Tech money buys political corruption like Uber being let off from the obligation to buy up the taxi medallions it has made worthless in New York City.
1
I support Peter Thiel because freedom of speech shouldn't guarantee you the right into one's bedroom. Whatever happened to privacy?
2
Better to be ruled by technologists than by bankers.
The government sold our souls to the tax evaders. How sad is this. Democracy? Ha!!
1
Thiel funded Hogan because he has no case of his own. The law does not protect public figures from the truth. And I cringe at a guy who implies that being named as a gay tech executive ruined his life ... Work that out in therapy (see also the postmortem on a book he wrote in college defending the right to scream homophobic AIDS slurs at gay Stanford profs). We should all pause to remember that Hogan settled with the ex-friend who actually filmed and leaked the sex tape for a very little - much more in line with his actual injury. Everyone here taking umbrage at Gawker for clickbait should remember that supply of bait is governed by consumer demand. (And Gawker is hardly the worst of the worst).
Memo to Thiel from this "commoner": you can keep your Ayn Rand/white man's burden version of do-goodery to yourself.
Memo to Thiel from this "commoner": you can keep your Ayn Rand/white man's burden version of do-goodery to yourself.
4
This is the case of Goliath fighting Goliath, so the lesser Goliath lost. How else is a big corporation, a big media corporation, be held accountable?
When free press is given the freedom to report, this freedom should not include publishing private matters that concern nobody else other than their rating increasing value.
As much as big money usually acts bullish and corrupt, in this case, Thiel equalized the playing field. The suit that he funded was legitimate, the verdict was not bought. Why on earth,\ would Gawker think it a good idea to release clandestinely and publicly video of somebody's most intimate moment? And not expect repercussion? Because they thought they were so big and invincible?
As for Thiel's gayness, as much as it's a fact that he should not feel ashamed of, Thiel reserves the prerogative to come out publicly at a time and manner of his choosing, or not at all. Gawker outing him is another form of gay bashing.
This is the world we live in now, Goliath fighting Goliath, and us the Davids are supposed to pick one side?
When free press is given the freedom to report, this freedom should not include publishing private matters that concern nobody else other than their rating increasing value.
As much as big money usually acts bullish and corrupt, in this case, Thiel equalized the playing field. The suit that he funded was legitimate, the verdict was not bought. Why on earth,\ would Gawker think it a good idea to release clandestinely and publicly video of somebody's most intimate moment? And not expect repercussion? Because they thought they were so big and invincible?
As for Thiel's gayness, as much as it's a fact that he should not feel ashamed of, Thiel reserves the prerogative to come out publicly at a time and manner of his choosing, or not at all. Gawker outing him is another form of gay bashing.
This is the world we live in now, Goliath fighting Goliath, and us the Davids are supposed to pick one side?
Leland Stanford bought a corrupt California legislature to impose a railroad monopoly on the state - if you shipped anything by rail in CA, you paid him to do it. He also used his influence and power to throttle any other form of transportation - notably riverboats.
So, using Stanford as an example of "good" is as stupid as just about anything this paper prints.
So, using Stanford as an example of "good" is as stupid as just about anything this paper prints.
2
Philanthropists at least know where their money is going or are able to make sure it gets to where they want t to go. Unlike the government who wastes so much money and taxpayers have little say on where their tax dollars go.
It should also be noted that two huge Silicon giants William Hewlett and David Packard started their foundations (William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation) decades ago because they to felt they would and could do a better job of getting THER money to where it was needed the most, sans any financial waste.
So this is not a new idea in Silicon Valley for anyone educated on the subject!
It should also be noted that two huge Silicon giants William Hewlett and David Packard started their foundations (William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation) decades ago because they to felt they would and could do a better job of getting THER money to where it was needed the most, sans any financial waste.
So this is not a new idea in Silicon Valley for anyone educated on the subject!
1
If creative destruction is financially rewarding, you are bound to get much more destruction.
1
Mr. Thiel supports Donald Trump.
What more need saying about his self-righteous interest in public matters.
His alleged Libertarian philosophy allows a rationale for selfishness and he has chosen his leader.
What more need saying about his self-righteous interest in public matters.
His alleged Libertarian philosophy allows a rationale for selfishness and he has chosen his leader.
2
Besides the fact the Thiel's money did not bribe anyone but enabled a weak party to get his day in court against a much stronger and richer foe - which is social justice at it's finest in my book - there's another, rather unpleasant whining note lurking from between the lines of this article.
Someone just as powerful as you is threatening what you take away the press's presumed birthright to trample on people's lives for a cause no loftier than making money while hiding it behind the holiest grail of "free speech". Suddenly, when the shoe is on the other foot, it isn't as much fun, is it? Not only funding litigation for profit a just cause, but suddenly making the media think twice before it swings its mighty arms with impunity and ruin people's lives is doubly so. If what you have to say is important and worth fighting for (or at least you truly believe it is even if you're wrong) than go for it. Be brave. Take a risk. Chances are that judges and juries will side with you. But if you blatantly abuse your power just because you can, you're likely to feel the very same pain you're causing. I think that is the most most righteous cause of them all.
Someone just as powerful as you is threatening what you take away the press's presumed birthright to trample on people's lives for a cause no loftier than making money while hiding it behind the holiest grail of "free speech". Suddenly, when the shoe is on the other foot, it isn't as much fun, is it? Not only funding litigation for profit a just cause, but suddenly making the media think twice before it swings its mighty arms with impunity and ruin people's lives is doubly so. If what you have to say is important and worth fighting for (or at least you truly believe it is even if you're wrong) than go for it. Be brave. Take a risk. Chances are that judges and juries will side with you. But if you blatantly abuse your power just because you can, you're likely to feel the very same pain you're causing. I think that is the most most righteous cause of them all.
4
Good for Hogan and Thiel!
The next employee of Gawker and its ilk will be a drone. Let me say to the potentially peeping Toms and Tomasinas of Gawker and any other company (such as Amazon) that trespasses on my property with a drone: having no way of knowing its intentions are benign, I will treat that drone as if it has come to attack my family or engage in other illegal activities. Therefore you will never see it again though, if it has remote sensed cameras, you may get to watch its destruction. And, no one who is brought to trial for destroying an uninvited drone on his or her property will ever be convicted if I am on the jury.
In an age where corporations are considered people with concomitant rights, I clearly have a right to include a corporations agents in my NO TRESPASSING warning.
The next employee of Gawker and its ilk will be a drone. Let me say to the potentially peeping Toms and Tomasinas of Gawker and any other company (such as Amazon) that trespasses on my property with a drone: having no way of knowing its intentions are benign, I will treat that drone as if it has come to attack my family or engage in other illegal activities. Therefore you will never see it again though, if it has remote sensed cameras, you may get to watch its destruction. And, no one who is brought to trial for destroying an uninvited drone on his or her property will ever be convicted if I am on the jury.
In an age where corporations are considered people with concomitant rights, I clearly have a right to include a corporations agents in my NO TRESPASSING warning.
4
So tired of billionaires strutting around the national landscape making economic, cultural and political decisions that are embedded in their own life experiences. I am totally convinced that no one becomes that rich on their own merits alone. The dead we remember this weekend, the parents, teachers, businesses that employed their family members, . . . the whole nine yards including all the scientific discoveries over time. What economic philosophy dictates that a small percentage of citizens can hold onto more wealth than the vast majority of citizens? And why do we the majority allow that to continue. Tax these Silicon Valley elites at the 90% rate after their first 100 million and they will still have their fast cars, yachts and mansions. We will have roads without potholes and bridges you don't say a silent prayer before crossing.
9
I am frightened by the power of Peter Thiel, and those like him. He has displayed a ruthlessness to get back at his enemies that is terrifying in it's lack of judgement and foresight. Also, the fact that his whims will determine what I read online, sickens me.
3
Charity is not social or economic justice. It's self-aggrandizing and as this piece argued cover for controlling public policy.
3
There are only two important points to take away from the Gawker v Bollea case;
1. A millionaire is too poor to sue a digital fish wrapper that was violating his rights.
2. If a Millionaire is too poor to sue someone, what chance do any of us have to get justice?
All this bologna about how this affects the First Amendment and the Free Press is just that. One man paid for another man’s lawyer, that’s it nothing else happened. Your imagination and paranoid fantasies about Mr. Thiel's motivations no matter how strongly you "feel" they are true do not count as legitimate materiel for discussion here.
We need to know why the “Free Press” isn’t focusing on those two points made so clear by this case. When did this become the reality of our system and why haven't they been making a fuss over it since then?! That is the only reason for having a Free Press.
1. A millionaire is too poor to sue a digital fish wrapper that was violating his rights.
2. If a Millionaire is too poor to sue someone, what chance do any of us have to get justice?
All this bologna about how this affects the First Amendment and the Free Press is just that. One man paid for another man’s lawyer, that’s it nothing else happened. Your imagination and paranoid fantasies about Mr. Thiel's motivations no matter how strongly you "feel" they are true do not count as legitimate materiel for discussion here.
