[ddw]

Funny how these guys can only afford these things from their profits in "nanny states."

Basically this guy is keeping it close to San Francisco so that he can earn him money here and suck it over to his amusement park.

If he really believed in "libertarianism" he would just do it without the money and see how he can prosper then. But alas, the super rich are not like everyone else.

[andrewflnr]

You have a strange view of libertarianism if you think he would need to build his floating city without money to be truly following it. I thought libertarianism is about the right to do whatever you want with your money?

Such a project would necessarily take a large amount of resources, regardless of the intentions behind it. In practical terms, that means money. I don't see why that's strange.

Now if you think it's just going to be an amusement park, that's a separate issue. I agree that there's at least a significant risk of that. It would be a waste of a good idea.

[ajays]

I don't know why you're being downvoted. I came here to say the same thing. These people will do all this song-and-dance of making a "libertarian utopia", but still keep their money in dollars; their house on Sea Cliff; their kids in US universities.

You really think you can do better, Mr. Rich Guy? Then put your money where your mouth is, and move your family there. Live there. Don't go to any of the so-called "socialist hells"; try to survive on your little parcel of paradise and see how long it lasts.

[ddw]

Of course I was downvoted, everyones' startup is going to be bought by Google and we'll all be rich! Woo hoo!

(and yes I realize I'll get it for this too)

I'm really fine with people living in the woods like the Unabomber and giving it a shot. Or even New Hampshire becoming a libertarian state, why not, go for it and see what happens.

But don't put a lot of money behind something and call it an "experiment" that we can actually apply in the real world.

[gavanwoolery]

You can invest in flying cars without ever flying one. You invest because you believe in the idea, and that some people (not necessarily yourself) might benefit from it.

Attacking "libertarianism" or "the super rich" is kind of childish - everyone is entitled to the wealth they earn (if they do so honestly) and their own political views.

[mwsherman]

I find “these guys” arguments are perfectly unenlightening — though some prefer the phrasing “those people”.

One should respond to arguments Thiel is actually making, if he is making an argument at all. He thinks it’s an interesting idea. If it turns out to be stupid, great.

Nobody does things “for ideology”. People do things they think are correct or useful or interesting, not for straw-man “ism”s. Is the criticism that he is insufficiently ideological?

[gavanwoolery]

You are exactly right. This type of argument is called "ad hominem" (translation, appropriately, is "to the man"), and is the basis of many fallacies and Republican/Democrat debates.

[endtime]

>Funny how these guys can only afford these things from their profits in "nanny states."

Do you really think Thiel would have made less money in a less socialist version of the US?

[ddw]

I was attempting to be facetious.