I liked Gruber's take [1], commenting on the NYT interview [2]:

"Peter Thiel may well be smart, but he’s also dangerously foolish and solipsistic. You have to be a reckless fool to be that smart and get into any car without wearing a seatbelt, let alone a McLaren being driven by a daredevil like Musk."

[1] http://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/01/12/dowd-thiel

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/fashion/peter-thiel-donal...

I'd argue he's dangerous period:

"Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible ... The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron."[1]"https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

That story doesn't reflect too well on Musk either.

Based on the rest of the article, I get the feeling Thiel is trolling because he can, and I wouldn't take his stories at face value: that said, making up stories involving other people isn't usually advisable. It may very well be exaggerated, though?

Edit: I didn't know the story had been mentioned previously, I take back my skepticism regarding that.

> I get the feeling Thiel is trolling because he can

That's a kind of a strange road to go down, isn't it? I think usually the whole argue-in-good-faith thing, together with the principle of charity, require you to assume people mean what they say.

If you really mean that maybe more corruption/conflicts of interests are needed, you're going to need to spend more time arguing for that than a couple of paragraphs in a nytimes profile.

A different view on his corruption statement.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/bor...

' If you would like a “left wing example,” had the fiscal stimulus been twice as large, corruption in government probably would have been higher too (pointing out “the stimulus wasn’t very corrupt” is missing the point and in fact is a sign that you are a rampant mood affiliator, determined to restore the mood you feel is just, rather than tracing the analytic point at hand). In other words, Peter’s point is entirely defensible and probably correct. He’s not saying that “corruption is good.”'

It's a true story, and both Thiel and Musk have been saying it the same way for over 15 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI8GWoMF4M

I wasn't aware there was a history, I take back any skepticism on that.

When it's politics, it's not "trolling" -- it's sampling the constituency's appetite for the candidate, and getting early testing poll / focus group data feedback for free.

Interesting, but there are some things you can't take back, although recent events may suggest otherwise.

No, it happened[0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI8GWoMF4M

What do people mean when they say someone is solipsistic? I know what solipsism is, but it never fits the context. Is it just a way of saying narcissistic without getting sidetracked by medical definitions? ('cuz using terms from philosophy isn't the best way to avoid getting called out on definitions.)

A self-centeredness that is unconcerned with other perspectives. Such as considering the views of others incorrect, and discarding.

In comparison with ego-based narcissism that places the perspective of self higher than others.

Hmm, I guess I will file it away with words like "literal" that people use in contradiciton with the original meaning.

It indeed is probably used a synonym of narcissistic and/or selfish.

Solipsism carries a different connotation with it. Narcissism is usually associated with ego and self love while implying someone is "solipsistic" doesn't necessarily imply an overblown ego, assuming they really mean "an adherent of the philosophy," which is probably very seldom the case.

> You have to be a reckless fool to be that smart and get into any car without wearing a seatbelt, let alone a McLaren being driven by a daredevil like Musk.

Exactly. I've been calling BS on this whole story and getting downvoted.

How does one sit inside a fast race car, wear no seat belts, car gets wrecked in crash and he comes out -- in his own words -- "without a scratch".

There are no photos or any evidence anywhere in the media that such a crash occurred, or that Theil was involved in it

Seems like an odd thing to say if you're running for governor:

"At one point, Thiel said, perhaps jokingly, that he’d be “fine” with California seceding. “I think it would be good for California, good for the rest of the country. It would help Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign,” he added."

the NYT interview is just filled with how Thiel sees the world. Someone on twitter described it as "the contrarian undergrad who hasn't gotten punched in the face yet"

>When I remark that President Obama had eight years without any ethical shadiness, Mr. Thiel flips it, noting: “But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.”

"Boring things suck, let's make stuff exciting" is his argument for corruption.

>"It’s like, even if you appointed a whole series of conservative Supreme Court justices, I’m not sure that Roe v. Wade would get overturned, ever.”

Given the current reality of 5-4 votes on these issues, if we were to replace the 5 "for" votes with 5 more "against" votes, I believe that can cause things to be overturned, yes.

It really feels like Thiel has never actually thought about politics deeply, beyond platitudes he's heard. I assume that's not true, but it sure reads like that.

I really wish this had been a video interview, because if it reads absurdly, I bet the soundbites would be even moreso.

So now they're carving up fiefdoms? Where does this end?

Peter Thiel is an anti-democracy monarchist. It ends when the country is broken up into small enough chunks that he can declare himself King of one of them.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

Is it at all worrisome that this man, through his donations, has an ear to the president?

As a side note, it's interesting to note that either California or Texas seceding would be irreparably damaging to the country because the political scales would tip so greatly.

That's the goal from their perspective. Neoreactionaries are former anarcho-capitalists who want to break up the public democratic government so that they can implement private government.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

I don't think either the California National Party or the Texas secession movement want to secede because they are comprised of neoreactionaries. That article doesn't provide a shred of evidence that neoreactionaries are involved in any actual secession movements.

As a side note, that linked article and the assumptions you make off of it (the article does not mention "anarcho-capitalism" or "private government") both seem wildly unbased, more than bordering on conspiracy. The evidence against Thiel is more or less tantamount to him funding a startup founded by Yarvin, but surely there could have been a plethora of non-political motivations behind that.

Unlike the POTUS, the governor of California is covered by conflict of interest laws. He'd probably have to divest his assets and put them in a blind trust.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/c...?

[deleted]

That's true of federal government positions. Is it true of state positions? I don't see how a California law could prevent federal taxes.

I've always wondered why California keeps electing conservative governors like Reagan and Schwarzenegger while always voting for Democratic Presidents and having a reputation for being ultra liberal.

Since Thiel doesn't have the celebrity status of the aforementioned two hopefully he won't stand a chance. On the other hand, since Bush Jr and Trump got elected it's obvious that anyone can.

A common explanation [1] is that California turned deep blue after Prop 187 passed. The only thing to be explained is Schwarzenegger's election, and that was a rather weird one. (Plus, he's an immigrant and not a typical Republican.)

But not everyone buys this. Another explanation is just that California is 38% non-hispanic white and falling. [2][3]

[1] http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2013/10/17/prop187effect...

[2] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/california-and...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California

People seem to forget Schwarzenegger's election was really weird being a recall and having so many people on the ballot. And he is a very large celebrity. After that, the incumbent almost always wins.

Schwarzenegger would never have made it through a GOP primary. He was only elected because of Issa's pointless recall election of Gray Davis during the energy crisis which was actually a result of Pete Wilson's deregulation of the CA energy grid at the behest of Enron.

Looking backwards, there was little difference between Davis and Schwarzenegger.

>I've always wondered why California keeps electing conservative governors

This is also true for Massachusetts. The people are smart enough to know party doesn't matter, but the person's ideals and what they have to offer. Also not all the people who vote for President will vote in local elections.

People in Massachusetts see a Republican governor as a check on the power of the Democratic legislature.

> I've always wondered why California keeps electing conservative governors like Reagan and Schwarzenegger while always voting for Democratic Presidents

Bear in mind that a conservative running for President has to turn out conservatives in Ohio and conservatives in Florida.

There are issues on which California voters are conservative (or at least, favor positions usually held by Republicans - not quite the same thing but I won't quibble). We just voted again in favor of the death penalty, for instance.

Conservatives running in only California get to tailor their message to those issues, while on other issues being willing to compromise or even genuinely differing with other Republicans (see Schwarzenegger on climate, for instance).

>always wondered why California keeps electing conservative governors like Reagan and Schwarzenegger

Because the state's demographics and industry changed...? California was hardly a liberal bastion before it became solidly blue on the national level in 1992.

Even then Schwarzenegger was hardly a conservative compared to national Republicans even in 2003. And he pivoted even further left before his 2006 re-election bid.

Schwarzenegger pivoted left after the 2005 special election initiatives went down in flames. Then he hired a lesbian Democratic chief of staff who worked with the legislature. The result was a decent centrist administration and his solar initiatives. Later, Californians gave Brown supermajorities in both houses as the state pivoted left.

California has no electoral college, so conservative voices aren't muted in state elections as they are in Presidential elections (but they're still a minority in the coastal counties).

I don't understand this. For both the California vote in the presidential vote the winner for state-wide elections (i.e. senate and governor) it is winner takes all.

Where you could see the difference would be in the California assembly and senate and at the federal level in the House of Representatives since that depends on how districts are defined.

> But they're still a minority's in the coastal counties.

I.e. Where the people actually live. The only real big metropolitan area that isn't coastal is Sacramento.

No state uses an electoral college to elect governors.

Sounds OK by me :-)

> Paypal founder Peter Thiel becomes marijuana's first big investor

> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/08/cannabis-in...

Thiel vs Zuck. Should be fun. Reign of the billionaires. Slowly but surely America is descending on its downward path to join other banana republics. Welcome to the club.

I'd vote for him.

Genuine question: why?

I wouldn't mind groundbreaking executive strategy differences for experiments sake in a small state. You can't get the benefit of having 50 different states competing with each other, if they're all too scared to actually revolutionize anything. If California is the only place where people have the balls to try, I'll take it.

If you're curious about the individual reasons I think Thiel is awesome, he frees kids from college through his fellowship program, crushes bastards like gawker, supports longevity and innovation in other moonshot industries. Doesn't hurt that he has a book out trying to get people to create the future definitively by investing their time and money into businesses that are doing things no one else is.

The only downsides I see are, maybe Palantir sucks, and maybe his choice for president will turn out to suck. He's the coolest gay christian republican billionaire thinker I know of.

As the article notes, He supports #calexit the California Independence Movement. I wonder if he's really making a play for President of California.

The scary thing is that the people seem to be in the mood to vote in vindictive, badly behaved self centered narcissists.

My only explanation is that a certain segment of voters is willing to overlook them if they consolidate power in their ideological favor. Party control at all costs, and the more control the better.

I really don't understand how the current political situation in the US, broadly speaking, could be described as anything but fascist or at least protofascist. I know that term is used glibly, but the concentration of power in a single party, to such an extreme, and with such little respect for diversity (even majority) of opinion, or appropriate process or ethical behavior, seems unprecedented to me.

I can't imagine those in control not using their power to extend it indefinitely either, as long as it meets the letter of the law. To me it seems some line was already crossed a couple of years ago, and now we've seen the safety checks catastrophically fail. I think that's what makes me so nervous--it's not just the unchecked power, but how they arrived at it and their demonstrated lack of ability to compromise or cede.

I like Thiel, he's not as self-serving like some other tech billionaires e.g. Zuckerberg. He's no chance of winning because of lack of charisma and only appealing to nerdy guys.

I don't see the appeal to "nerdy" types (as a nerd myself) - he is less tech-oriented than founders of deep technology companies. Think of the people who started Google, VMware, even Facebook, and many others - great engineers who built things themselves. What did Thiel ever build? He's a lawyer, not an engineer.

Actually he's exclusively self-serving, solipsistic. He's an Ayn Rand libertarian (which in fact is a contradiction). If he were not self-serving, he'd be a liberal (which he isn't).