[Florin_Andrei]

They would need empathy to do that, or at least a basic understanding of human nature. That's pretty unlikely, given that they seem to lack the hardware for that.

> Someone who has known him for more than a decade said, “He’s very cerebral, and I’m not sure how much value he places on the more intimate human emotions. I’ve never seen him express them. It’s certainly not the most developed aspect of his personality.” The friend added, “There are some irreconcilable elements that remain unreconciled in him”—a reference to Thiel’s being both Christian and gay, two facts that get no mention in his public utterances and are barely acknowledged in his private conversations. Though he is known for his competitiveness, he has an equally pronounced aversion to conflict. As chief executive of PayPal, which counted its users with a “world domination index,” Thiel avoided the personal friction that comes with managing people by delegating those responsibilities. Similarly, he hired from a small pool of like-minded friends, because “figuring out how well people work together would have been really difficult.”

> Thiel liked to quote Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women.”

[praxeologist]

You are mistaking what he is saying. People say things like "France's gold", but France doesn't have gold. Only the individuals who also identify themselves as French, or are determined to be French by law, do.

[Florin_Andrei]

This is what happens whenever I debate "libertarians". I mention overarching tendencies, only to get replies about fine logic minutiae. I'm guessing obsession with details, and blindness to the big picture is also a trait of Ayn Rand fans.

[tjic]

> This is what happens whenever I debate "libertarians". I mention overarching tendencies, only to get replies about fine logic minutiae.

Restated: "I hate debating smart people, because I spout over-generalized bullshit, and they call me on it".

[keeganpoppen]

yeah-- those damn details... always an annoying part of any argument. Also, I like how you imply that you can't both understand the "big picture" and care about the details. To me, it seems like the only way to understand anything. If you aren't conversant with the details of what you think, do you really understand what you're talking about?

[leot]

Perhaps an important detail, then: Thatcher's quote was actually "And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

... as if families, themselves, weren't each a kind of small society.

[mkramlich]

Indeed. I'd even argue that France doesn't actually exist. People exist. The Earth exists. Objects exist. But "France" is just a concept and a set of traditions that a (rather large) number of people choose to talk about and believe in. But it has no independent existance. You cannot see France from space. If everyone's minds were wiped tonight and then we woke up tomorrow and got out of bed it would be as if France didn't exist. Beds would still exist. Food would still exist, our bodies, buildings, vehicles, etc.

Also the idea that only nation states are sovereign could be argued to be a combination of a benign constructive social conceit AND also a cognitive tool designed by elites to control the masses. Both of these things can be true at the same time. I'm not arguing that anarchy is a good thing. But something like it IS the natural state of affairs, physically speaking. And the only reason people tend to prefer something other than anarchy is when they see the relative benefits. But the alternatives to anarchy (families, tribes, cities, nations) are things we choose to do, we choose to engage in, and choose to go along with. Just as millions and perhaps billions of people choose to go along with the idea that France exists and is a sovereign entity. But let's never forget this is only true to the extent that enough (of the right) people want it to be true. And that can change.