We need to know why the “Free Press” isn’t focusing on those two points made so clear by this case. When did this become the reality of our system and why haven't they been making a fuss over it since then?! That is the only reason for having a Free Press.
1
Old English saying--
"Bless the Lord and his relations,
And keep us in our proper stations"
Welcome to the future-- same as it's always been.
"Bless the Lord and his relations,
And keep us in our proper stations"
Welcome to the future-- same as it's always been.
3
Too bad nothing remotely like what Ms. Cagle calls for is ever going to see the light of day in today's America. For now, we will have to settle for battles between billionaires & millionaires to right the wrongs done by other billionaires & millionaires. No tax legislation is going to get past a Congress with the Freedom Caucus in the House of Reps.
3
Peter is one of the lucky ones that often thinks they were really smart and drove their success. I have met hundreds of startup execs who have failed and some who have succeeded. Those who succeed are generally more lucky than smart.
I would hope that those who are lucky enough to hit the jackpot would look at K-12 education and the community college system and find ways to help all the at risk students in these markets that make up almost 1/2 of all students, rather than promoting not attending college and attaching sites Gawker.
Nice to have money - sad to see such arrogance.
Peter - happy to sit down with you and discsuss....... LOL
I would hope that those who are lucky enough to hit the jackpot would look at K-12 education and the community college system and find ways to help all the at risk students in these markets that make up almost 1/2 of all students, rather than promoting not attending college and attaching sites Gawker.
Nice to have money - sad to see such arrogance.
Peter - happy to sit down with you and discsuss....... LOL
3
Now that Pierre Omidyar has stepped in to back Gawker's appeal, will we be treated to a piece on all of the good that billionaire tech money can do for freedom of speech? Or has the whole process now been sullied because each side has a super-rich guy paying its legal fees? Oh, who will save us from the nefarious forces of wealth? Who will cleanse our campaigns of self-interest, our advertising of greed, our society of rapacity? Who will eliminate the evil that is money, once and for all? Why, Bernie, that's who! Viva La Revolución!
1
Tech money is no different from any other money. The only situational difference is that the workers for the Rockefellers, Morgans, Duponts, Carnegies, Harrimans, and their ilk were under no illusion that, as workers, they were anything other than commodities. Tech workers, on the other hand, often seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid.
One other difference: the old plutocrats had to build things up over time; they were not I.P.O. millionaires. As such, though they certainly used their wealth as they saw fit, unlike the current crop of tech plutocrats they did not seem to believe their wisdom and moral virtue were proportionate to their wealth.
One other difference: the old plutocrats had to build things up over time; they were not I.P.O. millionaires. As such, though they certainly used their wealth as they saw fit, unlike the current crop of tech plutocrats they did not seem to believe their wisdom and moral virtue were proportionate to their wealth.
3
So as I understand it, this fellow Thiel is a gay man who didn't want it to be public knowledge that he is a gay man.
Gawker, like a lot of these gossip sites, made his personal life a subject of gossip and ridicule, hiding behind Freedom of the Press.
Thiel funded a lawsuit against Gawker when Gawker stepped over the line - and its whole business is about stepping over the line, no?
Hogan filed suit and the jury heard the case and was outraged. Who cares if Thiel paid for the lawyers? Good for Thiel.
Freedom of the Press is not an unlimited pass to be peeping toms. People are entitled to privacy.
Gawker, like a lot of these gossip sites, made his personal life a subject of gossip and ridicule, hiding behind Freedom of the Press.
Thiel funded a lawsuit against Gawker when Gawker stepped over the line - and its whole business is about stepping over the line, no?
Hogan filed suit and the jury heard the case and was outraged. Who cares if Thiel paid for the lawyers? Good for Thiel.
Freedom of the Press is not an unlimited pass to be peeping toms. People are entitled to privacy.
3
I think Mr. Thiel was more upset about the collateral damage to his friends from Gawker's gawking. Private citizens have rights of privacy.
Anyone who says this is a violation of Gawker's First Amendment rights is completely wrong. I am no fan of lawyers and lawsuits but Gawker lost big because what it did was egregious. Individuals have some right to privacy. I say thank you to Peter Thiel for encouraging privacy and responsibility. Although it is a Silicon Valley cliche', he seems like he is actually trying to make the world a better place. Bravo for him!
3
It's money. It can buy anything, except perhaps love. Money has bought our government and our courts. Why are we be surprised a "tech" CEO, one of the gang of newly certified secular saints, acts in the area of the law any differently than they act in their business or personal lives?
Aren't people tired of the way money is in charge? When an injured worker goes to court and his or her lawyer fronts the expenses for the case there is a lot of hand wringing because companies don't want to be sued by lawyers they want immunity. They want to go back to the days when workers could be poisoned or maimed without consequences. We are almost there. So this "tech" billionaire now wants to be able to trash other people's lives with immunity BUT he wants to stop anyone from reporting on HIM!
First, we need to do is change our mind set regarding these "casual" billionaires. Just because they wear jeans and t shirts to work doesn't make them nice guys. It doesn't make them democrats. They are the same as Andrew Carnegie . Their philanthropies have nothing to do with concern for the humans but rather their tax bill and their "reputation"!
Second, insist that they pay their taxes. No more off shore, no more phony companies. No tax breaks that serve both their bottom line and their egos.
We then move on to lobbyists and corrupt pay offs.
One thing we shouldn't do is punish the worker who gets hurt by installing a blanket rule against third party funding of law suits.
Aren't people tired of the way money is in charge? When an injured worker goes to court and his or her lawyer fronts the expenses for the case there is a lot of hand wringing because companies don't want to be sued by lawyers they want immunity. They want to go back to the days when workers could be poisoned or maimed without consequences. We are almost there. So this "tech" billionaire now wants to be able to trash other people's lives with immunity BUT he wants to stop anyone from reporting on HIM!
First, we need to do is change our mind set regarding these "casual" billionaires. Just because they wear jeans and t shirts to work doesn't make them nice guys. It doesn't make them democrats. They are the same as Andrew Carnegie . Their philanthropies have nothing to do with concern for the humans but rather their tax bill and their "reputation"!
Second, insist that they pay their taxes. No more off shore, no more phony companies. No tax breaks that serve both their bottom line and their egos.
We then move on to lobbyists and corrupt pay offs.
One thing we shouldn't do is punish the worker who gets hurt by installing a blanket rule against third party funding of law suits.
5
The real problem with US litigation is its unreasonable expense and excessive delay.
2
While you can debate the merits of Mr. Thiel's intentions your thoughts at the end that giving government more money will solve all the problems in country is sorely mistaken. The political class is just as self serving as the wealthy class. The political class just distributs the dollars they tax from all citizens to people who will make campaign contributions to their reelection.
Personally, I don't see a way where Mr. Zuckerberg, through his foundation, isn't able to give the country a better set of outcomes than giving the politicians of State of California more money to waste on trains to nowhere and handouts to connect doners.
Personally, I don't see a way where Mr. Zuckerberg, through his foundation, isn't able to give the country a better set of outcomes than giving the politicians of State of California more money to waste on trains to nowhere and handouts to connect doners.
2
My. Theil presents a clear example of why we should tax capital gains, carried interest and dividends as ordinary income.
3
Why should it matter who funded the lawsuit or what their motives were? A jury of citizens (Gawker's peers), not a government, decided Gawker was wrong. And the case reached a jury because, even in a country with the most robust protections for the press in history, the jury found Gawker was wrong.
Is the argument that the press should be able to count on the fact that certain targets cannot fund litigation? That seems dubious.
Is the argument that motives in funding the litigation should matter? But either the underlying litigation being funded has merit or it does not. Again, why should the funding mechanism matter?
Is the argument that the press should be able to count on the fact that certain targets cannot fund litigation? That seems dubious.
Is the argument that motives in funding the litigation should matter? But either the underlying litigation being funded has merit or it does not. Again, why should the funding mechanism matter?
3
Perhaps lurking beneath the surface is the fundamental moral decay within individuals bleeding into society. History abound in examples: Roman emperor Nero of old arching over time to Chiang Kai-shek of the recent past, to name just two. It is worrisome youths today have connections to history and geography based on google/wiki with little learned through human interaction. Seldom can memory retrieve the knowledge of the "when" and the "where" of our selves without human threads to help weave a strong moral center to withstand the onslaught of greed and power.
"What can't tech-money buy" is a very simple question to answer: It cannot purchase, empathy, sympathy, patience, compassion or love for ones fellow humans [or pets]. Money-by tech or any other method cannot buy humanity.
