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.

Comments

Socialism is Communism-lite

[mi]

Ignorance. Socialism is not communism.

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.

Socialism accepts private ownership of anything, including the means of production.

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.

[...] you fear socialists are going to seize the means of production from you? It doesn't work like that.

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...

The worst you have to fear are sensible regulations

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?

Oohh, scary.

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...