Saturday, December 21, 2013

Peter Theil On a Potential Terrorist Attack

I'm still trying to get my mind around a statement self-proclaimed libertarian, Peter Theil, said to FT:
And of course, um, and of course as a libertarian, I think it’s imperative that we stop another massive terrorist attack on the US because the worst thing that could happen to this country is that we could get another Patriot Act.
What the hell is he talking about by another massive terrorist attack? It has been more that 10 years since 9-11, without any kind of attack. It appears that any terrorists have very limited capabilities of launching another 9-11.

And what does he envision as the methods that should be used to stop these phantom attacks?

Theil sounds a lot like George Bush here, when he famously said:
 I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.
Does "libertaria" Theil want the surveillance state to stop the surveillance state? In other words, is he simply attempting to justify in his own mind his investment in Palantir. FT reminds us:
  Palantir [is] a secretive data-mining company that made its name working for the CIA and which is among Thiel’s most successful recent investments with his venture capital firm.


  1. Theil is just being practical. You cant be stubborn in principles. No wonder so many 'conservatives' are called nut jobs by liberals.

    Liberals have that luxury to be stubborn, as they happen to propose the extreme liberal view which is ironically opposite to "stubbornness in a democratic context".

    Libertarians and "conservatives" are advised to be practical, if they wish any kind of success in a "democracy".

    1. I have no idea if you're being sarcastic; i hope you are.

      But just in case you're not, here's what i am asking:

      Do you think conservatives and libertarians need to be practical in order to stop being regarded as "nut jobs" by liberals, when liberals themselves know they have the luxury?
      So in that case, you think we ought to cater to what you yourself admit is the liberal side's hyper-hypocrisy? And if so, to WHAT PURPOSE? To be "accepted" by those same hyper-hypocrites, as if that leads to anything useful?

      It is a self-detonating argument. For in order to be "succesful" in a democracy, libertarians would have to cease being libertarian, which completely and utterly beats the point of trying to be succesful in the first place. This is not about power, and even less so if it would be power for its OWN sake.

      The only way, if libertarians are to participate in politics in the first place (which i personally reject), is to stick to principles. You will never sway a majority of people to lean libertarian by acting like "practical people". Ron Paul converted people by sticking to principles. Rand Paul has converted NO ONE to leave his statist intentions. His success, if he even gets it in 2016, will be dependent on his "practicality" which means his statist policies. And even then only for 4 years or 8 at the most before another statist takes place and likely reverts all his 'relatively' pro-freedom policies into non-existence.

      Conservatives but especially libertarians are pathetic if they continue to give a damn about what liberals say or think about them. Because that is how they win. They control the debate and the direction until people simply stop giving a damn about their opinions altogether. Giving a bully your lunch money will not stop the bullying. You completely ignore them and let them stew until they go too far, and then you punch them in the nose.

  2. That's like saying the police needs more power to crack down on crime, because if crime rises the government will end up opting for a police state.