I think they were trying to make a joke, but Peter Thiel does love the Lord of the Rings. Just a few of the entities he has founded:
- Palantir
- Valar Ventures
- Mithril Capital Management
- Lembas LLC
- Rivendell One LLC
Apparently in internal Palantir communications he talks about how their software helps the good hobbits resist the evil orcs and stuff. (It does make one wonder how closely Thiel read the books, since the all-seeing Palantir corrupts its users).
That said, Thiel's end-of-the-world scenario is almost certainly some fantasy about going Galt. He's not worried about the world under Trump the way many of us are.
The Palantiri don't inherently corrupt their users, they were only dangerous because Sauron had captured one of them and was feeding bad info from the other end.
At the end of Appearance and Properties, it is suggested that Gandalf himself claimed that false images or information could not be transmitted by the Palantiri, only suggestions via the selection of what information to show.
its not because the movie was filmed there that it means anything for LOTR. Tolkien pretty much had a in mind Europe in terms of Inspiration for his book.
I have to say I find it both incongruous and disturbing that one of the architect's of the new administration's transition is simultaneously buying himself an escape pod in case things don't work out at the day job. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, in either him or his erstwhile employer.
It's insurance, do you live a life without insurance? Which would bother you more, meeting a man who lived entirely without insurance or one who bought insurance for what he could afford? Does it bother you that the government has bomb shelters (escape pods for nuclear holocaust) while the citizenry don't? I'd prefer someone with a modicum of common sense over an optimistic fool.
On ships, it's a crime for members of the crew to abandon their posts in an emergency if there are passengers at risk. Similarly, when you are working for the government in some capacity I think you ought to be fully committed to it. If you prefer to put your own interests first, then stay in the private sector.
And yeah, I do think it's a bit of a problem that the United States doesn't have any real civil defense infrastructure in place although realistically geography largely insulates the United States from conventional military attack and so there's much less practical need for such options compared to countries in other regions.
I had a much clearer idea of what Hillary's agenda was than I do of Trump's, notwithstanding her secretive nature and career as an insider. People conflate Trump's frank talk with transparency for some reason, whereas I find it extremely obfuscatory.
>And there's nothing good to be said about any politicians. They're all self-serving lying scum. Some of them are only slightly less ugly.
It's that attitude that led to Trump, a man elected to the most powerful political office in the world not because he was qualified for the job, but because he was entertaining and willing to pander to the cynicism your comment displays.
After all, if all politicians are self-serving lying scum, then who cares if one is overtly more so than the others? That probably makes him more honest than the others, right?
I would have voted for Hillary because she is slightly less ugly.
What was that thing P.J. O'rourke said? Something about how he was going to vote for Hillary because he preferring the incompetent over the truly awful.
I can't vote in the US anyway because I was fortunate enough to not have been born there.
Edit: I can't remember now if it was O'rourke or Zizek who said that.
It was O'Rourke, on "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me" on 2016-05-07:
I am endorsing Hillary. And all her lies
and all her empty promises. I am endorsing
Hillary. The second worst thing that could
happen to this country. But she’s way behind
in second place, you know? She’s wrong about
absolutely everything – but she’s wrong within
normal parameters.
Quite an interesting time to be alive in this country. Ideology is split about 50/50 (if voting patterns are a clue) and both sides believe the exact same thing about each other.
Given he acquired this prior the election could it not have been because he thought Hillary would have won?
There is usually more than on "angle" to these stories.
That doesn't bother me at all. It's being involved with the incoming administration at the same time that I find questionable. I haven't heard that he's changed his mind and sent the passport back to NZ (so to speak), and yet his activities as a member of the transition team (and possibly others in future) have the potential to impact me in greater ways than if he were a private individual.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like you bought the article's narrative hook, line and sinker. I saw no evidence that Peter got NZ citizenship as an "escape pod". It was purely conjecture on the author's part.
There are many reasons for getting citizenship in another country. Maybe you want to retire there? Maybe it makes business dealings easier? Maybe you can't own property without it?
It's consistent with his libertarian values to explore and strive for systems that have freer laws. I don't see the incongruence. It's good to have multiple irons in the fire.
