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.
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
"you might call Silicon Valley executives libertarians"
Wait you were serious?
Nationalism always results in war
Humanity always results in war. What do you think is going to happen when the global community tries to pressure Saudi Arabia into permitting gay marriage? They're going to say go to hell and what will the globalists do? There are only two choices, economic sanctions or military intervention.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why is the answer so black and white? Maybe there is some middle position that would work best for our country.
love is just extroverted narcissism
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
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.
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.
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 feel like you should pay it forward, in which case you end up on the Democratic/Socialist ... side of the spectrum.
Yeah, this is nonsense. You don't have to believe that you are entirely responsible for your own success to be an individualist (Libertarian or Republican). "Paying it forward" just takes a different form: private charity rather than public services. Along the same lines, collectivism does not imply that you are in favor of contributing personally; it's all about getting other people to pay for the programs you think should be available. Sure, you'll (probably) be paying those taxes you lobbied for along with everyone else... but there was nothing stopping you supporting those programs privately, out of your own funds, if that was what you wanted. The only reason to bring in the power of the State is to force others to participate.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat