking that makes them aligned with Democratic ideals...
Sadly, so many, including the idiots at the economists, tend to see political POV as right vs left and then shift policies as they see fit.
,such as no pollution being dumped in rivers, or air, is about the same thing.
Worse yet, they think that Republicans want smaller gov and nothing but a strong defense. That is NOT a republican POV. That is a GOP POV that has more in common with NAZIs than with Abe Lincoln and what he wanted.
The Republican party is the one that stood up for BIG GOVERNMENT. They also support gov helping develop businesses. Railroads? Lincoln. Highway system? IKE. Nuke power plants? IKE. Plenty of support for business development by Republicans.
Now, the GOP, that is a different matter. They contstantly shift. Back in 1860, they were the liberals. Now the GOP is a conservative party.
As to Libertarian, well, the party has plenty of shifts, which makes sense. We believe in FREEDOM. Freedom to decide. Freedom to change. etc.
What is interesting is that SV exec actually fit us pretty well. They push freedom. Now, do they support regulations to protect ppl? ABSOLUTELY. Yet, Libertarians are all about freedom to do whatever, until you infringe on others. So, regulations to protect ppl
Regulations that protect businesses is where my party opposes things, and instead, we see the GOP supporting that. For all intents and purposes, Libertarians are OPPOSED to what today's GOP does. Ask a good Libertarian if America should go to war over oil and they will tell you that we need out of ALL WARS. And many of us DO support seeing America switch to EVs and AE. Why? Because it makes us avoid going to war, except internally.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ah the Economist, disavowing the worst aspects of capitaliam since 1843!
ofc, in tech everyone is globalist except the peons. They are trumpist.
The right use Ayn Rand to add a veneer of intelligence to their dog eat dog philosophy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And the more stuff it does, the more socialister it is
- Carl Marks
The Breitbartitisation of slashdot continues. Stunning how so few can't separate economic systems and authoritarian dictators.
Libertarianism in the USA means something else; it is something sick and anti-christian ever since Ian Rand became their false prophet. Before that it still had a libertard backing but was much weaker. The EU meanings probably have shifted but that meaning was more known in the USA.
Serve the rich and exploit the poor without anybody getting in your way. THAT is the appeal of globalization. If all our regulations created a level global playing field, there would be no more benefit going multi-national than simply expanding locally (which for most business local would cut distribution costs.) The real reason for globalization is because that is the circumvention backdoor hack around people's voice/freedom. Government is the most powerful voice of a people (whether it works for them or not is beside the point, it's their collective force and representative voice.) Playing the on differences for exploitative gain is the whole point!!
Slave labor? that is illegal. Go to another country, exploit their insecure governments and get rented slaves... while keeping other governments from doing anything ( it is easy to slow down and screw up government; far harder to make it functional.)
Who could have guessed?
"The outlook of our new robot-building overlords is far more communitarian than, say, the doctrines of Ayn Rand."
Funny enough, for Ayn Rand's philosophies to function they require the world's population to be comprised entirely of robots. And magic. Needs lots of magic.
>All the Trump voters
Recognizing that you're targeting specific people in a specific situation... your arguments are still flawed. Trump's base is reacting in an ignorant way to a real problem. Just because they haven't correctly identified cause and effect doesn't mean they're not legitimately hurting.
>When you admit that you simply aren't as competitive in the free market as you thought you deserved to be
Globalism is ideal in that it shares opportunity around the world. None of us got to choose the circumstances of our birth, and in a perfect world we should all have an equal opportunity at the best life on Earth possible.
Globalism fails in that different societies have different standards that affect what a 'living wage' is. How am I supposed to compete with someone who lives in a country that doesn't bother with pollution regulations, or is OK with the common citizen living in abject poverty or maybe just doesn't worry so much about social safety nets?