As others have said, I have a problem with folks championing large social experiments and then leaving it to others to clean up the mess.
I also have a problem with the notion that the only freedom that matters is economic. As I see it, the goal of Thiel and his fellow-travelers is feudalism.
In any case, the Trump program seems to have little to do with freedom, even by that stunted definition, for very many people[1]. To the extent that we're seeing much coherency, it seems the program is to restrict the movement of labor, further free the mobility of capital, attack freedom of speech and give the hard-right a free hand for their social-engineering plans to attempt to construct a 1950s that never existed.
[1] I'll probably see a small tax break, but I'm likely the only one in my family who will. Most of them are regaining the freedom to once again do without routine medical care. Any tax break I do see will be donated to Planned Parenthood.
>I also have a problem with the notion that the only freedom that matters is economic. As I see it, the goal of Thiel and his fellow-travelers is feudalism.
Wrong, it is freedom to do whatever you want with your property while freely associating with others.
>In any case, the Trump program seems to have little to do with freedom, even by that stunted definition, for very many people.
I disagree, and I will explain why.
>restrict the movement of labor
Protecting national borders and addressing illegal immigration should be done anyhow. Aside from allowing easier legal immigration from Europe, I don't remember Trump has saying much about restrictions on legal immigration. We'll have to see.
>free the mobility of capital
He talked about tariffs a lot, I would disagree about this.
>attack freedom of speech
Interestingly enough, libertarians that agree with Thiel feel freer now since political correctness is no longer the dominant doctrine [1].
>the hard-right a free hand for their social-engineering plans to attempt to construct a 1950s that never existed
Not sure what "hard-right" means for you, but what I read from here is that any social engineering from the right wing is wrong while the same thing from the left is okay.
>Any tax break I do see will be donated to Planned Parenthood.
You have the freedom to support the institutions you care about, as you should. Other people shouldn't be forced to do the same.
> Wrong, it is freedom to do whatever you want with your property while freely associating with others.
You're adding in free association, which I accept. I still find that a massively stunted definition, which omits many important freedoms.
> Protecting national borders and addressing illegal immigration should be done anyhow.
...Which restricts freedom of association and the movement of labor.
> He talked about tariffs a lot, I would disagree about this.
Sure, flashy protectionist silliness. We'll see what congress allows there.
> Not sure what "hard-right" means for you, but what I read from here is that any social engineering from the right wing is wrong while the same thing from the left is okay.
Interesting that you don't deny it, at least. 'Hard right' to me includes many of his appointees and vice president.
> Interestingly enough, libertarians that agree with Thiel feel freer now since political correctness is no longer the dominant doctrine
Interestingly enough, libertarians hurt feelings (billionaire or not) have little to do with freedom of speech. You're talking about freedom of consequence from one's speech; in other words, the consequences of saying things that offend others[1]. I'm talking about the threats to "loosen up libel law" (which isn't going to work very well for technical reasons, but nonetheless), the desire to beat the press into submission, etc.
In other words, I'm talking about freedom of speech, not people whining about other people talking back.
[1] I don't know when "political correctness" has ever been "the dominant doctrine"; perhaps other people feel much more threatened by whiny college kids than I do. In any case, if someone can't handle the marketplace of ideas, I tend to think they should toughen up a mite to stick to their preferred media bubble.
>...Which restricts freedom of association and the movement of labor.
True. In a libertarian society everything would be private and borders wouldn't exist, they would be handled on the basis of no trespassing on private property. In that case, you can have it all.
>'Hard right' to me includes many of his appointees and vice president.
Well, I find them to be on the left from e.g. Ron and Rand Paul, so for my taste they are not particularly right wing. I am concerned with authoritarianism coming from any side of the political spectrum (in case there was any doubt about it).
>Interestingly enough, libertarians hurt feelings (billionaire or not) have little to do with freedom of speech. You're talking about freedom of consequence from one's speech; in other words, the consequences of saying things that offend others. I'm talking about the threats to "loosen up libel law" (which isn't going to work very well for technical reasons, but nonetheless), the desire to beat the press into submission, etc.
