×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the businesses-going-into-protection-mode dept.

Technology 533

SonicSpike sends this story from NY Magazine: Rand Paul appears to be making a full-court press for the affections of Silicon Valley, and there are some signs that his efforts are paying off. At last week's Sun Valley conference, Paul had one-on-one meetings with Thiel and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. ... Next weekend, Paul will get to make his case yet again as the keynote speaker at Reboot, a San Francisco conference put on by a group called Lincoln Labs, which self-defines as "techies and politicos who believe in promoting liberty with technology." He'll likely say a version of what he's said before: that Silicon Valley's innovative potential can be best unlocked in an environment with minimal government intrusion in the forms of surveillance, corporate taxes, and regulation. “I see almost unlimited potential for us in Silicon Valley,” Paul has said, with "us" meaning libertarians.

Today's Silicon Valley is still exceedingly liberal on social issues. But it seems more skeptical about taxes and business regulation than at any point in its recent history. Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464861)

Says Zuck. Paul nods head, "anything you say, boss".

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (-1, Troll)

jcr (53032) | about 5 months ago | (#47464891)

You say that like avoiding taxes is a bad thing.

Every dollar kept out of government hands is a dollar not spend on bloody mayhem.

-jcr

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464959)

It's people like you who enable that mayhem.

The idea that small government is a substitute for good governance is a koch dream. Small government means less oversight. So your dollars go to companies like Shell who destroy ecologies and societies. [amnesty.org]

Things like regulatory capture happen because people don't pay enough attention to their government, not because it is too big. Money chases power wherever it is. At least with government the money has to put in some work to get what it wants instead of getting it served up on a platter.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465169)

Heh, only on slashdot does a post advocating for good governance instead of lazy governance get moderated as a troll.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (3, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | about 5 months ago | (#47465347)

Pretty much the most insightful post on this topic as of yet.

Objectivitism (i.e. Aynd Rand) is basically a pipe dream similar to Communism. Human nature dictates that those with power will always try to exploit the weak. The basic tenants of good government is to balance this equation in favor of the common good.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 months ago | (#47465385)

Objectivitism (i.e. Aynd Rand) is basically a pipe dream similar to Communism.

But, according to this article, it is a pipe dream that appeals to Silicon Valley.

Which is no surprise, when you think about some of the people in Silicon Valley.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 5 months ago | (#47465423)

It's almost like there's this sort of happy medium built into the system where the Federal government represents the small government that doesn't intrude while more local governments (States and Municipalities) which offer more representation to their constituents can serve the role of the larger government.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465433)

Do you really think any of the sides actually want that? Even the small government party does not mind intruding if it fits their beliefs.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#47465535)

It is impossible to have socialism at the state government level because states are not permitted to levy tariffs or control immigration.

You can't have socialism without both of those. If a state were to offer free healthcare paid for by taxes, then the unemployed who need healthcare would just travel to that state, while employers would move to other states where taxes are lower. That doesn't mean that single-payer healthcare can't work - just that it can't work in the context of a US state. In a country like Canada you can't just move there for six months to have your cancer fixed, and anybody from outside of Canada selling goods there is subject to tariffs which are intended to help ensure that the cost basis for producing those goods is somewhat comparable.

I've heard the whole laboratory for experimentation argument about the role of the federal/state governments, but it really only allows for experimentation on fairly minor things and for the most part is just a race for the bottom. Look at what companies do when they negotiate their taxes while threatening to move operations.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (2, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465587)

If your theory was correct wouldnt Mass be experiencing a mass exodus of bushiness, and not the growth of GDP it is seeing??

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (1, Troll)

JWW (79176) | about 5 months ago | (#47465365)

The idea that the largest most powerful entity to ever exist on this planet is only ever just trying to be benevolent and good, but is in danger because some people think it is too large is laughable. The corruption and regulatory capture you speak of are only possible BECAUSE the modern US government is an enormous leviathan.

The idea that libertarians would instantly reduce the government to nothing if they took power is laughable. Over 100 years if progressive bullshit have given us this opressive monster, it'll take more than just a few libertarians gaining power to turn our government into something reasonable again.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465557)

The idea that libertarians would instantly reduce the government to nothing if they took power is laughable.