The free market - without taxes and tariffs adjusting for those differences - simply means that the quality of life my ancestors made possible in my country will go down the shitter as every possible bit of labour and manufacturing is relocated to the worst places on Earth to exist as an average participant in the local economy.
> that your hatred of immigrants and non-whites is born of insecurity and envy
I don't hate immigrants; my country is full of them. I hate the idea that we should treat nations with lesser environmental, employment, health, and social standards as equals. That helps a few rich people get massively richer while draining wealth from the rest of us. It does also seem to (slowly) increase the average standard of living for those other nations, but I'm fairly confident that's accidental. The drive is more money for the richest of the rich.
Sadly, it's very easy for those of the common people on the losing side of this to just 'blame brown people' - most of us being white, after all. But again, that just means the people doing so have latched onto a false cause, not a false symptom.
When a significant segment of your population is losing hope watching wealth disparity leave them further and further behind and seeing no opportunity to catch up... there's a problem.
You can be a libertarian and a globalist at the same time. In fact the two are compatible. The dangerous philosophies are the authoritarian systems such as nationalism and socialism. They block people from interacting with and trading with each other based on what an authority think is best.
People easily forget that the last 30 years were not eternity. Things were different. During the PEAK of American "greatness" we didn't make everything in China as we do today and Americans were better off than today. Going back to those times would involve bringing back jobs and raising prices on a great many things as well as PAYING American workers at least $20 an hour min wage... which is what the min wage was back then. PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE AS MUCH CRAP OR BUY AS MUCH but they had more financial security/stability... and higher quality products (they had to LAST since you couldn't treat them as valueless.)
People forget that the uber wealthy were not sucking away everybody's money from the equation.
Even in bringing back important forgotten aspects to the economics... The USA was still exploiting the 3rd world back in the day to increase their wealth. Really, it's always the same problem. Most the USA was very wealthy back in the past and exploited the world... 3rd world and the great benefits of not being harmed in WW2 like most the rest of planet. TODAY we have a very small and less US centered wealthy who are continuing the same things but since they are a smaller group, they have more concentrated wealth and the wealthy Americans have shrunk in population. They are upset because it's happening TOO FAST. If the transition of wealth was slower Americans wouldn't even notice the wealth being transferred from them... they don't notice enough to stop it but enough to get so upset they pick one of the robber barons to lead them simply because he echos their concerns (hell, the man even named his son Baron... He could name the kid Robert Baron AND shoot somebody in the street and still get half the voting public, or about 30% of the actual public.)
PROBLEM: even during the great times of past where more balance seemed exist... (not globally) there was a huge problem of automation -- not enough jobs to go around. They engineered consumer culture and sold it as the depression prevention plan. To some degree, they were correct. QUALITY products at a FAIR price doesn't employ enough people--- an exponentially growing number of people. Such job growth is more logarithmic -- ever increasing output (the productivity we are raised to worship) with flat-lined job growth. Robots will make it far worse... It's only looked like a log... eventually, nearly everything will break from the logarithmic path and go down possibly to 0 as AI takes over the whole operation. What is funny is that people don't even think about job growth as linear... which is a huge problem already but it is not even linear-- the longer the time span the less linear it gets and after logarithmic it becomes a downward curve.
True. Socialism is Communism-lite. The difference is merely in the degree. The (glorious) Collective is more important and trumps the Individual. And, as Karl Marx taught us, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.
Nope, not the actual Karl Marx' version of it. But, whether the means of production are ostensibly private owned or in outright government possession is of no importance — a distinction without difference — when the government can control any aspect of the production it chooses to. And it can, through that vastly giant loophole of "sensible regulations" you allow it to have.
It works exactly like that. There is not argument for nationalizing public education, that can not also be made — indeed, is already made — for nationalizing public health care, or public housing, or public Internet service provision, public science, music and other arts.
Some countries are further along down this path — to their patently obvious detriment — than others. Like I said, a matter of degree, a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. The greater the share of the GDP, that is spent by the government, the greater the degree of Collectivism in the country...