Everyone in this particular instance is a puppet and plaything to Thiel's narcissism--Hogan, Gawker, the other suits that he is backing against Gawker. Thiel sits in a weird venn diagram overlap of oligarchy, fascism, and libertarianism. In addition to this, he is narcissistic, selfish, greedy, misogynistic--to the point of declaring that women gaining the vote should never have happened. He is a man without empathy, working in an industry that blithely and willingly looks away from the socioeconomic damage it does in California and the world. He is a delegate for a man who matches his narcissism, greed, and misogyny--with a healthy dash of xenophobia. Thiel is not a man that possesses empathy or the ability to consider any well-being beyond his own.
1
I find this article much ado about nothing really and an overblown imagined conspiracy of the tech wealthy. Gawker is a parasitic entity representing the most base and vulgar aspects of human behavior. Like a peeping Tom in the window they gleefully exposed the personal life of Peter Thiel. Well they apparently messed with the wrong person and it's payback time. Welcome to the real world Gawker, what goes around comes around eventually.
2
Yay & nay, Susie.
Which is this jerk's fun to semi concur with essayist's attitude, but simultaneously knock at it a bit.
BTW: The revenge of nerds is a smuggish way to describe the Silicon Puter Industry Meisters' gaining of $, power & influence.
Perhaps the genius had been bullied not that long ago in regular schooling, as normative cliche phenomena happen.
Eccentricity, wealth, and non-conformity do not surprise an envious wannabe me.
Because, hey, who doesn't want fame & fortune, plus to spit into villainous eyes.
For instance: The alleged not sweet woman whom inherited the real estate fortune, was allegedly vengeful in her will to kin while extravagantly generous to her dog also apparently was highly charitable, but the very redeeming part is not what made tabloid news.
Which is this jerk's fun to semi concur with essayist's attitude, but simultaneously knock at it a bit.
BTW: The revenge of nerds is a smuggish way to describe the Silicon Puter Industry Meisters' gaining of $, power & influence.
Perhaps the genius had been bullied not that long ago in regular schooling, as normative cliche phenomena happen.
Eccentricity, wealth, and non-conformity do not surprise an envious wannabe me.
Because, hey, who doesn't want fame & fortune, plus to spit into villainous eyes.
For instance: The alleged not sweet woman whom inherited the real estate fortune, was allegedly vengeful in her will to kin while extravagantly generous to her dog also apparently was highly charitable, but the very redeeming part is not what made tabloid news.
Sorry, but Thiel identified folks who had been harmed by Gawker AND the courts agreed. The courts have an obligation to address the legal issues, and if there weren't any, the cases would have been dismissed. Most of the epople in question hadn't the financial werewithal to challenge gawker. Now they do. Considering that Gawker has been a major contributor to the demise of decent journalism, and its perpetrators will be outrageously wealthy no matter what, I will cry no tears.
2
Yes, politicians and government bureaucrats should dispense the money because they are much more altruistic than people who made fortunes in the technology industry.
Government officials should disperse the money because they are representatives of us.
1
Watching this three-way race to Mars is a farce.
As noted, public goods provision (schools, roads, fire services etc) occurs through the elected government...but when 1% uses their vast wealth to provide these services through 'philantrophy', they biased the provision of these services based on their own values (maybe, schools must teach certain history courses their way) and own agenda ("looking good")...only solution is to tax them at max and ban the setting up of these 'charitable' organizations.
2
Reading this piece, one would think Thiel spent $10 Million on baseless attack ads directed against Gawker. Let's not forget that he funded a legal challenge -- one that proved Gawker engaged in an illegal invasion of privacy.
Regardless of Thiel's motivations, his funding allowed justice to be done. I say that's a good thing.
Regardless of Thiel's motivations, his funding allowed justice to be done. I say that's a good thing.
1
It is very dangerous to allow individuals to control this much wealth. I of course believe in capitalism but it needs to have limits and individuals should not be able to earn and keep hundreds of billions of dollars. Today we are fortunate that our multi-billionaires either choose to do good things with their money (like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) or others who just hoard it in off shore accounts for themselves, or individuals like Mr. Thiel who use it to launch petty grudges against a website (not that I feel sorry for Gawker), but what happens when a day comes when a bad person who wants to do bad things with their billions? (Osama Bin Laden is a good example of a bad person who was able to change the world with his limitless funds.)
We should look at Bernie Sanders ideas of democratic socialism, to not only lift up the lower classes, but put limits on those earning obscene amounts of money.
We should look at Bernie Sanders ideas of democratic socialism, to not only lift up the lower classes, but put limits on those earning obscene amounts of money.
5
So exactly what is it here that tech money can't buy? Justice, common sense, the future? Thinking about the deaths within the tech community over recent years, it sure as hell isn't health.
I don't think Ms. C needs to choose between philanthropy and tax rates when you can press the "both" key.
The low tax rate for the 1% quit possibly is following the template of the French Revolution noting Mme Antoiette's era didn't provide many trickle down job opportunities. But those who forget history etc, etc.
I don't think Ms. C needs to choose between philanthropy and tax rates when you can press the "both" key.
The low tax rate for the 1% quit possibly is following the template of the French Revolution noting Mme Antoiette's era didn't provide many trickle down job opportunities. But those who forget history etc, etc.
3
Excellent closing paragraph. We need a successful political campaign to build on that.
4
The number of underfunded Government functions is appaling, mostly based on (false) ideas propagated by the .01% selected republican legislatures and congress. Infrastructure, Public Health, (The President can't even get money for a realistic approach to the Zika Virus), the TSA (One Billion dollars diverted from passenger fees to "Paying Down the National Debt"); The list just goes on and on.
Not to mention trivial issues like our grossly underfunded system of Public Defenders, if you want to talk about "Legal" problems.
The negative impacts of Wealth Disparity are here.
Not to mention trivial issues like our grossly underfunded system of Public Defenders, if you want to talk about "Legal" problems.
The negative impacts of Wealth Disparity are here.
2
I rather find the Gates & Buffet choices of philanthropies superior to those of our paid off congress. The real villians are those without responsibility such as Larry Ellison or Steve Jobs or actively opposing the public good such as Adel
son or the Koch brothers who use the leverage of their wealth to to divert our taxes to unjust causes.
son or the Koch brothers who use the leverage of their wealth to to divert our taxes to unjust causes.
"Wealth gleaned by way of tax dodges and monopolistic business practices is wealth stolen from the public, even when it is returned in the form of supposed gifts".What nonsense.Wealth needs to be created before it can be distributed.We lead the world in innovation because we remain the only country on earth where knowhow,risk taking and funding can come together without hinderance to move the world forward.We can disagree about the incentives in place that make such innovation possible but no one is "stealing" from the public since almost half the public pays no taxes and for the rest,it is the dollars spent by these innovators and their enterprises that create employment opportunities which in turn create taxpayers.
1
For many superwealthy, the path to riches is by concentrating on their own wealth, instead of how society should function.
For many libertarians, the path to enlightenment is to concentrate on their own rights and not those of others.
Some exist in the intersection of those two spaces.
For many libertarians, the path to enlightenment is to concentrate on their own rights and not those of others.
Some exist in the intersection of those two spaces.
1
Ms. Cagle really misses the point. Why are legal services out of reach financially for most people in this country, so that the ability to finance a lawsuit becomes a prerogative of the rich? Why is defending a suit so expensive that the mere cost of defending, even if the defense ultimately wins, can sink a business that is sued? Lawsuits wouldn't depend on the whims of billionaires if that were not the case, nor would businesses that did nothing to contravene the law be threatened with expensive litigation. But they do and they are, precisely because we have a system in which people can only get legal redress for an injury if they have lots of money to pay for it (or can get someone else to do so), and businesses fear litigation not because they've done anything wrong, but because the cost of defending is prohibitive for many. In other words, our legal system stinks. It is designed exclusively for the benefit of those who operate it, not for the people it is supposed to serve.
1
Prof. Cagle mentions tax avoidance multiple times without explicitly pointing the finger at the real culprits, Congress and, by extension, the voters who continue to elect them. The fact is that our supposed representatives in Washington DC are the ones who allow the modern industrialists to avoid taxes that the rest of us have to pay and maintain self-serving campaign finance laws that are the true scandals. Everyone takes advantage of all of the exemptions, tax deductions and credits that they can (or at least that they are aware of) and it is disingenuous to blame tech entrepreneurs for employing legal tactics to reduce their tax bill. Blaming Mr. Thiel, or any other executive gives a pass to our own legislators who continue to try to slash taxes for the wealth, reducing revenues and sapping agencies of desperately needed resources (e.g., the IRS), and then criticizing those same agencies for their inability to do their job. If Mr. Thiel has not broken any laws, then it is the laws that are the problem.
3
So, successful private individuals like Peter Thiel use their own money to influence society and laws.
Politicians use money that they solicit from others (mostly very wealthy people) to influence society and laws.
So the only difference is that politicians have to prostitute themselves, and the private "philanthropists" don't.
