
The Political Education of Silicon Valley - 0xbxd
https://www.wired.com/story/political-education-silicon-valley
======
koolba
> If you plot those values on the matrix of conventional US politics, there
> appears to be a contradiction: _The tech elite want an activist government,
> but they don’t want the government actively restricting them._

Fringes aside, I think that sums up everybody. The difference is that most
regulation doesn’t directly impact the average Joe.

~~~
princekolt
> I think that sums up everybody.

I think that sums up everybody that doesn't understand how effective
governments work. Regulations are an intrinsic part of them and the
libertarians know that. That's why they're against them. It's a lot easier to
create tax loopholes when you don't have thousands of regulations to worry
about.

~~~
TomMarius
Libertarians don't want to pay taxes in the first place because they believe
they can buy equivalent or better service for the same price or cheaper on the
free market and stop overpaying for services that are useless or actively
harmful, like e.g. most of FDA regulation, zoning, building codes, etc. How
does that relate to tax loopholes at all?

~~~
maxxxxx
"useless or actively harmful, like e.g. most of FDA regulation,"

You should be careful with such sentences. Maybe it's ok to say "some" but
saying "most" is nonsense and dangerous.

~~~
TomMarius
I wasn't making a statement, I was describing the Libertarian point of view,
regardless of my own.

~~~
maxxxxx
Sorry for not reading your comment closely.

------
peteretep
TLDR: They're liberals, in the classic, The Economist sense of the word.

~~~
erikb
From an American point of view the word "liberal" and "public healthcare" work
together? From a German perspective that's the opposite area. In the
traditional German system we would call that "left". But now that the "right"
is growing again, an objective observer will notice that they, too, are
interest in a strong social system as core of a internally strong government
policy.

Only very few Germans would call themselves "libertarian", so for an
international discussion it would probably also be good to hear your
distinction between liberal and libertarian.

~~~
Balero
OP was referencing Liberalism as a political movement in the UK[1]. This grew
as a left of centre party in opposition to the right-of-centre Tories and was
formed with the idea of changing traditional values and practices (such as
limiting the power of the monarch).

"Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal
rights". There beliefs in no way had a problem with public healthcare, but
would have issues with curtailing free speech, or a curtailing of free
enterprise. Today I think a classic liberal would be in the centre of the
political spectrum.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)

~~~
ringbugger
So liberals are basically libertarians. But smart.

~~~
tormeh
It's complicated:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

~~~
ringbugger
Libertarianism seems to lack some of the contradictions that liberlism seems
to suffer from (freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves)

Still, since Liberalism tries to find a balance in its inherent values,
Libertarianism seems to be dogmatic without any further depth. Dreamy
technocrats or wishful anarchists, who would get angry if labeled as such.

The US is indeed different here, but I would stand to my opinion, that
Liberals generally have far more thought-provoking arguments.

~~~
Balero
"(freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves) "

I don't think that freedom and equality of opportunity exclude each other any
more than freedom excludes itself. Frankly I would go one further and say that
equality of opportunity is freedom, and that rules impinging on equality of
opportunity is impinging on freedoms as well.

It is not a contradiction that freedom can exclude freedom. My freedom to own
land excludes your freedom to do what you want with it, etc.

~~~
ringbugger
Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in
favor of freedom.

> equality of opportunity is freedom

Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking
and in consequence, it gets taken from you.

> My freedom to own land excludes your freedom [...]

This is an example of freedom colliding with itself, but arguing this case is
much easier, since both get exactly the same rights and therefore an equal
amount of freedom that cannot be maximized any further. It is a lot harder to
to balance freedom and equality.

Granted, there are a lot of cases where increased equality increases freedom.
This is why I think that liberals are generally smarter.

~~~
Balero
"Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in
favor of freedom."

I see the other 'popular' equality, equality of outcome, as, in it's most
extreme form, a complete totalitarian nightmare, that doesn't hold freedom
back, but completely annihilates it.

"Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are
lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you."

Why would this inevitably lead to you having an opportunity taken from you,
rather than working to extend this to others. This is much more realistic as
to how the world works. I don't have my opportunity to work taken from me
because someone is unemployed, instead they are helped to get opportunities to
work (help with education or transport etc).

I think the important step is to say, that we can't have unlimited freedom (or
opportunities) for everyone in society, but that trying to reach as much as
possible is a worthwhile cause. And that, of course, the devil is in the
details.

