I don't really mind the "science fiction, transhumanism, and immortality" bit but the economic policy - slash spending and tarif war everyone - seems kind of nuts. I hope we don't have a twitter like economic result.
> All of these men see themselves as the heroes or protagonists in their own sci-fi saga. And a key part of being a “technological superman” — or ubermensch, as the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would say — is that you’re above the law. Common-sense morality doesn’t apply to you because you’re a superior being on a superior mission. Thiel, it should be noted, is a big Nietzsche fan, though his is an extremely selective reading of the philosopher’s work.
> The ubermensch ideology helps explain the broligarchs’ disturbing gender politics. “The ‘bro’ part of broligarch is not incidental to this — it’s built on this idea that not only are these guys superior, they are superior because they’re guys,” Harrington said.
[…]
> The so-called network state is “a fancy name for tech authoritarianism,” journalist Gil Duran, who has spent the past year reporting on these building projects, told me. “The idea is to build power over the long term by controlling money, politics, technology, and land.”
It’s interesting that phrases like ‘oligarch’ are applied so casually, especially in a discriminatory way, using terms like ‘bro’. Vox has long been a progressive site, but they apparently ignore their own social justice worldview when it comes to attacking their opponents. I also don’t understand why ‘oligarch’ is not applied to the other side, when Harris had a much broader base of corporate support and raised more funding overall.
The article is otherwise unsubstantial and makes a lot of vague claims without good arguments. I think the ‘vision’ the Trump team and their advisors have is a lot less sinister than these hyperbolic articles make it out to be. It’s really just about restoring freedom of speech, reducing the power given to certain institutions (for example, “fact checkers”), reducing the national debt, creating an environment for technological superiority (which is critical for the US and free world to stay ahead of authoritarian adversaries), and things like that.
The other philosophical things that some people have mentioned at times (for example the compatibility of democracy and freedom) is less about how they’ll govern and more like thinking out loud, which they’re allowed to do. That doesn’t mean they’re committed to those possible ideas, let alone going to act on them.
I also don’t understand why ‘oligarch’ is not applied to the other side
Because typically, very rich Americans (who don't also happen to be politicians or public figures of some sort) keep at least a veneer of separation from the government and the levers of executive power. In exchange, they're politely just called 'billionaires'. When that convention changes, the conventional naming changes too, to the naming used for very rich people who are also visibly enmeshed in the operation of the state.
When Mark Cuban heads up the Federal Urgent Reconstruction & Reconciliation Initiative (FURRI) in 2029, we can all call him an oligarch as well.
Which key executive agency has Soros (or if you prefer Koch) been able to direct or even shown any interest in personally directing, as presidential satrap? These people have policy goals rather than exercise-of-power goals. At a minimum they go to great lengths to cultivate that image.
Getting called an oligarch is not at all conducive to the long term protection of your ample property rights.
But you are making exactly my point. I'm asking if Democrats are just plutocrats instead of oligarchs because of how their billionaires behave. Soros has taken a particular interest in district attorneys look at all the crime that has been unleashed due to his DAs. Pamela Price was a real shining example of justice all thanks to Soros. You have a few Soros DAs that wouldn't prosecute carjackings until they were victims of such crimes; it would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.
I don't think this aspect of US hyperrich behaviour has a partisan valence, really. The US did once have proper oligarchs, they just had a less 10-dollar-SAT-word name: robber barons. Eventually the state significantly curtailed their individual political and economic power. Putting aside all the structural changes that entailed, all the convoluted events and circumstances - it's been a bad look, culturally, since then.
I don’t understand why you’d invoke a right-wing conspiracy trope that’s obviously and incontrovertibly incompatible with the current reality. Was it accidental, like it’s just a knee jerk reaction to scream “SOROS!” any time you’re confronted?
I’m “under the impression” that he’s obviously never had a specific, unelected role in government used to steal government information and informally fire government workers. In spite of the absurd notion that donating to candidates is remotely similar.
> I also don’t understand why ‘oligarch’ is not applied to the other side, when Harris had a much broader base of corporate support and raised more funding overall.
I think it's an order of operations thing:
* oligarchs are where the government is corrupt first and helps to enrich some folks who then help prop up a regime
* what we're seeing is that the government isn't corrupt (e.g., elections are not rigged (directly)), you then have the very rich subvert the government
How does threatening your closest allies with invasion fit in with "things like that"? How does unelected oligarchs gaining control over Treasury systems with no oversight or legal basis?