Good point. Judging from #GamerGate and censorship on GitHub (private entity, sure they can legally do it, that's beside the point) [1], I would say PC was hitting quite hard (and to an extent still is, but hopefully not for long). I personally don't subscribe to it and invite others to do the same. The interventions into freedom of association under the guise of non-discrimination and forced equality should be criticized openly. As Pat Buchanan said: "Where equality is enthroned, freedom is extinguished. The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society."
We'll see what Trump does about the press. I personally wouldn't support libel laws of any kind, but I understand the argument behind them. Right now, I don't mind him bashing the press as hard as he does and I don't mind press bashing him either, the free market will decide whether people want such narrative to exist or not.
This manufactured outrage is ridiculous. Diversification in terms of citizenship is vital when you are a very high net worth individual, everybody does it.
The only thing that Thiel does different from others is to actually take second citizenship in a civilized country instead of just going to some tax haven in the carribean or malta/cyprus where you can pay for citizenship.
That's totally fine when you're in the private sector, do whatever you want. I'm all for people holding as many passports as they can acquire until the day when passports are no longer a necessity.
If you're working for or directly influencing government, though, you potentially have a conflict of interest. That's why you can't become President if you were not born a US citizen, and why Ted Cruz resigned his Canadian citizenship even though he technically didn't have to.
Given the state of "journalism" these days, it seems more likely that this is a soft smear campaign. Thiel has aligned himself with a side that is not popular with the media and some elements of the tech community, thus the attempt to "Other" him.
From what I read so far it looks like while you can obtain US citizenship while holding another one already, it is strictly prohibited to get new citizenship without renouncing US one. If this is correct, does it mean Peter is not US citizen anymore?
I am a US citizen who has immigrated to New Zealand and hold citizenship here. It is my understanding that I have to apply (and pay) to relinquish my US citizenship, which might be declined.
This is correct. I know several people that have US + Italian, and I've been considering it myself, although Italy doesn't seem like much of an "escape pod" (per another comment) at the moment, the way things are going there.
Countries are free to define their own travel requirements for their citizens, which they do for security reasons. What you describe is a very obtuse definition of "does not recognize other passports."
I do not know if that is true or not, but if it is true then his campaign donations are going to be a bit tricky.
[edit] Quick research turned up a bunch of low key contradictions. There are a number of pieces of legislation that assume us-citizen and foreign national are mutually exclusive. Some other bits take dual citizenship into account.
In theory there are a bunch of points where it could be argued that you cannot hold dual citizenship but in practice it doesn't seem to be an issue.
On the other hand it seems fairy clear that some positions, and security clearances require absence of foreign national status (Even then with a little wiggle room, If you've never asked-for or made-use-of foreign national status you can pretend it didn't happen)
No, I don't think that is correct. The US is silent on dual citizenship but I believe that it's only if you pledge your allegiance to another country (e.g. to defend that country in a war) that you are deemed by the US to have revoked your citizenship. I'm guessing that didn't happen in Thiel's case.
EDIT: to address your edit - you need to look at the wording of the relevant INA section which includes "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality". That's the key part, you have to have the intent to abandon your US citizenship. I know plenty of US-born people who hold dual citizenship so it is definitely possible.
It seems this is getting enough traction that the Parliament has officially asked the Immigration Dept why Thiel got his citizenship even if he didn't spend enough time over there. It will be interesting to watch what precedence this situation's popularity will set - was this his money (not a bribe just the fact he is somewhat celebrity) or other requirements that me and you can fulfill.
The Minister in charge at the time is claiming (feigning?) complete ignorance; apparently he "doesn't recall the application" which, given it was granted under "special circumstances", is pretty rich. The Government are getting questioned about this closely. Even if it comes under the investor visa, I suspect the populace is going to want some evidence of investment, because we're full-steam into a housing unaffordability crisis, and I suspect many will take a dim view of a foreign investor owning $10m of property (even if it is a luxury estate and not really related).
Sam Altman said that Thiel's estate in NZ is his escape plan, in the event of biowarfare or some other disaster. So it seems likely that Thiel has the place prepared in some way for long-term survival. We don't know what disasters Thiel thinks are likely, though.