Why is it laughable? Republicans literally shut down the government twice now. Have you already forgotten Oct 1 through 17, 2013 when house republican majority refused to vote on a bipartisan bill because they didn't want to fund Obamacare?

It's not paranoia when that is indeed what happened.

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465599)

because they would still want what they still want. They would replace the losses in social services with more military, because no one wants to be seen as anti military.. Playing politics with a government shut down is not the same as actually wanting to have real reductions in government.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465595)

Money chases power wherever it is.

Money can only buy what's for sell. In a free market, you can't buy my house if I refuse to sell it. The government, however, can evict me and bulldoze my house to the ground if they decide to. That's a huge fucking difference.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (1, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47465019)

Unless I managed to draw entirely the wrong impression from every budget spat I've been old enough to be conscious for, I'm pretty sure that 'defense' is not the area that tends to feel the loss of a given dollar until a fair few alternatives have been tried...

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465041)

Yeah, sometimes it's giveaways to non-workers that lose funding.

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (4, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465105)

You mean give away to people currently down on their luck, or unable to find a job right now? Something that can happen to any one of us, and is a nail in the side of the economy, which needs a maximum amount of workers?

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465167)

Or people currently not giving a shit about making something of themselves, unwilling to find a job right now?

Re: Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465221)

Oh yeah, there are tons of those, and it's a real drag on the economy. What fraction of the budget goes to them, again? Oh, wait...

Re:Gots to find more ways to avoid taxes (4, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465235)

You cannot get welfare if you are in that situation... But keep on thinking that.

Silicon Valley is officially old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464875)

Republican is just another word for "I have my money and I want to keep it."

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464945)

versus "government, please steal that guy's money and give it to me"

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (2, Insightful)

meglon (1001833) | about 5 months ago | (#47465055)

Every single day of life you and everyone else in this country has gained benefits and used services provided by the government. The social compact that this country has survived on, at least up till 1981, was that each generation invests in the future so that this country will provide a better life for future generations.

In 1981 that changed. You had elected someone who loudly proclaimed that people no longer had to invest in the future, and everything would smell like flowers and look like rainbows.

Since that time, there has been a large segment of the population who, while still gaining the benefits, and using the services of this country, have actively refused to live up to the basic responsibility of living in this country. They have acted like leeches, sucking the life out of this country, using up it's resources, and driving the future generations into massive debt. They can't be bothered to pay for the government they use, because they're greedy, self centered, egotistical, myopic assholes, who don't give a damn about this country... just about themselves. They are nothing more than thieves, stealing from the future to ad their pockets in the present day.

In the 1940's, during the war, millions of men were called up to fight, with hundreds of thousands paying the ultimate cost for this country. The top marginal tax rate was over 90%. Now, we are paying close to the lowest rates in 60 years, and there's no requirement to submit to a draft for military service... yet we still have a segment of the population who bitch and whine like little toddlers with shit in the diapers that taxes are too high. These people are THE problem in this country. They undermine everything that this country has ever done, and spit on the graves of those who gave their lives making this country a better place... all because they're greedy little bitches.

No one likes to pay taxes, but taxes are the cost of living in society. As for the ones stealing.... those are the worthless little bitches who don't support this country, even after using everything this country offers every day.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (4, Informative)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465097)

To be honest we still submit for a draft, it is selective service and it is compulsory for males. There is just not a draft to take use of it atm

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465193)

keep your "benefits". I'll keep the wages I earned from my labor.

The people who died 50 years ago don't get the money stolen from my paycheck. The dead deserve better than to be used as a cheap propaganda tool.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (3, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465241)

It is not stolen, without that money it would be very much harder for you to do your labor. What with no roads,reliable electric grid, phone service.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#47465457)

The problem is that government spends the money on things that make our lives harder. Interstate Highway System plus Streetcar Scandal, anyone? We could have had rail instead of roads, but roads sold cars so we got roads and now we're still paying for that in both lives and ecological impact. We don't have a reliable electrical grid; It is not a grid — in most locations, it is star-wired and not grid-wired at all. And today's phone service is internet service, and we have the worst broadband penetration in the developed world.