I think I'll take the non-prostitutes influence.
Politicians use money that they solicit from others (mostly very wealthy people) to influence society and laws.
So the only difference is that politicians have to prostitute themselves, and the private "philanthropists" don't.
I think I'll take the non-prostitutes influence.
In general, one can only praise and applaud the big gifts to charity of the nouveaux riches. But behind this benevolent facade are indeed such questions as political interests, self-aggrandizement, and the efficiency of the charitable enterprise.
Without denying the importance of charities, one might remember that "God helps those who help themselves". At its basic and stripped of all higher goals, charity should not become a redistribution of wealth among those who do not know how to benefit from it.
Without denying the importance of charities, one might remember that "God helps those who help themselves". At its basic and stripped of all higher goals, charity should not become a redistribution of wealth among those who do not know how to benefit from it.
How rich does one have to get to be Too Rich to Fail? Or more accurately too rich for the rest of us to succeed? Probably when it is impossible to compete in the "free market" because the rich can simply buy you out (or worse), and when they are more powerful than any government - some are already more powerful than many individual states. Using ALEC companies tag-team to impose their will through state legislatures. Do we wait until they are so rich to completely take over the federal government? The world?
There is a problem when too much wealth is redistributed from the 99.9% to the 0.1% such that it is against the 99.9%'s interests. Classic pyramid scheme - there is always a point at which it becomes unsustainable. Not even tech money buy it's wealthy out of that.
There is a problem when too much wealth is redistributed from the 99.9% to the 0.1% such that it is against the 99.9%'s interests. Classic pyramid scheme - there is always a point at which it becomes unsustainable. Not even tech money buy it's wealthy out of that.
1
Capital has become the new King George the III and shareholders, business owners, managers and executives have become His Majesty’s ministers. There is a kind of native American aristocracy just as the one before the American Revolution due to a differentiation of social class. As it was raised, the superstructure exhibited palpable inequality. See R.R. Palmer: The Age of the Democratic Revolution, 1974, P.194. The new aristocracy possesses not only socio-economic class superiority that demand “descent respect for ranks and dignities of men; for honor and obedience from subjects to their princes, inferiors to superiors, from children to parents, and servants to masters (now called masters of universe)” but also political class superiority that both the colonial aristocracy and capitalist aristocracy share, namely owing close association with government.”
Because the King, ministers and the new aristocracy form themselves into the Trinity of Reign, people’s sovereignty has completely crumbled to the dust.
Mr. Thiel's angst is a common knowledge and that’s why the Trinity pours out its full strength to repress any shred of sign of disturbance along the political line of anti-establishment such as Bernie Sanders’ call for political revolution and Donald Trump’ call for making America great again. There is a fourth way out of the crisis, i.e. a new democratic revolution. its main thrust is to expel capital from politics. Leave politics to people and capital to merchants.
Because the King, ministers and the new aristocracy form themselves into the Trinity of Reign, people’s sovereignty has completely crumbled to the dust.
Mr. Thiel's angst is a common knowledge and that’s why the Trinity pours out its full strength to repress any shred of sign of disturbance along the political line of anti-establishment such as Bernie Sanders’ call for political revolution and Donald Trump’ call for making America great again. There is a fourth way out of the crisis, i.e. a new democratic revolution. its main thrust is to expel capital from politics. Leave politics to people and capital to merchants.
"Perhaps it is time to adopt a Gospel of Government". Very true.
But many of the super rich profess Government to be the problem even though because of the Government proving the environment and the infrastructure they have made their wealth.
Philanthropy is okay if it is directed towards the real need. But what is more effective is a progressive taxation and a much higher tax rate than we have currently for the super rich to take care of the crumbling infrastructure of our society and many other needs.
But many of the super rich profess Government to be the problem even though because of the Government proving the environment and the infrastructure they have made their wealth.
Philanthropy is okay if it is directed towards the real need. But what is more effective is a progressive taxation and a much higher tax rate than we have currently for the super rich to take care of the crumbling infrastructure of our society and many other needs.
3
if lawsuits have become too expensive for a reasonably agrevied person of limited means to find a judicial outlet, then the system needs to be reformed and let Mr Thiel fund that effort. Pouring more money into uthe system will only inflate the cost of justice thereby disenfranchised more people of placing them at the whim if the wealthy.
1
The US really is clueless about things like the Taliban's ombudsman-based legal system that is more respected in Afghanistan than the government's creaky courts.
Tech executives are no different than Wall St executives. They are just as driven to exploit their power, extend the power of their companies, and amass wealth for themselves. The only difference is that they're in t-shirt and sneakers instead of suits.
1
Look, I think Thiel is a bully and a jerk (like most Sili Valley "entrepreneurs" and VCs--and believe me, I've worked with plenty of them).
But still, this line makes no sense: "They are under a presumptive mandate to improve society according to their own values"
As opposed to what, exactly? Improving society according to values they don't hold?
That's ridiculous. Philanthropy is always, every time, about "improving society according to your own values". Love opera? Give to the Met (and please do). Value early education? Fund that. And so on.
But on no planet, anywhere, at any time, has it made an iota of sense to "improve society according to values I don't hold." Gee, under that pretext, if I worry about gun violence I need to be funding the NRA.
Please.
But still, this line makes no sense: "They are under a presumptive mandate to improve society according to their own values"
As opposed to what, exactly? Improving society according to values they don't hold?
That's ridiculous. Philanthropy is always, every time, about "improving society according to your own values". Love opera? Give to the Met (and please do). Value early education? Fund that. And so on.
But on no planet, anywhere, at any time, has it made an iota of sense to "improve society according to values I don't hold." Gee, under that pretext, if I worry about gun violence I need to be funding the NRA.
Please.
1
Its really simple - Peter Thiel has power and Susie Cagel has little.
She wants his power.
She couches it in moralistic terms, but it is simply that she is unhappy with the balance of power. Somehow, we are to believe if the current order is topped and power given to the government, those in power would be kindler and gentler than Thiel.
But of course this is New Age fantasy. People have always and will always be the same.
There will always be a Peter Thiel. As soon as you push him aside there will be another version.
BTW I love what Thiel did. Gawker got what it deserved. Media such as Gawker are a much more malign influence on our society than Thiel.
She wants his power.
She couches it in moralistic terms, but it is simply that she is unhappy with the balance of power. Somehow, we are to believe if the current order is topped and power given to the government, those in power would be kindler and gentler than Thiel.
But of course this is New Age fantasy. People have always and will always be the same.
There will always be a Peter Thiel. As soon as you push him aside there will be another version.
BTW I love what Thiel did. Gawker got what it deserved. Media such as Gawker are a much more malign influence on our society than Thiel.
This strikes me as a very biased piece, even for an op-ed.
Of course Peter Thiel would be rather unhappy to have his sexual orientation revealed without his consent.
And recently when some nude pictures of female celebrities were made freely available, there was an appropriate hue and cry opposing this blatant violation of privacy. But now there is a completely inconsistent reaction to a celebrity's having had a sex tape made of him without his consent that is similarly made publicly available. Of course, anyone with a grain of compassion in their soul would support that celebrity. Believe it or not, even male celebrities are human. And it is only natural that a rich person who has been wronged by Gawker in the past would step up and support that celebrity's lawsuit financially.
Of course Peter Thiel would be rather unhappy to have his sexual orientation revealed without his consent.
And recently when some nude pictures of female celebrities were made freely available, there was an appropriate hue and cry opposing this blatant violation of privacy. But now there is a completely inconsistent reaction to a celebrity's having had a sex tape made of him without his consent that is similarly made publicly available. Of course, anyone with a grain of compassion in their soul would support that celebrity. Believe it or not, even male celebrities are human. And it is only natural that a rich person who has been wronged by Gawker in the past would step up and support that celebrity's lawsuit financially.
Tech money is no different from any other money. The only situational difference is that the workers for the Rockefellers, Morgans, Duponts, Carnegies, Harrimans, and their ilk were under no illusion that, as workers, they were anything other than commodities. Tech workers, on the other hand, often seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid.
One other difference: the old plutocrats had to build things up over time; they were not I.P.O. millionaires. As such, though they certainly used their wealth as they saw fit, unlike the current crop of tech plutocrats they did not seem to believe their wisdom and moral virtue were proportionate to their wealth.
One other difference: the old plutocrats had to build things up over time; they were not I.P.O. millionaires. As such, though they certainly used their wealth as they saw fit, unlike the current crop of tech plutocrats they did not seem to believe their wisdom and moral virtue were proportionate to their wealth.
3
The author: a fellow based at Stanford. How ironic that she would voice concerns related to rising inequality, given the very role her OWN institution (and other elite universities - e.g. the Ivy Leagues) play in contributing to that inequality. (BTW, they all price their undergraduate tuitions in the same range - ~$45K/yr when accounting for quarterly or semester tuition rates - ?price collusion or price signalling in the marketplace).
