I really don't understand the argument against Thiel. He might have help cause the bank run ... but he used his own influence in the market to withdraw all of his money. He took matters into his own hands without leveraging government intervention, right? That sounds as libertarian as it gets. What am I missing?
Yeah, the article opens with Thiel but doesn't actually claim he did anything wrong. It then shifts to comments by David Sacks "who is a friend of Thiel" for hypocrisy in comments. Which, I think, might be fair to say of Sacks but not really fair to attribute to Thiel at all, or to the valley in general.
In defense of the article, it never directly states that Thiel is a hypocrite. He's at first included just because it lists actions he took. But there's an obvious implication being made later, and not just because of the title. That said, I think Thiel's anti-democracy views ("I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible") are terrible and worthy of criticism for different reasons altogether.
Yikes. I mean I would agree with him if he said that libertarianism and democracy are incompatible, but most libertarians I've met are much more self-deluded about the fact that this is what their view boils down to.
The fact that he states the fundamental logical issue with his ideology so clearly and at the same time in defence of it, is fascinating.
This is a classic prisoner's dilemma. Thiel just happened to be one of the first VCs to tell portfolio companies to get their money out. If [another VC name] had done so, it'll be their name on these articles. The point being, whoever went first avoided massive pain, so someone would've started it.
A standard straw man for the political left is, "These people are libertarian, look how un-libertarian they are!" ignoring all of the evidence and facts.
Well because it's true. It's beyond clear that the rich get bailed out. It's libertarianism on the way up, socialism on the way down, but only for the rich.
Would that we respond as fast to the needs of ordinary people as to SVB depositors.
> Would that we respond as fast to the needs of ordinary people as to SVB depositors.
Didn’t they? And aren’t we on the brink of recession due to massive gov handouts? This comment seems to ignore recent history to try to promote socialism.