This government has demonstrated time and again its inability to spend our money responsibly. The primary examples you cite are all places where it is falling on its ass.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (1)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47465527)

The government didn't build those things - they merely paid for them. Companies designed and built those things. Congress doesn't pass laws because it gets an idea in its head and does it. It's for one of exactly two reasons:

1) Companies (i.e. their lobbyists) convinced lawmakers that passing a law to let them do X is in their best interest and BTW, here's that campaign contribution that has absolutely nothing to do with your legislative agenda. But if you pass this we'll be able to make a lot of money....
2) Recognition that what they did in #1 was wrong and now need to fix it, or companies that abused the power they were given so much that there's only one organization that can fix it - the government.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465243)

What about those who have given their limbs in recent wars? Or police officers who have been injured while keeping the streets safe? Do they deserve your money? What about the people building the roads you drive on? Or the people inspecting the buildings you work in?

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465307)

This is such complete and utter nonsense. High earners pay more taxes than ever.

Furthermore, if you look at taxes collected as a percentage of GDP, taxes are not low right now. Since World War II, taxes collected have been 17 - 18% of GDP. And they are in that range today. Yes, you can spout that tax *RATES* used to be a lot higher, but no one actually paid them. Reagan (and Congressional Democrats) enacted tax reform that not only lowered rates, but also eliminated extremely valuable tax write offs. Yes, the top rate was 90%, but NO ONE ACTUALLY PAID THAT. Let me repeat that. NO ONE ACTUALLY PAID 90% tax rates! And if we raised it back to that, no one would pay it again. They would restructure their contracts to avoid it. People would retire. People would demand more vacation instead of raises/bonuses.

And no, that wouldn't help the economy.

I want to add something else. The 1% is a myth. The 1% of high earners changes every year. Something like 40% of the top 1% turns over every year. If you look at a longer period, there is even more turnover. As a result, anyone in the middle class has a reasonably good chance to spend a few years in the "1%." This is a software site! Have you seen software engineer salaries the past five years? Crazy! I can't believe these sorts of comments are even tolerated here.

And that's not even to mention that middle class in America is in the top 1% of world incomes. Class rhetoric will not turn out well for anyone in this country. The "poor" in America have a car, smartphones, flat screen TVs, high speed Internet... we don't even know what "poor" is.

And what's the solution to this? It's always higher taxes. Well, guess what? We already raised taxes on high earners! We just did it! We did exactly what you wanted! And here you are, still spouting the same nonsense, not even acknowledging that we already raised taxes on high earners. Why? Because there is no optimal tax rate that you are pushing for. You want people to pay "more." And the great thing about "more," is that people can always pay more, no matter how much they are paying today.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465389)

Actually it peaked in the 40s, direct rate, not % of GDP:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

Also % compared to GDP is a relativly useless stat because we give away a lot of the things we produce for free, without counting them as part of the GDP, artificially raising the percentage. If we were to take into account all the food and other items we give away free the GDP would be much higher and the percentage therefore much lower.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#47465441)

LOL...still butthurt about Ronald Reagan? Look, the Cold War is over, your side lost. Get over it already. "You had elected someone who loudly proclaimed that people no longer had to invest in the future, and everything would smell like flowers and look like rainbows." [citation needed]

Used benefits and services provided by the government? A hell of a lot of people get nothing from the government, and never had a check other than a refund check their entire lives. Yeah, we're not talking about stuff like police and highways. It's bizarre seeing a radical leftist talk about WWII deaths...you mean all the racists who joined up so they could murder Japanese? What's with the patriotic "this country" angle? Don't you people despise and hate America, even to the point of pretending not to understand what people mean when they say Americans, saying "oh I thought you meant Brazil was in America and therefore they're Americans too.

I think you really need to step back and stop dehumanizing other people because they disagree with you. It dehumanizes yourself most of all.