Those of us with college-age children have to work in a highly profitable profession or industry just to pay these prices!
Ms. Cagler: you may want change but have little or no credibility if you do this from a perch at an institution that is contributing to the problem. What could you do personally to lead by example? How about working at an institution (say California State) - that is committed to making student costs affordable? How could you ensure that your work is published only in Open Access journals, or otherwise ensure that it is freely available (e.g. not behind a pay wall?
Ditto these concerns for others (Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz) - all of whom I personally agree with in many aspects - but ultimately lose their credibility as they preach from their cozy perch, and benefit from their association with elite, EXPENSIVE, universities.
I do wonder whether real change is possible if you are not willing to lead by example - living change as opposed to preaching it.
Those of us with college-age children have to work in a highly profitable profession or industry just to pay these prices!
Ms. Cagler: you may want change but have little or no credibility if you do this from a perch at an institution that is contributing to the problem. What could you do personally to lead by example? How about working at an institution (say California State) - that is committed to making student costs affordable? How could you ensure that your work is published only in Open Access journals, or otherwise ensure that it is freely available (e.g. not behind a pay wall?
Ditto these concerns for others (Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz) - all of whom I personally agree with in many aspects - but ultimately lose their credibility as they preach from their cozy perch, and benefit from their association with elite, EXPENSIVE, universities.
I do wonder whether real change is possible if you are not willing to lead by example - living change as opposed to preaching it.
1
On the subject of financing the lawsuit against Gawker, and on this subject alone, I wholeheartedly applaud Mr. Thiel. To me its leveling the legal playing field, as he mentioned.
Anyone of ordinary means who has got involved in a legal battle with a deep pocketed company (Gawker) or individual, knows that he with the deep pockets usually prevails, even if dead wrong in the legalities and, often, even if he (it) actually loses the case.
Lawyers cost money. A lot of money in many instances. The number of appeals, hearings, depositions, requests for documents that a deep pocketed company can throw up as a delaying tactic or simply a tactic to exhaust the pocketbook of the opponent is inexhaustible. And if the final verdict is against the company, they can simply ignore it, which will force the plaintiff to spend even more money to get it enforced.
This can take years! And this well known tactic will often have the "winning" plaintiff throwing in the towel because he/she has been ruined. Even with reimbursement at the end, years later, the damage has been done and ruination is at hand.
So, leveling the financial playing field the legal battle is contested on makes good sense. Alas, I've known many people who have been legally wronged who submitted to the company tossing them a bone because they knew they could not outlast them and prevail in a drawn out aw suit.
As with almost everything these days, money is the god that sits atop Olympus in the legal world.
Anyone of ordinary means who has got involved in a legal battle with a deep pocketed company (Gawker) or individual, knows that he with the deep pockets usually prevails, even if dead wrong in the legalities and, often, even if he (it) actually loses the case.
Lawyers cost money. A lot of money in many instances. The number of appeals, hearings, depositions, requests for documents that a deep pocketed company can throw up as a delaying tactic or simply a tactic to exhaust the pocketbook of the opponent is inexhaustible. And if the final verdict is against the company, they can simply ignore it, which will force the plaintiff to spend even more money to get it enforced.
This can take years! And this well known tactic will often have the "winning" plaintiff throwing in the towel because he/she has been ruined. Even with reimbursement at the end, years later, the damage has been done and ruination is at hand.
So, leveling the financial playing field the legal battle is contested on makes good sense. Alas, I've known many people who have been legally wronged who submitted to the company tossing them a bone because they knew they could not outlast them and prevail in a drawn out aw suit.
As with almost everything these days, money is the god that sits atop Olympus in the legal world.
At its simplest, we create forms of government to enable us to do collectively what we cannot do individually, such as ensuring good roads, education, medical care, or security. We do this by having everyone contribute according to their means to get these things done.
When the very wealthy choose to opt out of this system, they inflict great harm on society. They undermine the notion that government has a legitimate role and heavy responsibility for ensuring that everyone has access to satisfactory shared utilities and services. The wealthy become completely disconnected from the world the rest of us live in. The wealthy don't see basic problems because they never have to confront them. And since the wealthy have great influence, the priorities of our elected officials become distorted in favor of meeting the expectations of the wealthy, not the rest of us. So we end up seeing our tax dollars going into selective projects and public policies that serve the interests of the wealthy without necessarily making our lives better.
We end up with ineffective government, misguided policies, deterioration in living standards, and a disaffected electorate. In other words, exactly what we are seeing in this year's election cycle. The philanthropic projects of the wealthy are no substitute for paying their full share in funding good government and making sure government uses those resources wisely.
When the very wealthy choose to opt out of this system, they inflict great harm on society. They undermine the notion that government has a legitimate role and heavy responsibility for ensuring that everyone has access to satisfactory shared utilities and services. The wealthy become completely disconnected from the world the rest of us live in. The wealthy don't see basic problems because they never have to confront them. And since the wealthy have great influence, the priorities of our elected officials become distorted in favor of meeting the expectations of the wealthy, not the rest of us. So we end up seeing our tax dollars going into selective projects and public policies that serve the interests of the wealthy without necessarily making our lives better.
We end up with ineffective government, misguided policies, deterioration in living standards, and a disaffected electorate. In other words, exactly what we are seeing in this year's election cycle. The philanthropic projects of the wealthy are no substitute for paying their full share in funding good government and making sure government uses those resources wisely.
2
One of the premises of our federal tax system is that each of us should be able to use our own otherwise taxable assets to support a charitable institution whose objectives we share. That doesn't necessarily lead to a better result for society. It might be better if the donor had spent her money on cancer research than on music or art. But instead, what is a "better" use of her money is determined by the donor, not government.
President Reagan tried to eliminate the charitable deduction as part of his tax simplification plan. It didn't happen because the charitable gift industry protected its turf. It won't happen again for the same reason. Instead, under President Obama, the gift and estate tax exemption has ballooned to over $5 million ($10 million for a married couple) and Republican orthodoxy remains committed to the objective of eliminating estate taxes while protecting the deductibility of lifetime charitable gifts.
President Reagan tried to eliminate the charitable deduction as part of his tax simplification plan. It didn't happen because the charitable gift industry protected its turf. It won't happen again for the same reason. Instead, under President Obama, the gift and estate tax exemption has ballooned to over $5 million ($10 million for a married couple) and Republican orthodoxy remains committed to the objective of eliminating estate taxes while protecting the deductibility of lifetime charitable gifts.
Spot on. The primary reason the US and the rest of the world around us are in such financial straights is because generations of feckless politicians, starting with Saint Reagan, has showered the rich with unfunded tax cuts. Now the 1% are using their newly minted wealth to undermine our democracies at every turn. From hiding their wealth in tax havens (overseas and Stateside) to Thiel's clandestine attack on the 1st amendment and a free press. He and his fellow titans should remember that in most revolutions the aristocracy lose their heads. Perhaps a better investment would be to simply pay their fair share of taxes and thus help create a more equitable—and stable—society.
2
As to the funding of a lawsuit by Mr. Thiel, keep in mind two salient facts: 1) there is an actual industry where investors are solicited to put money into the financing of lawsuits with the goal of winning the suits and receiving a return on their money; this is purely an investment and the investors have no other direct stake in the litigation parties or their controversy; and 2) every day the taxpayers of America have their tax money allocated by the government to numerous legal aid clinics, foundations and non-profits for the purpose of funding class action and other lawsuits against other governmental units and businesses. So, really big money is already out there in force funding the lawsuits of others and in many cases doing it for a share of any winnings. Mr. Thiel's assistance to someone similarly aggrieved by actions of a third party are nothing unique in any respect, and if anything are quite altruistic relative to other situations of third-party funding. The fact of his involvement in "tech" is actually not a meaningful point in the analysis of his actions.
Philanthropy is actually untaxed excessive disposable income. Philanthropy is not a natural construct, like weather; rather it is a social construct whereby human created laws allow gross financial and power inequality among people. Philanthropy sustains and expands the power of wealthy people by allowing them to impose their will on the rest of us. Although the article seems to praise donating money to schools as a "good deed," many public school consumers object to the philanthropy of Gates, Broad, Zuckerberg, etc. who do not send their children to the public schools that are affected by their philanthropy's corporatization, privatization, and testing policies and practices paid for by these philanthropists. They choose schools that are free from the policies their money imposes on others. The Robin Hood Foundation is the most ironic of such organizations. Lauded as the biggest poverty eradication in the nation, it is funded by people, many of whom support and enact economic practices that pay low wages to people, keeping them poor and who use tax loopholes and unfair tax laws to accumulate wealth! none of these people could have made their money without the cooperation of the public. Tax that money so that public will determines how it is spent, not a few private individuals.
