[_delirium]

There's a lot of libertarian rhetoric, but are actual libertarians really widespread in the Valley? To me it comes across as a loud but very small minority— albeit perhaps also one that's disproportionately represented among those at the very top (perhaps part of why it's so loud). Someone like Peter Thiel might be a libertarian-conservative politically, but the average middle-class techie seems more like a middle-of-the-road to center-left liberal. Silicon Valley politically votes almost exclusively for center-left Democrats, and if it were only up to the region's votes, more funding for the UC system and science/technology research in general (NSF, NASA, etc.) would be easy to pass. Even ideas like a basic income are considerably more popular in the Valley than among the general American public (though a basic income does admittedly fit pretty well into an individual-empowerment worldview).

[jerf]

I can't help but think all the libertarian hating is an attempt to find a new scapegoat in those places where Republicans have been all but eliminated. Because let me tell you, "volume" from Silicon Valley or not, libertarians have almost no power. Conservatives pass laws, Republicans pass laws, Democrats pass laws, Liberals pass laws, Libertarians mostly post on the Internet.

Whatever's going wrong in SV isn't the libertarian's fault. Or, if it is, then the Democrats in power ought to take a serious look at how their wondrous plans manage to be scotched by such a small, low-power minority.

[msutherl]

You don't think Peter Thiel has power?

[Futurebot]

It's possible that part of the confusion around some this is both what's meant by Libertarian in this context and whether we're talking about actual political affiliation or /cultural attitude./ First, I think if the article was more specific in naming the kind of Libertarianism involved (by this reading, Libertarian Socialism aka Voluntary Regional Collectivism, particularly of the 1960s America New Left inspired Libertarian Socialism) it would be helpful. Second, it seems like what's being referred to here is more about outlook and ethos vs actual voting patterns, especially if you don't dig very deep in terms of positions. You can "think commune and hate hierarchy" and still "vote Democrat" because of social issues; perhaps thought of as a kind of counterpart to the Republican "what's the matter with Kansas?" phenomenon (vote against your personal economic interest on the basis of cultural issues.)

That's my reading. Overall, I think the article was quite good (terminology and title aside.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[nickpinkston]

There's a lot of liberal-tarian people, like myself, they are skeptical of many East Coast Liberal ideas, while still wanting the government (perhaps city, not fed/state gov't) help the poor, provide free education / healthcare, etc.

[_delirium]

That's sort of (if I understand correctly) the direction parts of Scandinavia have been moving. Denmark's '90s Social Democratic PM coined the term "flexicurity" to refer to a free-market economy that is as flexible as possible (no onerous regulations on hiring/firing and doing business), but combined with a strong state-provided social-welfare system (the "security" part). Basically the idea is that it should be easy to fire someone, but they shouldn't end up homeless and poor if you do, plus they should have plenty of retraining/education resources available.

[eru]

You might want to come to Singapore.