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (0)

nnnnnnn (1611817) | about 5 months ago | (#47465493)

Nice narrative, too bad it's not based on facts. You don't need to Google far to see those "who don't support this country" and who's "refusing to live up to basic responsibility of living in this country".

http://globaleconomicanalysis.... [blogspot.com]

      The bottom 20% had average income of $8,100 but received $22,700 in annual assistance, netting $30,800 in after-tax income.
        The second quintile had average income of $30,700 but received $15,200 in annual assistance, netting $43,400 in after-tax income.
        The middle quintile had average income of $54,800 and received $8,100 in annual assistance.
        The second-highest quintile ($87,700 income) paid $8,800 more in taxes each than they got back.
        The highest quintile ($234,400 income) paid $52,500 more in taxes each year than they got back.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau... [cbo.gov]

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (1)

pezpunk (205653) | about 5 months ago | (#47465553)

yep

Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465349)

Except taxes aren't theft, so this makes no sense.

Makes sense. (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 5 months ago | (#47464877)

How you see the world depends on where you are in it.

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464909)

Objectively speaking, the world is literally full of shit.

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464933)

Not the world, just all the people in it.

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464949)

Do bears still shit in the woods on your world?

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464979)

No bears left.
Oh, and no woods left neither.

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464981)

No bears left.

assturbation

Re:Makes sense. (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 5 months ago | (#47465017)

No bears? Then, whose arms have you the right to?

Re:Makes sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465085)

Well-fed homosexuals with hairy arms are also called "bears".

Too bad he has no Foreign policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464895)

On business regulation and social issues, Paul is fairly sane. But his refusal to acknowledge that America needs to take a leading role in foreign affairs makes him totally unsuitable as a President. If America withdraws, than China and Russia will just fill the void (as they are already doing), and it won't be to anyone's benefit.

Re:Too bad he has no Foreign policy (3, Insightful)

taxman_10m (41083) | about 5 months ago | (#47465153)

We took a leading role in Iraq. Would have been better if we didn't.

Re:Too bad he has no Foreign policy (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#47465445)

You and I have fairly different ideas of sane. Supporting people who think rape is OK, as God intended it is not sane in social issues, at least in my opinion.

Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464915)

Rand Paul's not libertarian, he's Republican.

Rand Paul is also about "state's rights" which is a dog whistle for allowing a simple majority of a gerrymandered state legislature to bust unions, make it harder for minorities and poor to vote, to hold jobs, and to eat.

He also believes lower taxes (no floor on that) will increase tax revenues. Always. Use your science degrees and do the simple math, it doesn't work. It's a corporate giveaway.

And ladies, if you like no access to birth control, having rape blamed on your clothing, and being subjected to a state-sanctioned rape called "trans-vaginal ultrasound" before you're even allowed to consider an abortion (if you can even get to a clinic), then Rand Paul is your man.

A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for lunacy.

Stop giving the lunatic a podium.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (1)

pezpunk (205653) | about 5 months ago | (#47465043)

yep. really disappointed in silicon valley nerds if the above article is true.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465149)

Wow. You need to stop getting your information from Fox News.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465171)

Wow. You need to stop getting your information from Fox News.

Huh? That makes no sense. Are you an InfoWars reader?

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about 5 months ago | (#47465273)

He also believes lower taxes (no floor on that) will increase tax revenues. Always. Use your science degrees and do the simple math, it doesn't work. It's a corporate giveaway.

I'll take the lower taxes with fewer regulations for everyone vs. what we have now which is a lot of regulations (that benefit only the big business players) and the corporate welfare that arrives monthly in the form of checks, subsidies, and tax breaks again only for the big boys and the political supporters.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (0, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#47465511)

Seeing racists in the shadows (dog whistle racism keyword), check. It is a poor witch-hunter who cannot find witches.

Criticizing gerrymandering when it is precisely that which has guaranteed black seats in Congress, check.

Total ignorance of the Laffer Curve, check. Increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counter-productive for raising further tax revenue. It's no coincidence that the Marxist states of the 20th century (and this one!) were the most impoverished ones around.

Rape, rape, and more rape. Calling stuff that's not rape, rape, in order to get more sympathy because actual rape is a horrible crime, Check.

A refusal to consider that other adults might be sane when they have different thoughts, check.

A demand for censorship for those who disagree, check.

Unmitigated hatred, check. Ladies and gentlemen, behold the leftist in her full glory. Please note that from all appearances she is proud of behaving this way in public.

Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (1)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47465555)

Once he comes out for legalizing drugs, he'll be back to being a libertarian again. That's really the only difference at this point.

More Like Subsidized (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464941)

> Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators

Every Tesla vehicle comes with a minimum of $7,500 subsidy [teslamotors.com] from the federal government plus a bunch of state government subsidies like $2,500 and single-driver privileges in HOV lanes in California. They are the last company that should be laying claim to libertarian ideals.

Re:More Like Subsidized (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464963)

Do you really think that article is believable when it said Rand Paul is libertarian and not Republican?

The author threw in some tech companies and lied about their persecution. Tesla's had a lot of help from the government. They're fighting the dealerships mainly, and Tesla's winning.

Uber's legal in almost all of the cities it operates in, and the only thing they are fighting is the fees to pick-up and drop-off at certain airports, something even the regular cabbies have to pay. Uber is basically fighting for special treatment, not for equal treatment.

Republican in libertarian clothing to draw the lunatic and paranoia votes. And then Rand Paul will continue voting Republican.

Re:More Like Subsidized (2, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#47465331)

Oh /. don't ever change, continue to be that bastion of liberal insanity believing that libertarians are "lunatics and paranoid."

Re:More Like Subsidized (3, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 5 months ago | (#47465001)

Every Tesla vehicle comes with a minimum of $7,500 subsidy from the federal government plus a bunch of state government subsidies like $2,500 and single-driver privileges in HOV lanes in California. They are the last company that should be laying claim to libertarian ideals.

What about the pollution caused by internal combustion engines? Just because the subsidy on their operation isn't on a ledger, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ultimately externalities have to be paid for.

Re:More Like Subsidized (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465163)

> What about the pollution caused by internal combustion engines?

What about it? So oil companies are not libertarian utopias either. That in no way makes Tesla any more of a libertarian poster child.

Re:More Like Subsidized (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465507)

> What about the pollution caused by internal combustion engines?

What about it? So oil companies are not libertarian utopias either. That in no way makes Tesla any more of a libertarian poster child.

True, but trying to take potshots at Tesla because there are federal and state incentives for buying their cars is pretty funny because it implies that the mainstream car industry is unsubsidised funny which is a hilarous thought to say the least. The American car industry was baled out byt he Federal govt. to the tune of billions of dollars and on top of that combustion engine car owners do not have to pay for the damage caused by the carbon emissions of their vehicles or the damage caused by fuel production. And for all their obvious faults Oil companies are still among the most beloved darlings of the libertarian movement judging from the amount of campaign contributions and other bribes that self proclaimed libertarians in congress accept from the Oil industry.

Re:More Like Subsidized (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 5 months ago | (#47465467)

What about the pollution caused by internal combustion engines? Just because the subsidy on their operation isn't on a ledger, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ultimately externalities have to be paid for.

Does anyone believe the reason these particular Silicon Valley nerds support Rand Paul is because they want to pay for externalities?

The whole point of what passes for libertarianism in 2014 is to not have to pay for externalities. Objectivists believe, "I don't have to pay no stinking externalities because fuck you, I'm John Fucking Galt."

Re:More Like Subsidized (1, Interesting)

polar red (215081) | about 5 months ago | (#47465015)

what about the subsidy for oil ? $$$trillions on foreign oil wars mean a lot of subisdies.

Re:More Like Subsidized (1)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47465567)

Didn't Tesla get a massive loan from the government to fund their development? One they paid back early?

Oh right:

http://www.teslamotors.com/abo... [teslamotors.com]

Easy start (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464983)

Mark Zuckerberg is a known aspie and sociopath, an ideal tea party target

Corporate America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47464997)

Is it a democracy?

Re:Corporate America (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 months ago | (#47465047)

Is it a democracy?

No. Yo can vote for which party the corporations will tell what to do.

Re:Corporate America (2)

pezpunk (205653) | about 5 months ago | (#47465049)

well according to the supreme court corporations = people and money = free speech so at least the "people" have their "free speech"

bullshit (4, Insightful)

meglon (1001833) | about 5 months ago | (#47465013)

Part of this is due to the rise of companies like Uber and Tesla Motors, blazing-hot start-ups that have been opposed at every turn by protectionist regulators and trade unions, in confrontations that are being used by small-government conservatives as case studies in government control run amok.

....except....

http://insideevs.com/uaw-looks... [insideevs.com]

CEO Elon Musk says Tesla is union neutral, so that’s the automaker’s stance.

Then there's the whole "government run amok" thing... where it should really say "state government run amok." The protectionist policies adopted haven't been federal, they've been state level. Texas, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey have outright bans; Georgia and Colorado have severe restrictions on selling; and Ohio and New York have legislation pending. Musk has said, if the states keep fucking with him, he will use the federal courts to deal with the issue.... so again, the problem isn't the federal government, it's the states.

With Uber, again the problem isn't unions, and it's not the federal government.. it's city governments.

Perhaps this should be a case study on smaller governments causing more problems than they should, and those that promote "small government" lying and trying to blame "big government" and unions.

Re:bullshit (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47465103)

As with so many political labels, there are at least two distinct schools of thought that use the term 'small-government conservative'; plus a large swath of opportunists who adopt the label if they suspect that it will poll well with their target audience.

You've got the 'small-government' segment primarily worried about the feds doing things without constitutional basis. Then you have the ones who are 'small-government' in that they want as little as possible (and think that 'as little as possible' is very, very, little).

The former flavor would likely prefer to avoid really embarrassing exercises of 'state's rights', like protecting car dealers; because fuck those guys; but would theoretically be obliged to be hostile to any federal intrusion on the matter. The latter flavor doesn't care nearly as much about the origin of the laws, so they'll oscillate between using and attacking federal power as the situation dictates. If a bunch of state legislation is bothering them and looks like it will be difficult to cut through, bring on federal supremacy to supersede all state regulations with federal equivalents that are as toothless as possible. If the feds look like they might regulate something that at least some states have hitherto ignored, it's all aboard for state's rights and reigning in federal abuses of the interstate commerce clause and similar.

Once you get into the realm of the pure opportunists, of course, absolutely anything goes, without the slightest requirements for honesty, internal consistency, or even coherence.

Re:bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465189)

At least with smaller governments, you have competition allowing some states to have less regulation. There is a good chance that given the leading example of the less-regulated states, others will follow after a while. Delegating all power to just the federal government often results in companies like Uber never being allowed to exist in the first place and the public not knowing what they are missing, which is a common theme in big government. These hidden effects are what Milton Friedman frequently talked about, for example.

Re:bullshit (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#47465229)

Perhaps this should be a case study on smaller governments causing more problems than they should, and those that promote "small government" lying and trying to blame "big government" and unions.

For what it's worth, "small government" is not synonymous with "local/State government", nor is "big government synonymous with "Federal government".

A city government, within the bounds of the city, can quite easily be "big government" when it tries to micromanage everything in the city.

Likewise, the Federal government can quite easily be labelled "small government" when it avoids trying to micromanage everything (not that that's actually happened since the New Deal).

Re:bullshit (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#47465333)

How is state government run amok somehow not covered by government run amok? Eh? Someone want to explain this?

Seems like a pretty standard conflict that's gone on in America for ages. And before we get into it, big government and unions have certainly caused their share of problems even if they are not at fault in this case. A government powerful enough to give you all you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.

Re:bullshit (1)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47465585)

Aside from dog whistle theatrics, there's nothing that Rand Paul can do about governments at the local level.

The Valley trade: Less taxes, more H1Bs... (3, Interesting)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#47465093)

...longer, better patents and copyrights, more EULAs.

This is really what we need, aspiring politicians appealing to plutocrats.

Re:The Valley trade: Less taxes, more H1Bs... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 5 months ago | (#47465217)

longer, better patents and copyrights

Isn't "longer" and "better" a contradiction here?