3
Just read the article on tech companies trying to weaken privacy laws for their own gain. So Peter Thiel and his ilk are entitled to their privacy, but the rest of us are not, because that would hurt tech companies' ability to earn the money that allows them to sue on behalf of their own privacy...
Why should anyone believe -- even for a moment -- that "tech" is altruistic? Business is business. Worse, Valley boys (CEOs) believe that they are smarter than everyone else and are above the law and ordinary business ethics. This is a dangerous streak of lawlessness.
17
I was surprised to learn today that money is what gets one a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. DT bought his own reality tv show then bought a star for producing and starring in it and his money is paying to clean up he feces left on the star since he decided to try to buy the American Presidency. He calls Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton corrupt? Please. Such a big ego for a tiny man to try to feed.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-a-star-is-scorned-223661
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-a-star-is-scorned-223661
15
If the best things in life are free, how can anyone make a living off of them?
I heard a very interesting program on NPR about people in positions of leadership/power. They often achieve their status because of empathy, but soon after gaining the position loose the ability to listen. This is so clearly demonstrated by these super rich elitist, who feel they know what is best for the rest of us. Do they even realize we still live in what is left of a democracy?
35
No, they do not Michele. They have no social conscience and no allegiance to anything but money.
13
What is left of our democracy is very, very little. The super wealthy are well aware of that and it suits them just fine. I don't hear either of the presumptive presidential candidates talking about returning to 90% marginal income tax rates, or extending income tax rates to include all sources of income.
1
I disagree; though there are some exceptions, I think most people who achieve that level of success were always too self-centered to have any empathy. Just think of the history behind the establishment of Facebook, if the movie is correct.
A "Gospel of Government"? To he led by even more corrupt do-nothing individuals for their own gain? I don't think so.
10
Government is originally the product of good people recognizing that the bad will drive out the good when there are no enforced minimum standards of conduct.
1
Andrew --- I feel your contempt for government and share it to some extent, and am aware that government at all levels is to some extent deserving of that contempt.
That said, do you really think that the super wealthy (i.e, Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Walton family, and many others) are motivated by humanitarian concern for your welfare or for anybody's welfare, or any less corrupt?
I didn't think so.
At least government pretends to and sometimes actually does work for the benefit of everyone.
That said, do you really think that the super wealthy (i.e, Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Walton family, and many others) are motivated by humanitarian concern for your welfare or for anybody's welfare, or any less corrupt?
I didn't think so.
At least government pretends to and sometimes actually does work for the benefit of everyone.
Yeah, don't hold your breath for any change.
1
In a word, Class.
5
I adore the way that a staunch, loud libertarian ran to the legal system and the government to get what he wanted.
Honestly, the speed amazes. Sonic booms ain't in it; I think he left Rush Limbaugh's running to the ACLU for help when he got busted as an oxycontin junky behaind by a country mile.
Honestly, the speed amazes. Sonic booms ain't in it; I think he left Rush Limbaugh's running to the ACLU for help when he got busted as an oxycontin junky behaind by a country mile.
35
Mr Thiel is correct to fear the result of the wealth gap, and there is indeed a fourth way out: minimize the wealth gap.
64
People are talking as if Mr. Thiel's $10 million was used to buy the jury / judge. It simply went to lawyers that would help a victim to see justice against a larger organization and more powerful victimizer. This to me, sounds like a fantastic way to make lawsuits more fair.
Lawsuits are very expensive and unless a lawsuit can be on contingency and there is a great deal of money at stake, most people who are victims of corporate America or a financially wealthier victimizer can't possibly "get their day in court."
In summary, Gawker lost, not because Mr. Thiel's money purchased the judge / jury but rather because they were wrong and the judge / jury ruled against them when the case was fairly presented in court.
There are so many people in this country who are harmed by much more powerful foes. I don't understand anyone who would object to financially helping victims to go after far wealthier victimizers.
Lawsuits are very expensive and unless a lawsuit can be on contingency and there is a great deal of money at stake, most people who are victims of corporate America or a financially wealthier victimizer can't possibly "get their day in court."
In summary, Gawker lost, not because Mr. Thiel's money purchased the judge / jury but rather because they were wrong and the judge / jury ruled against them when the case was fairly presented in court.
There are so many people in this country who are harmed by much more powerful foes. I don't understand anyone who would object to financially helping victims to go after far wealthier victimizers.
50
I think within the context of this editorial, the merits of the case are less important than the ability of the wealthy to bankroll court cases in which they have an interest in the outcome, whether is it a vendetta against Gawker, or a frivolous case rising to the level of the Supreme Court.
1
David, he may not have bought the judge, but paying for the best most expensive lawyers can help make sure the outcome comes out in your favor. That is why rich people are able to buy their way out of trouble and why poor people often plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit because they cannot afford to hire a lawyer to fight back.
I have no sympathy for Gawker, and perhaps the jury still would have found in the plaintiff's favor even if all the people who brought the lawsuits could afford were a 26-year-old fresh out of law school (doubtful, but possible), I think $10 million could be put to better use than using it for a petty vendetta. Perhaps Mr. Thiel could put $10 million in a fund to help people like Kalief Browder so they don't spend three years in jail for being accused of stealing a backpack.
I have no sympathy for Gawker, and perhaps the jury still would have found in the plaintiff's favor even if all the people who brought the lawsuits could afford were a 26-year-old fresh out of law school (doubtful, but possible), I think $10 million could be put to better use than using it for a petty vendetta. Perhaps Mr. Thiel could put $10 million in a fund to help people like Kalief Browder so they don't spend three years in jail for being accused of stealing a backpack.
1
I have no sympathy for Gawker. Since when did Hulk Hogan's sex tape become worthy of distribution? Gawker in this case was nothing more than a peeping Tom on steroids. The judgment against it was exactly what Gawker deserved regardless of who put up the money behind the case.
It seems to me Mr Thiel contributed to a good cause defending privacy from scurrilous muckrakers masquerading as journalists based on his his personal experience as a victim. Sure there are more important causes and we can hope billionaires will be as thoughtful as Gates and Buffet in their giving but I am not going to condemn them when another batch of billionaires Adelson, Scarfe et al fund further tax giveaways, deny climate change etc.
25
I don't know Peter Thiel and I find his support of Trump to be from another planet. But I don't understand the NYT vendetta against him and other rich techies. This is the third or fourth article I've read in which your writers accuse him of practically destroying the first amendment single handedly and specifically freedom of the press.
As I understand it Gawker published a sex video of Hulk Hogan and outed Mr. Thiel about seven years ago. If Gawker did that then they are no more journalists than the National Enquirer and deserve any legal abuse they receive. I don't see any threat to free press coming from Mr. Thiel and I think that the NYT writers are being absurd to suggest that there is one.
As I understand it Gawker published a sex video of Hulk Hogan and outed Mr. Thiel about seven years ago. If Gawker did that then they are no more journalists than the National Enquirer and deserve any legal abuse they receive. I don't see any threat to free press coming from Mr. Thiel and I think that the NYT writers are being absurd to suggest that there is one.
26
We know how to do this. We have done it before. In 1946 - 1973, we had low inequality & real economic growth. At the time, many believed this represented a maturation of capitalism and would continue. In his book, Piketty shows with mind numbing quantities of data that this was incorrect. Since 1973 and especially since 1981, capitalism has be reverting back to what it was before WWI. 1946 - 1973 was merely an aberration caused by the tremendous destruction of capital in two world wars.
This weakened the power of capitalists and allowed the expansion of government that previously had been impossible, for in previous centuries, the Rich used their money to get more power & then used their power to get more money & so on. We can see this vividly today.
Now obviously conditions were not perfect in post WWII, but we can look and see which policies led to more equal economic growth.
Persistent federal deficit spending. In spite of Keynes' call for austerity at the Treasury in the Boom, we had deficits 21 out of the 27 years and increased the already large war debt by 75%, & not only built the interstate highways, etc, but provided the necessary money to support a growing economy without increasing private debt by borrowing from banks.
Very high top income tax rates. This discouraged the Rich from taking obscene compensation & using the money to speculate.
Strong unions, e.g. no "right to work" laws which allow deadbeat workers to enjoy benefits without paying.
And so on.
This weakened the power of capitalists and allowed the expansion of government that previously had been impossible, for in previous centuries, the Rich used their money to get more power & then used their power to get more money & so on. We can see this vividly today.
Now obviously conditions were not perfect in post WWII, but we can look and see which policies led to more equal economic growth.
Persistent federal deficit spending. In spite of Keynes' call for austerity at the Treasury in the Boom, we had deficits 21 out of the 27 years and increased the already large war debt by 75%, & not only built the interstate highways, etc, but provided the necessary money to support a growing economy without increasing private debt by borrowing from banks.
Very high top income tax rates. This discouraged the Rich from taking obscene compensation & using the money to speculate.
Strong unions, e.g. no "right to work" laws which allow deadbeat workers to enjoy benefits without paying.
And so on.
20
Yes, Len, but unions that weren't already run by the mafia became corrupt along with BIG business and the governments they bought. The worker model that is developing in America is grassroots worker solidarity. Employee-owned companies, with no outside investors and where every employee shares responsibility and profit equitably, is another solution to "jobs". It is time for America to evolve into new business and financial models. Social capitalism where at least one-half the gross profits from any entity WE fund with our hard earned taxpayer-dollar funded government contracts - including the trillions of dollars we spend on medical, technical and other research and development - MUST come back into OUR government coffers to help support OUR social safety net and infrastructure. America will quickly get back to being an equitable, just, civil society.
6
njglea, sure some unions were corrupt, but to think all or even a majority are just shows you have swallowed the lies of the rich owners, hook line and sinker.
1
Ms. Cagle makes an excellent point when she tells us, in essence, that philanthropy is in the eye of the philanthropist. One of the Gates followers is the Wall Street mogul Pete Peterson. His "philanthropy" is devoted to educating us as to the evils of the national debt, and how it is, uh, crushing us and bringing us to the brink of ruin, doom and total catastrophe. Seems to me like he's simply preaching conservative dogma with a tax deduction — in other words, at the expense of the rest of us.
34
I would love for any of these companies pledge to renovate all roads including freeways of any large US metropolis city ( They can start at home with Los Angeles). You can call it the 'infrastructure foundation' . All charity is 100% tax free. Then you have my undivided attention. These ideas of 'when I am gone' just doesn't sit well with me.
If you do that dear philanthropist, you are my hero and idol . I promise I will even send you a postcard every year let you know how your donation has improved my life.
If you do that dear philanthropist, you are my hero and idol . I promise I will even send you a postcard every year let you know how your donation has improved my life.
16
So now liberals think that tech billionaires got rich with "stolen money?" The stupid burns.
6
Actually, what's kind of burny is to see a LIBERTARIAN taking advantage of government laws, regulations and tax breaks to get rich, then braying about how he had a perfect right to bankroll a legal attack that, yet again, relied on taxpayers' money, the legal system, and the government.
Howard Roark and John Galt never did nothing like that. Ayn Rand herself, of course, grabbed government bennies with both hands and a bushel basket.
Howard Roark and John Galt never did nothing like that. Ayn Rand herself, of course, grabbed government bennies with both hands and a bushel basket.
19
If they're not paying appropriate taxes, it is stolen money. Stolen from your pockets (that is, if you're paying your taxes).
14
Money is money. Tech money is no different than financial money. Spending millions to litigate a cause you believe in is not nesessarily bad. Many public interest lawsuits are very expensive, indeed many good causes are neglected because of inadequate funds.
5
"Four legs good, three legs better!" chants an obedient press, Pierre Omidyar is a saint, Peter Thiel is a sinner. I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Susie Cagle's conclusion -- that money is better spent on the masses by a government accountable to the masses than by all-knowing philanthropists who make decisions for us -- even while I think the press reaction to the news that Peter Thiel funded a lawsuit that might establish a limit to how much the press could dig dirt for dirt's sake is disingenuous and hypocritical to the core.
Article after article about quashing speech and using money and influence to dictate what the news will be. None have shown the slightest introspection that the press makes decisions like those made by Peter Thiel all the time, that it wields enormous power, even to the point of telling voters months before they vote who the winner of an election should be and going on constant tirades if they don't get their predicted results.
Now we in the public are supposed to all fall into line and regard it as an egregious violation of free speech if the press can't make or break whatever public figure it chooses by using mostly scandal mongering about their sex lives? And then sanctimoniously opining about the rights of everyone to the sex life of their choice, as long as they can put together an oppressed underclass to be part of?
The press and the VCs are equally hypocritical on this one.
Article after article about quashing speech and using money and influence to dictate what the news will be. None have shown the slightest introspection that the press makes decisions like those made by Peter Thiel all the time, that it wields enormous power, even to the point of telling voters months before they vote who the winner of an election should be and going on constant tirades if they don't get their predicted results.
Now we in the public are supposed to all fall into line and regard it as an egregious violation of free speech if the press can't make or break whatever public figure it chooses by using mostly scandal mongering about their sex lives? And then sanctimoniously opining about the rights of everyone to the sex life of their choice, as long as they can put together an oppressed underclass to be part of?
The press and the VCs are equally hypocritical on this one.
3
This article has so many misleading statements.
"Wealth gleaned by way of tax dodges and monopolistic business practices is wealth stolen from the public, even when it is returned in the form of supposed gifts." This is nonsense. It's not stolen from the public if it's given back, it's simply a dodge on the democratic allocation of these resources. If I were megawealthy, I might also choose to give directly rather than pay the cash in taxes and have a third of the sum allocated to the disastrous American military industrial complex and have however much of the rest doled out to special interests in the form of tax expenditure by a feckless Congress.
"Portraying a $10 million investment in crushing one’s enemy as a charitable act of justice that will make the world a better place is galling. But students of history can hardly be shocked." This is conclusory. And a have you read Gawker? It's not an affront to the principles of free speech to ask if there should be legal limits to the destruction large media organizations are allowed to wreak on individuals, even if they are famous. And the courts and juries seem to be agreeing with Mr. Thiel, by the way, to the tune of $140 million.
"Any philanthropy seems legitimate when it aligns with your own goals." What is the point here? That philanthropic giving is legitimate only to the extent it does *not* align with the giver's interests and values?
"Wealth gleaned by way of tax dodges and monopolistic business practices is wealth stolen from the public, even when it is returned in the form of supposed gifts." This is nonsense. It's not stolen from the public if it's given back, it's simply a dodge on the democratic allocation of these resources. If I were megawealthy, I might also choose to give directly rather than pay the cash in taxes and have a third of the sum allocated to the disastrous American military industrial complex and have however much of the rest doled out to special interests in the form of tax expenditure by a feckless Congress.
"Portraying a $10 million investment in crushing one’s enemy as a charitable act of justice that will make the world a better place is galling. But students of history can hardly be shocked." This is conclusory. And a have you read Gawker? It's not an affront to the principles of free speech to ask if there should be legal limits to the destruction large media organizations are allowed to wreak on individuals, even if they are famous. And the courts and juries seem to be agreeing with Mr. Thiel, by the way, to the tune of $140 million.
"Any philanthropy seems legitimate when it aligns with your own goals." What is the point here? That philanthropic giving is legitimate only to the extent it does *not* align with the giver's interests and values?
13
I thought that your interesting argument that this wasn't crookery, "it's only a dodge," really said it all about the logic of Thiel's position.
3
People who feel entitled to dodge taxes should also build their own national infrastructure systems and their own public utilities, and use them exclusively instead of adding to the strain on the infrastructure that the vast majority of tax payers use. You know, since tax dodgers are philanthropists who just practice a targeted giving system, as this comment suggested.
28
Sure, and I would love it if I could also tell the government not to put my taxes into the military. Billionaires are able to "dodge" taxes because our tax structure allows them to. I, too, would love to allocate my money differently, but I haven't been able to afford to buy myself some Congressional votes in favor of tax breaks for people who earn modest incomes. Funny how the system works. Or doesn't work, depending on which side of the fence you're standing on.
20
I do not understand how spending $10 million dollars so that a stranger (or strangers) can sue your enemy and hopefully bankrupt him is considered in our tax code.
Did Thiel make a "gift" of that money to those individuals (or their lawyers) so that he is paying gift tax on it?
Did Thiel make an "investment" and that $10 million is noted as an expenditure toward future income he will gain? Would Thiel's secret funding of lawsuits to bankrupt companies be considered an investment only if that company directly competed with the company owned by him? Or can he view the $10 million as a business expense because if he frightens all the media companies into never looking closely at his actions, he can make more money using unethical means he wouldn't dare use if someone actually reported it? Does that make it a "business expense"?
Or, is the $10 million a "charitable deduction" since he is doing what he obviously insists is "good work" that is only to further the public good and not because he gets any direct benefit from it? Are the taxpayers subsidizing that money?
I hope the reporting on this will continue.
Did Thiel make a "gift" of that money to those individuals (or their lawyers) so that he is paying gift tax on it?
Did Thiel make an "investment" and that $10 million is noted as an expenditure toward future income he will gain? Would Thiel's secret funding of lawsuits to bankrupt companies be considered an investment only if that company directly competed with the company owned by him? Or can he view the $10 million as a business expense because if he frightens all the media companies into never looking closely at his actions, he can make more money using unethical means he wouldn't dare use if someone actually reported it? Does that make it a "business expense"?
Or, is the $10 million a "charitable deduction" since he is doing what he obviously insists is "good work" that is only to further the public good and not because he gets any direct benefit from it? Are the taxpayers subsidizing that money?
I hope the reporting on this will continue.
