Another smear against capitalism

I’ve come across character assassinations before, but I don’t think I fully understood what the term meant until I read an article on tech billionaire Peter Thiel in the online magazine Slate last week.

The piece, penned by Slate Group editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg, was a classic example of how sniping commentators distort, misrepresent and baselessly disparage both the accomplishments and the ambitions of business leaders in order to perpetuate the absurd belief that the capitalist class, not the political class, is the real locus of parasitism and depravity in our society.

After first reminding readers of where they might have heard of Thiel (answer: recent film “The Social Network”), Weisberg launches into an attack on what he calls Thiel’s “hyper-libertarian” politics.

A central component of the attack focuses on Thiel’s recent statement that he “no longer believe(s) freedom and democracy are compatible.”

Now, if, like Mr. Weisberg, you believe democracy (that is, pure, unadulterated majority rule) is an end in itself, perhaps this statement would indicate some underlying evil.

If, on the other hand, you understand the tyrannical dangers of  unchecked majority rule, it is clear that Thiel’s take on this is actually akin to the conclusion reached by the political philosophers who crafted our republican form of government more than 200 years ago.

Upon insinuating that Thiel’s brand of libertarianism is totally without merit, Weisberg writes, “Having given up hope for American democracy, (Thiel) has decided to focus ‘my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom.’”

One way is by helping to finance Seasteading, an effort to create anarcho-capitalist societies built on man-made structures at sea, and another is by  investing in space exploration.

Because the latter goal in particular might take a while, Weisberg discusses a related project of Thiel’s, donating “millions to the Methuselah Foundation, which does research into life-extension based on the premise that  humans can live to be 1,000 years old.”

Now, one can dispute the likelihood of being successful in these endeavors, but Weisberg instead chooses to contrast the previous three examples of Thiel’s interests with one he considers to actually be “good and useful.”

By drawing this contrast, Weisberg seems to be implying that he doesn’t consider experimenting with novel ways of organizing society to be useful.

This makes me glad he wasn’t around to discourage Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries when they were devising the “noble experiment” we call the United States.

He also seems to imply that helping fund research that continues the work of those who have created vaccines, developed new treatments and cured diseases doesn’t count as “good and  useful.”

After all this, Weisberg saves his vaguest and most poorly substantiated vitriol for what he calls Mr. Thiel’s “latest crusade,” a plan to “pay would-be entrepreneurs 20 and younger $100,000 in cash to drop out of school.”

The only comment Weisberg offers that comes close to a legitimate criticism of this creative approach to fostering innovation is the claim that leaving college before graduating constitutes “halting their intellectual development around the onset of adulthood.”

Although it is unfortunately true for many that the end of formal schooling coincides  with the end of intellectual growth, Weisberg ignores that Thiel won’t be awarding these fellowships to anyone who asks — and that anyone who wins one is, similar to Thiel himself, likely to possess a much too active mind to let its progress be stopped  simply by the departure from a school.

Weisberg might not understand what there is to like about promoting political and economic freedom, increased life expectancy and entrepreneurship, but I’m glad to join the ranks of those who are cheering Thiel and other visionary capitalists on toward ever-bolder goals.


E-mail: jarlower@indiana.edu