Re:The Valley trade: Less taxes, more H1Bs... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#47465277)

Silicon valley doesn't care about longer copyrights - their industry hasn't existed long enough to benefit. That's more a music/movie industry thing.

Re:The Valley trade: Less taxes, more H1Bs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465403)

Silicon valley doesn't care about longer copyrights - their industry hasn't existed long enough to benefit. That's more a music/movie industry thing.

Silicon Valley was born from military research and spending. Radio technology in 1909. Unless you want the founding of Moffett Naval Air Station? 1933. Or World War 2? Or if you really want to nail it down to solid state electronics, Shockley leaving Bell Labs and the transistor's rise in 1953.

Silicon Valley not only powered the modern entertainment industry, it protected it militarily.

Now what was that again about Silicon Valley not being old enough? I think a lawn might need a bit of respect here.

Misread summary is better (1)

slashdime (818069) | about 5 months ago | (#47465107)

I read that as Paul had one-on-one meetings with Thief and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Re:Misread summary is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465185)

That was totally how I read it too.

I think Rand Paul sucking up to guys like that really discredits his campaign. I'm sure it puts a lot of money in his campaign coffers, but silicon valley vulture capitalists and faux libertarians do not make for good company.

Rand Paul is the only chance we have (0)

larry (3749787) | about 5 months ago | (#47465113)

jcpenny, sears, bestbuy, and more retailers have loosing 100s of millions a quarter in bad sales. we will see commercial property hit the fan, and when they do, liberty will be the only solution. we werent perfect but we had more freedom than all other countries and so you saw our wealth balloon. we need feedom back, and prosperity will follow

Re:Rand Paul is the only chance we have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465137)

Somalia has even more freedom, just sayin.

Re:Rand Paul is the only chance we have (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465141)

go look at Somalia

Those stores - middle class (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465289)

The stores you mention are failing because they sell to the middle class. They are a barometer of the health of our middle class. [nytimes.com]

It has a lot to do with government.

Over the past few decades, unions have lost much power, the tax laws have been written to favor the wealthy, business regulation has been reduced, and add in offshoring (tax breaks there) and automation, and we are seeing the middle class get eroded.

The wealth disparity in this country is destroying it and businesses - at least big business - do not care because the USA is only maybe half of their revenue. They do not care if we go broke because foreign markets are growing to compensate. That is why corp profits are at record level while we are stagnate here.

Do not let the policy makers fool you - we ARE recovered. There is NO economic recovery because this is all there is.

Re:Rand Paul is the only chance we have (1)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#47465593)

Yeah, Sears is run by a rabid Randian: http://www.businessweek.com/ar... [businessweek.com]

This is the problem with having a two party system (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | about 5 months ago | (#47465177)

The idea that economic policy and social policy are tied at the hip in the two mainstream parties is ridiculous. Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind. In the US, they're essentially an outcast who has to decide which is more important to them, their personal values or what they think is the best direction for the economy, because voting for third parties is viewed as a lost vote.

Politics in the US needs drastic reform away from the two party system.

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465203)

How does Rand Paul have a liberal social policy? He's perfectly happy with letting states bar gays from marrying, eliminating abortion and birth control, making it difficult for minorities to vote, and allowing businesses to discriminate.

What part of that is liberal social policy?

Where the hell are people getting their news on Rand Paul?

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465379)

Where does the GP say anything about Paul having a liberal social party?

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465589)

Keep in mind that these are the same people who think that President Obama is a "socialist." In the political arena labels are meaningless epitaphs.

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (4, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#47465247)

I think its due to the nature of the voting system (winner take all, even if you don't poll a majority). But it also seems to be endemic to many democracies, they tend to gravitate to two party systems. The UK has Labor and the Conservatives, the Germans have Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats.

But even in countries with larger third parties, they're seldom major parts of government. I think the current coalition government in the UK is one of the few times the Liberal Democrats have been in government. In Germany the FDP has mostly been a kingmaker rather than a majority party capable of forming its own government.

We just started using ranked choice voting for elections in Minneapolis, which in theory eliminates the "lost vote" problem by allowing you to make third parties your first choice but still vote "defensively" by making some other candidate a secondary choice.