Who the fook are you to "sensibly regulate", what I am doing in my house or what sort of thing I sell to willing buyers?
Yes, it is awfully scary, that despite being the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, the branches of Collectivism (Fascism, Socialism, Communism) continue to appear attractive to a substantial proportion of population... You'd be appalled to meet an asshole in a KKK-outfit, but a far more dangerous asshole in a Che Guevara T-shirt hardly raises an eyebrow. Indeed, I suspect, I may be conversing with one on Slashdot right now...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why does apple have a connectors for a descending uterus? Or did you mean lightning?
They are moving to a standard cable with the new devices. Lightning was a horrid connector.
Yes, Apple does have a history of creating their own proprietary cables.
" 'extended' bluetooth protocol on their new earplugs,"
Company invents new protocol. shocking.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People who think they might get rich through luck have a legitimate fear that the current system would make them poor again. If I'm going to get a one-time windfall and have to make it last, of course I don't want a large portion to go to taxes. If I can do something that adds value continuously so I always have income, then I'm not so concerned.
They sure need them, because their Collectivism is killing them and their performance is pathetic. For just one sign, consider the fact, that these countries (with the possible exception of Finland) haven't been bombed/destroyed in the WW2. Which means, their standards of living ought to be, if Socialism really was so grand, well above that of the US. It is not — not even in Norway, for all their vast oil exports propping up the GDP.
And that's despite their spending much less on military — to the point, the otherwise decrepit Russia can overrun them in a matter of weeks.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Libertarianism is a con-job played by old wealth on everybody else
>
Sadly, it's very easy for those of the common people on the losing side of this to just 'blame brown people' - most of us being white, after all.
Equally sad is the easy ability of the globalist getting rich from this situation to misconstrue and even misrepresent the concerns of the common people as being about brown people.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Anyone using the world "Globalist" unironicly is spreading nationalist propaganda.
The concept of a Libertarian being seperate from a "globalist" is bullshit too.
national policies = international policies, therefore a mule
All these stupid new-speak terms given us by some demagogs of the fake news era..
Silicon Valley Bosses Are Capitalists, And Then Whatever...
FTFY.
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Libertarianism is about not allowing the government to restrict your freedom. Companies are free to do what they want. Presumably, the customer can choose a different company if he does not like how he is treated...
Chris Mesterharm
Democracy?
>"When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could,""
Sorry, that is a loaded question because it is not what mainstream USA Libertarianism is. It seems very popular for many to label Libertarianism that way, however. But it would be like me asking this to determine if they would agree with the Democrat party:
"Would you like to live in a society where everything you do is regulated and controlled by the government, especially at the Federal level, where government redistributes income aggressively, and the Constitution is flexible and interpreted any way the wind blows?"
First, most USA Libertarians will say that the Federal Government should be limited exactly as it says in the Constitution. But there are more things the Fed is supposed to do (per the Constitution) than just provide defense and police. And except for radical Libertarians (extremists, just like you have in all parties), most also support LIMITED government to do things like prevent monopolies, provide for patents, regulate scarce resources (like airwaves/radio frequencies), etc.
Ah, the "no true libertarian" argument...
Riddle me this: why, exactly, would a libertarian care about the personal freedom of anyone except themself? Isn't the whole idea that people look after themselves? Surely campaigning for other people's freedom is just another form of paternalism. What if they don't want to be (your idea of) "free"?
It explains their efforts to silence those who dare oppose globalism.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Citations?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As a jew, do not lump me with these scumbags. You are the neo-nazi. I have my own life and own morals and just because I'm jewish does not mean I have to share the same views as these people I despise, and rightfully despise. You hypocritical ass.
As people who make among the most in the world, redistribution is great, as long as it's someone else's money being redistributed.
As for their own, they move that to other countries so it won't be taxed. Can you say "Fucking hypocrites"?