Zuckerberg going Libertarian?

[ZenMode]

I made the same change a couple decades ago, though it was for fiscal reasons (Neither of the two major parties offers anything to those who want fiscal responsibility). I've always been surprised that more voters don't do the same. I think most people want fiscal responsibility and want to allow people to love, diddle and marry whoever they want.

Mark Zuckerberg has entered his libertarian era
Out of the public eye, Mark Zuckerberg identifies with libertarianism — or at least that's according to the few sources privy to his private political thoughts. As Zuckerberg attempts to convince Republicans that he, and his company Meta, are nonpartisan, sources told the New York Times that he's sunk into a political cynicism.

In his effort to mend ties with the right, Zuckerberg has hired Republican strategist Brian Baker, who will aim to heal his relationship with right-wing media and operatives. Much of the animosity toward Zuckerberg trickles down from the top of the party, beginning with former President Donald Trump himself. Zuckerberg suspended Trump's Facebook account after the events of January 6 and thus ignited the former president's anger.

Trump now seems to delight in bashing Zuckerberg, whom he threatened to imprison if he wins back the White House. He's declared support for TikTok simply because it's one of Meta's competitors. And in his most recent book, Trump included a photo of Zuckerberg and said that the tech leader engaged in a "PLOT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT."

Now, however, it seems that Zuckerberg is attempting to make amends. The Meta CEO has called Trump twice this summer alone and even referred to him as a "badass" after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Zuckerberg has not yet pursued a connection with Vice President Kamala Harris, the NYT reported.

Mark Zuckerberg has entered his libertarian era

In public, Zuckerberg is intent on appearing nonpartisan and has hired a Republican strategist to mend his relationships on the right.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[CFordUNC]

The only bigger scam and more utterly unserious movement than libertarianism is MAGA.

 

[Ddseddse]

The only bigger scam and more utterly unserious movement than libertarianism is MAGA.

I'd go a step further. At least MAGA are openly and nakedly hypocritical in their "rights for me, not rights for you" stances.

Libertarianism is for those too weak or too stupid to even manage to get that far.

It's all about "my rights" with libertarians. When have you ever heard a Libertarian acknowledge that someone other than them had rights? When was the last time you heard a Libertarian acknowledge that one person's or group's rights had to be balanced against another person's or group's rights? I mean FFS, what the F have we been doing for the last 250 years if not doing our level best (imperfectly, admittedly) to balance the rights of respective people and groups?

Wait, what, you just had an epiphany that you have rights? Get the hell out of here, really? No way! Guess what you special little snowflake, we've all got them. And sometimes they conflict, and because of that your rights are not unlimited in cases where the exercise of those rights trample on other peoples rights.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[CFordUNC]

I'd go a step further. At least MAGA are openly and nakedly hypocritical in their "rights for me, not rights for you" stances.

Libertarianism is for those too weak or too stupid to even manage to get that far.

It's all about "my rights" with libertarians. When have you ever heard a Libertarian acknowledge that someone other than them had rights? When was the last time you heard a Libertarian acknowledge that one person's or group's rights had to be balanced against another person's or group's rights? I mean FFS, what the F have we been doing for the last 250 years if not doing our level bast (imperfectly, admittedly) to balance the rights of respective people and groups?

Wait, what, you just had an epiphany that you have rights? Get the hell out of here, really? No way! Guess what you special little snowflake, we've all got them. And sometimes they conflict, and because of that your rights are not unlimited in cases where the exercise of those rights trample on other peoples rights.

Grow the fuck up.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Zuck has been trying to reinvent himself with the nerd community by giving talks on AI and embracing open source. This libertarian thing fits. Meta's version of AI is solid but not the top, although the leader seems to change weekly, and he gives a lot of stuff away free that other major AI companies don't.

This could be a billionaire's whim to be seen as the benevolent king nerd or a savvy business strategy to not be beholden to someone else's platform like what happened when Apple decided to stop letting companies collect data.

His vision is basically a secretary on everyone's face. You walk around with Facebook glasses or maybe a different form factor like earbuds, and as you interact with people throughout the day, you can have it send emails or texts based on those conversations, handle your calendar, etc.

 

[Carolina Fever]

I'd go a step further. At least MAGA are openly and nakedly hypocritical in their "rights for me, not rights for you" stances.

Libertarianism is for those too weak or too stupid to even manage to get that far.

It's all about "my rights" with libertarians. When have you ever heard a Libertarian acknowledge that someone other than them had rights? When was the last time you heard a Libertarian acknowledge that one person's or group's rights had to be balanced against another person's or group's rights? I mean FFS, what the F have we been doing for the last 250 years if not doing our level best (imperfectly, admittedly) to balance the rights of respective people and groups?

Wait, what, you just had an epiphany that you have rights? Get the hell out of here, really? No way! Guess what you special little snowflake, we've all got them. And sometimes they conflict, and because of that your rights are not unlimited in cases where the exercise of those rights trample on other peoples rights.

Grow the fuck up.

They want all the benefits of Democracy without the work needed to make sure it's good for everyone.

 

[StrangePackage]

Color me shocked that one of the richest people in the world wants fewer rules to apply to him.

Shocked.

 

[ZenMode]

I'd go a step further. At least MAGA are openly and nakedly hypocritical in their "rights for me, not rights for you" stances.

Libertarianism is for those too weak or too stupid to even manage to get that far.

It's all about "my rights" with libertarians. When have you ever heard a Libertarian acknowledge that someone other than them had rights? When was the last time you heard a Libertarian acknowledge that one person's or group's rights had to be balanced against another person's or group's rights? I mean FFS, what the F have we been doing for the last 250 years if not doing our level best (imperfectly, admittedly) to balance the rights of respective people and groups?

Wait, what, you just had an epiphany that you have rights? Get the hell out of here, really? No way! Guess what you special little snowflake, we've all got them. And sometimes they conflict, and because of that your rights are not unlimited in cases where the exercise of those rights trample on other peoples rights.

Grow the fuck up.

"It's all about "my rights" with libertarians. When have you ever heard a Libertarian acknowledge that someone other than them had rights?"

Every person has "my" rights.

 

[Centerpiece]

Of course you are… And he is.
Anarcho-capitalists.
A natural extension away from the original, classic egalitarian libertarians.
Very right-wing Americano. Do as you please and reject, restrict the rights of others.
Privatize everything. Isolate. Hire night watchman.

 

[farce©]

I made the same change a couple decades ago, though it was for fiscal reasons (Neither of the two major parties offers anything to those who want fiscal responsibility).

This is the least surprising revelation ever. OCS is a libertarian.

 

[Ddseddse]

"It's all about "my rights" with libertarians. When have you ever heard a Libertarian acknowledge that someone other than them had rights?"

Every person has "my" rights.

So you are in agreement when our respective rights conflict, we need to balance them against each other?

Great! Welcome back from the wilds of Libertarianism and back into mainstream American politics.

 

[ZenMode]

Color me shocked that one of the richest people in the world wants fewer rules to apply to him.

Shocked.

You must really hate the ACLU.

 

[StrangePackage]

You must really hate the ACLU.

You must really be starved for attention.

 

[ZenMode]

So you are in agreement when our respective rights conflict, we need to balance them against each other?

Great! Welcome back from the wilds of Libertarianism and back into mainstream American politics.

Libertarianism is generally pretty basic. You can live your life as you please, as long as you don't infringe on my right to live my life as I please... within limits. In principle, legalizing drugs and allowing people the right to use them until they start breaking laws (armed robbery, theft, etc) sounds good. Oregon proved that doesn't work. Exceptions aside, I'd like to see the country move in a libertarian direction: smaller government at all levels. Emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities, etc.

 

[ZenMode]

Yeah, it’s “generally pretty basic” because it’s a bunk ideology that was invented by right-wing economists to convince rubes like you that you’re supporting freedom by letting billionaires and corporations run our country.

How does libertarianism allow billionaires to run the country in a way that liberalism and conservatism doesn't?

 

[Ddseddse]

Libertarianism is generally pretty basic. You can live your life as you please, as long as you don't infringe on my right to live my life as I please... within limits. In principle, legalizing drugs and allowing people the right to use them until they start breaking laws (armed robbery, theft, etc) sounds good. Oregon proved that doesn't work. Exceptions aside, I'd like to see the country move in a libertarian direction: smaller government at all levels. Emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities, etc.

The government, for the most, is not "taking away your rights" (at least not yet, anyway). Primarily, the government is adjudicating and enforcing the balancing of your rights against your fellow citizen's rights. Libertarians for the greatest part are just whiny little bitches who are pissed that the fact that other people have rights means they don't always get to do whatever the hell it is they want to do in the moment.

You want legalization? So do Democrats. You want less onerous regulation? So do Republicans. There's plenty of space in mainstream American politics for folks who want to make America a better place by preventing government overreach. But that's not what draws the moths to the Libertarian flame. It's the promise you can do whatever the hell it is you want without every having to think about your actions impact on your fellow citizens.

 

[farce©]

I would guess most people who are politically aware read Atlas Shrugged sometime between age 16-21, flirted with the notion of libertarianism but then grew up.

 

[ColdBlueSteel]

Yeah, it’s “generally pretty basic” because it’s a bunk ideology that was invented by right-wing economists to convince rubes like you that you’re supporting freedom by letting billionaires and corporations run our country.

Who the F do you think is running the uniparty?

 

[Ddseddse]

I would guess most people who are politically aware read Atlas Shrugged sometime between age 16-21, flirted with the notion of libertarianism but then grew up.

I have a vivid memory of 16yo me reading it and thinking "This is such bullshit!" page after page.

But them again that may have been a stylistic objection as much as it was a moral or theoretical objection.

I've always had a visceral dislike for writings that used main characters as mouthpieces to spew ideology and other weaker charters to (intentionally) weakly rebuff the point the main point they were trying to sell. Like Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance... what bullshit. Yeah, I'm talking to you too, Heinlein, you and your Stranger In A Strange Land. And of course the original sin of that particular genera... Plato... GTFOOH with that bullshit!

 

[an0maly]

How does libertarianism allow billionaires to run the country in a way that liberalism and conservatism doesn't?

Not much time for this, but the problems with the modern formulation of libertarian ideas, is they are separated, corrupted and debased from far better and more reality-oriented libertarian ideas of Adam Smith. In his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith argued that humans’ innate sense of empathy and sympathy forms the basis for civilized life. “The man whom we naturally love the most is he who joins to...his own original and selfish feelings, the most exquisite sensibility...and sympathetic feels of others.” The idea of market forces here is producing goods for others as a good for yourself without hurting others. This is as far from the modern right wing libertarianisms, iconic in the idiocy of Ayn Rand, as it could be.

The problem since especially after World War II is that while inflation and costs of living (everything, but monumentally healthcare and higher education) skyrocketed, the ultra wealthy did ever better and better, and as they colluded with some very bad politicians, enforced ever greater benefits for themselves and ever more painful reductions in income and the ability to succeed in society for the middle class and the poor, and in fact developing a system for creating the latter out of the former. Even worse, in the mind-bending, upside down world irony, politicians gain and keep office by giving massive welfare and tax breaks to corporate power--this is the name of "libertarian" notions but totally opposite to them, and the ideas of Smith.

This is why libertarianism is now dead, in its ability to appeal to voters, because it has been corrupted so thoroughly by the hyper-rich, big corporations, and some politicians who for about sixty years have been so obedient to collude with them. This is no longer about free market forces creating better stuff for the public, and certainly not in line with the government getting out of the way of business, but rather picking winners to permanently keep winning, allowing them to hurt the public as doing so improves profits, in collusion with campaign funding sources from them.

The actual ideas of the long gone Smith libertarian philosophy I am talking about are totally at odds with mindlessly cutting taxes for the hyper rich, using that to reduce service democracy would produce, against rejecting protections of the environment, against attacks on regulations that in fact, actually would allow for personal freedom and for better competition in market forces, against allowing collusion between corporate power and politicians (to actually crush competition), against insane rates of CEO pay of 1500 times that of their lowest paid workers, against rulings like Citizens United, against the phony meritocratic delusions of the powerful enforcing such increase in wealth and income disparity, and against any dogmatic and unsupported insanity like "trickle down, supply side economics."