So far it doesn't seem to have led to a lot of radical change in outcomes other than making the election results take a couple of extra days due to the calculations involved when there's a dozen candidates.

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (1)

jabuzz (182671) | about 5 months ago | (#47465341)

For specifically the Liberal Democrats it is the only time they have been in government. However if you see the Liberal Democrats as the successors to the old Liberal party and they themselves to the Wigs then they have been in government many many times in the past. It was just a long gap from the 1930's to 2010.

Re:This is the problem with having a two party sys (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 5 months ago | (#47465319)

Someone who supports conservative economic policy but liberal social policies, in any other country, has a mainstream party to get behind.

In some kind of relative sense, yes, but there is no mainstream party in most of the west that supports policies like Rand Paul's. In most of Europe, the "economically conservative but socially liberal" parties have economic policies to he left of the Democrats, including support for national healthcare.

What Kim Stanley Robinson said of libertarianism. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465215)

"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."

And given the overwhelming historical association between "liber"tarian ideology and slavery, it's probably more accurate to just call it according to its real preoccupation: Moneytarianism.

No doubt such a viewpoint would find a receptive audience in some of the shallower minds and uglier spirits of Silicon Valley.

But the philosophical core of the region and the tech industry remains fundamentally progressive. That's why it remains the king despite decades of conservative "small government" states desperately trying and failing to replicate it on any remotely competitive scale.

Re:What Kim Stanley Robinson said of libertarianis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465523)

you quote a science fiction writer?

Re:What Kim Stanley Robinson said of libertarianis (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#47465537)

How many comments have you made in this thread? Seriously, give it a break, people are allowed to disagree. You sound like a person who would be a lot happier in another country, one that shares your values. America sounds like it's just not for you. Luckily, we live in a globalized world and borders don't mean what they once did. Perhaps Venezuela or Bolivia would be a better fit.

Climate Change in SIlicone Valley (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 5 months ago | (#47465223)

It's coming to Congress.

So many political newbies here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465227)

Quit getting your information from fox and infowars. Apply your critical thinking and math skills.

Draper Labs and Lincoln Labs (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465245)

T-shirts that got their wearers in trouble at conference.

      Draper Labs: When you really want it there on time

Draper labs specializes in missile guidance systems, and the shirt had a picture of a launching missile. Some of their work as been space program supportive, but it would have been a lot cheaper without the military angle, and we'd have actually gotten to see the results in industry, not hidden away as Top Secret.

      Lincoln Labs: When you care enough to send the very best

Lincoln Labs helped design the H Bomb: the shirt had a picture of a mushroom cloud. Lincoln remains up to its armpits in Reagan era "Star Wars defense" projects, It's amazing the billions that can go into research for "defense" that is far more effective as treaty violating offensive weapons. If you don't believe me, read up on Peter Hagelstein, one of the core developers of the nuclear bomb triggered X-Ray laser technology, one of the only technologies out of that amazing technology pork barrel that actually looked like it might work.

If you went to delude a bunch of technically sharp, politically naive people into burning billions of dollars on bad national politics, it sounds like just the sort of place to start.

this isn't really new (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 5 months ago | (#47465295)

The Valley has long had a handful of superrich libertarian types. Thiel is one of the better known, and is really more of a Wall Street type who now makes investments in the Valley. He made his money in hedge funds, not in technology. He's been involved with various Republican and Libertarian causes since the '80s.

Greed (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 5 months ago | (#47465337)

Greed is a disease more deadly than heroin, hardening your heart and turning you into a right-wing monster, driven to amassing ever more power and lucre until you feel absolutely justified in bending society itself to your warped, dystopian world view. Rockefeller, Walton, Koch, Ellison, Zuckerberg; all the same fuckers.

Eliminate the subsidies... (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 5 months ago | (#47465565)

I doubt he'll be willing.

preventing surveillance, without regulation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47465581)

Good luck with that. Or does a corporation's gathering of consumer data not count as surveillance? Only difference with govt surveillance is the stated purpose, and without regulation there's no way to prevent commercially gathered consumer data ending up in the hands of security agencies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?