[koolba]

> If you plot those values on the matrix of conventional US politics, there appears to be a contradiction: The tech elite want an activist government, but they don’t want the government actively restricting them.

Fringes aside, I think that sums up everybody. The difference is that most regulation doesn’t directly impact the average Joe.

[humanrebar]

"Everybody" is overstating it. Many see think the opposite of "activist" isn't "inactive" but "prudent and principled".

Nobody disputes that government should be enforcing peace, contracts, providing defense, etc. That sort of thing is necessary and prudent. But the enforcement needs to happen fairly and according to clear rules. The enforcers need to be accountable. And often the citizen needs more than just a ballot box to push back on corrupt government.

To bring it back to tech, rules are not evenly written, let alone enforced. Why is electronic mail treated differently than mail? Why are hosts pressured to drop horrible people from their customer lists, but not phone companies? Why is it OK for tech companies to keep records for government consumption, but not car dealers, libraries, supermarkets, etc.?

[michaelt]

Seems to me a lot of people who support a regulation will be doing what the regulation calls for anyway - so they'll be subject to it, but it'll have no impact.

If I support banning alcohol, I probably don't drink alcohol myself. Hell, it'd be pretty hypocritical if I did.

(There are exceptions, of course - if I supported changing the side of the road we drive on, I'd wait for a change of law before acting on my beliefs!)

[princekolt]

> I think that sums up everybody.

I think that sums up everybody that doesn't understand how effective governments work. Regulations are an intrinsic part of them and the libertarians know that. That's why they're against them. It's a lot easier to create tax loopholes when you don't have thousands of regulations to worry about.

[emteycz]

Libertarians don't want to pay taxes in the first place because they believe they can buy equivalent or better service for the same price or cheaper on the free market and stop overpaying for services that are useless or actively harmful, like e.g. most of FDA regulation, zoning, building codes, etc. How does that relate to tax loopholes at all?

[maxxxxx]

"useless or actively harmful, like e.g. most of FDA regulation,"

You should be careful with such sentences. Maybe it's ok to say "some" but saying "most" is nonsense and dangerous.

[emteycz]

I wasn't making a statement, I was describing the Libertarian point of view, regardless of my own.

[maxxxxx]

Sorry for not reading your comment closely.