It really isn't. The onus is on you to explain why it's so clearly an escape plan, when even the article acknowledges both that NZ is a tax haven and that Thiel gained citizenship before the election.
Why should he throw US citizenship away? Dual citizenship is cool.
You know it is the end of days when absolute privilege needs an escape chute...
Ah well, maybe those upper deck passengers on the Titanic were right - they paid so much for their tickets that they deserved their place on the lifeboats over everyone else...
He got his NZ citizenship since 2015.
Maybe even before Trump announcing his run and quite a bit before knowing that he'll serve in Trump's administration.
Insinuating that he did it as a doomsday plan because of Trump is clearly manipulative.
I needed to share this because I always found difficult to swallow, that a libertarian would have Washington as his biggest customer.
I wish it will help my libertarian friends to understand that Thiel is more about himself than freeing people.
PS:Can some admin or anyone else why is this flagged?
There was an interview on Fresh Air with the guy who wrote the story about the ultra-wealthy survivalists, and one guy he talked to. He was a VC, but I don't remember his name. He said, "With all the money you're spending on being prepared to run away, how much have you spent trying to prevent the collapse you fear? How much have you given to your local homeless shelter?"
I feel that's very relevant. Peter Thiel clearly has more than enough money to help stop whatever he's afraid of happening in the US, and he has the connections to other people with money that can help as well. Yet, here he is, trying to run away instead of doing the right thing.
> Peter Thiel clearly has more than enough money to help stop whatever he's afraid of happening in the US
Peter Thiel is worth about $2.7bn [1]. That's a lot, but not enough to stop political momentum. It is enough to warrant the common practice of back-up citizenship.
(I am curious how he procured New Zealand citizenship, though.)
Personally I'm sympathetic to both perspectives. I'd rather give up most of my money than be the king of the wasteland. But if you've already spent, say, 20% of your fortune on reducing poverty is it wrong to spend 1% on personal insurance?
must be nice to get special government treatment when it comes to citizenship. A short phone call away, I'd imagine, when you have that much money.
the pain in the ass it would have been for him to spend 240 days a year there for 5 years before being granted citizenship, sheesh.
although if things go south here, he might want to trade his currency in for NZ bucks before the hyper inflation kicks in. the government probably won't want someone with monopoly money taking up that prime real estate, ya know?
I don't agree with all of Thiel's actions or beliefs but he's getting singled out for being different. Anyone with billions of dollars is gonna be able to pack up and sit high and tidy in case of disaster. Someone with homes spread across several states or countries and the money to buy their own security and healthcare has the same opportunities and and no reason to be loyal to any given state, anyway, but we are not
forming online lynch mobs to get them.
It's a horrific thing when Iranian PhD students might be banned from the country (yes) but fuck Thiel for being a citizen of the world. Huh?
He's not getting singled out for being different, but because he's close enough to the new administration that he was personally advising the President-elect during the transition period. Generally that sort of responsibility is reserved for people whose loyalty to their country is not a matter of debate.
What of the fact that he is serving as a member of the transition team for the current administration? Doesn't the idea that someone closely tied to the government has an escape hatch into another country disturb you?
The Techcrunch article is framing it as an "escape hatch," but offers no evidence that Thiel actually purchased it for that reason.
He may have purchased the NZ citizenship for tax purposes, or so he could buy this "sensitive land." Neither of which are going to win him a Humanitarian Of The Year award, but neither do they indicate that he foresees or is trying to bring about an economic catastrophe in the United States.
Not really. As I said, anyone with money has an escape hatch anyway. If the world goes to hell there's plenty of nations that will gladly invite money.
The article suggests Thiel acquired the citizenship before Trump was elected - is it not possible given Thiel's political views that he was ready to leave the country given other events or another electee?
It's only an "escape hatch" because people are calling it that.
Isn't there more important things to worry about? Trump has tons of executive actions to cover yet the media focuses on some gossip from one of his supporters.
That said, Thiel's end-of-the-world scenario is almost certainly some fantasy about going Galt. He's not worried about the world under Trump the way many of us are.