36
I guess it's not surprising that journalists are rallying against what they see as a potential threat to them but Gawker is a bully that picked on the wrong kid, and I have no more sympathy for them than I would have for a schoolyard bully that got the snot beaten out of him. It would be nice to see at least one journalist report on some of the other people who have been hurt by Gawker's irresponsible gossip mongering.
11
To focus on the general sleaziness of Gawker is to miss the larger point here. And that is just what billionaires like Thiel want.
1
When you have the .01 percent deciding what the media should or should not be printing, and one of their own, Donald Trump, also threatening to de-fang the press by changing the Constitution so the elite can bankrupt unfavorable media outlets with libel lawsuits, then you are heading down the same road that Russia, Turkey, and other dictatorships have gone: the "benevolent" leaders and plutocrats decide what the rest of us should hear. Nothing good can come of this.
In this case, both the outing of the entitled billionaire Thiel and the published sex tape of Hulk Hogan, were not fabrications by Gawker, they were revealing the truth about public figures. If we go down the road where you can not reveal the truth about government, business or entertainment figures because it offends them, we no longer have freedom of the press or freedom of speech, we have a plutocracy. Before you know it, individual citizens will be destroyed financially for expressing their own opinions about the wealthy and powerful.
We can only hope that the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court will see the danger the lower court's decision presents. If Trump wins and gets to corrupt the Supreme Court, we are doomed.
In this case, both the outing of the entitled billionaire Thiel and the published sex tape of Hulk Hogan, were not fabrications by Gawker, they were revealing the truth about public figures. If we go down the road where you can not reveal the truth about government, business or entertainment figures because it offends them, we no longer have freedom of the press or freedom of speech, we have a plutocracy. Before you know it, individual citizens will be destroyed financially for expressing their own opinions about the wealthy and powerful.
We can only hope that the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court will see the danger the lower court's decision presents. If Trump wins and gets to corrupt the Supreme Court, we are doomed.
41
So, discussing the private sexual orientation of a businessperson and publishing the sex tape of a private person are public services, are they? How desperate ARE you? The court decision in question follows fairly straightforward precedent about privacy rights. I doubt that journalism will suffer. Now, Gawker is something else altogether.
Public figures, as you call it, also have private lives and they are entitled to that privacy.
Mark,
Publishing a sex tape of a celebrity is not exactly the righteous "revealing the truth about public figures" that you tout. Hulk Hogan had every right to sue Gawker and the jury apparently sided in his favor. If this ruling has a chilling effect on future sex tape publishing, we will all be just fine.
Publishing a sex tape of a celebrity is not exactly the righteous "revealing the truth about public figures" that you tout. Hulk Hogan had every right to sue Gawker and the jury apparently sided in his favor. If this ruling has a chilling effect on future sex tape publishing, we will all be just fine.
1
Tech money - no money - can buy OUR votes. They can try to influence our votes but, except in rare cases where votes are for sale, average people can change America with OUR votes. Mine go only to socially conscious democrats and independents who will rein in the tech industry - aka Wall Street and other "markets".
5
The tech industry is now wall Street?
TECH Cannot purchase good corporate citizenship. Neither, for that matter, can philanthropy of any stripe, historical or contemporary. Arguably part of what Tech did buy, was the gaming of the system toward the 1% and away from the 99%. Going back in history, the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie built many monuments to his ego, in the form of public libraries, which are grand and grandiose in some cases. But the local communities were obligated to pay part of the expenses. No free lunch there. The notion that Tech will have all the answers and bring us to a brave new world are, sadly, unfulfilled. The case of a woman who has a multi drug resistant bacterium causing a bladder infection, has a bug that was described as the beginning of the end in our fight against communicable disease. The priorities of modern philanthropy have, effectively limited R & D for the unglamorous and unprofitable diseases and drugs, and have, thereby, sacrificed Homeland Security. Finding new antibiotics and producing them is neither sexy nor profitable. But woe be unto us if we do not hasten toward that end. The 1917 flu epidemic, which killed many millions, is a harbinger of what could happen again if we do not arm ourselves against drug resistant bugs. But, alas, the GOP fervor for budget balancing has weakened Homeland Security in ways both large and small. Tech could, indeed buy solutions, such as Gates' work on malaria. Our Department of Defense must buy what Tech has not and won't.
2
It is understandable to journalists to jump to defend their own, just the police or physicians might do. In the case of Gawker, however, I hope that writers and other first amendment defenders recognize that it is not a legitimate member of the same profession, but a huckster willing to flout the profession's most basic principles.
2
How about the individual's right to privacy? If Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel should not expect the same privacy rights and protections as ordinary citizens because of their public status or wealth, why then should Gawker expect the same freedom of the press protections just because it masquerades as journalism?
Exposing a celebrity sex tape not meant for public consumption does not serve the public interest in any fashion, and it certainly doesn't qualify as speech.
I'll start caring about Gawker's freedom of speech when it starts respecting the individual right to privacy. Well done, Mr. Thiel.
Exposing a celebrity sex tape not meant for public consumption does not serve the public interest in any fashion, and it certainly doesn't qualify as speech.
I'll start caring about Gawker's freedom of speech when it starts respecting the individual right to privacy. Well done, Mr. Thiel.
10
Enjoyed the even keel of justice; philanthropists deciding on their own if and when to donate to causes of their choosing, whether pertinent or not in a 'sea of need', while tax-dodging now for future deeds. Some hypocrisy and opportunism is a clear perception in some if not all cases. And if political opportunism is added, it may be a heavy blow to our democratic process, especially if it maintains a status quo that allows increasing inequality if this capitalist system, and the inequities it engenders. There is at least a whiff of complacency and allowance for the rich to become richer, provided they allow some crumbs to fall from the table, feed the disgruntled...and prevent a revolution so justice prevails. Now, Thiel supporting Trump? How convenient.
4
This article reminds me of the lauding that Warren Buffett received for suggesting that he should pay higher taxes than his secretary, the so called Buffett Rule. However, the truth is that both he and Bershire aggressively strategize to minimize their tax bill at every opportunity. These multi-billionaires are anything but heroes regardless of the image that they seek to portray. We desperately need a new Teddy Roosevelt!
10
To answer your question: Me. Ethical programmers who work for the public good and have no respect for fortunes. Let them eat each other, it has no impact on anyone useful.
There may be a case for Ms. Cagle to make out there for her little cause but the Hulkster's lawsuit isn't one about which to complain.
There is not now, nor has there ever been any doubt that the Gawker entity willfully, wantonly and with nothing but greed and malice aforethought participated in the most disgusting invasion of the most private of activities and then exposed it to the world. Gawker got exactly what it deserved and who cares who the benefactor of justice was or what motivated him? Not me. Hit 'em again and again until the egg is good and scrambled. It's fun to see the porn press topple. Gawker's demise is no threat to the NYTimes.
There is not now, nor has there ever been any doubt that the Gawker entity willfully, wantonly and with nothing but greed and malice aforethought participated in the most disgusting invasion of the most private of activities and then exposed it to the world. Gawker got exactly what it deserved and who cares who the benefactor of justice was or what motivated him? Not me. Hit 'em again and again until the egg is good and scrambled. It's fun to see the porn press topple. Gawker's demise is no threat to the NYTimes.
7
What can't tech money buy? How about, what can't money buy? The tech qualifier is irrelevant. The answer is painfully obvious: Political and economic systems corrupted to enable the 0.1% to further enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
23
The the greater waste of public money, are the funds spent to clean up the mess made by Black Lives Matter after one of their tantrums.
5
Argumentum ad hominem. Look it up.
Introducing Thiel as a "presumptive Donald J. Trump delegate" is a red flag for underlying intentions. Subsequent hot-button terms like "robber baron" and "Gospel of Wealth" (in caps!) only deepen suspicions of the writer, not the subject.
Thiel can spend his money as he chooses, a privilege that extends even to the author of this piece. And pushing back against peddlers of sleaze who respect the privacy of none is a social good by any decent standard.
Introducing Thiel as a "presumptive Donald J. Trump delegate" is a red flag for underlying intentions. Subsequent hot-button terms like "robber baron" and "Gospel of Wealth" (in caps!) only deepen suspicions of the writer, not the subject.
Thiel can spend his money as he chooses, a privilege that extends even to the author of this piece. And pushing back against peddlers of sleaze who respect the privacy of none is a social good by any decent standard.
9
I don't see this as the wealthy behaving badly. An independent jury in a court of law concluded that Gawker broke the law: invasion of privacy and infringement of personal rights. This is true regardless of Peter Thiel's money. Gawker should be, and was punished to a degree that the jury deemed appropriate. This article and others like it are just sour grapes on the part of the journalism community.
Now - I do question why it requires 10 million dollars for an individual to fight a media company that has broken the law. What if a media company infringed on my rights and I don't have a wealthy backer to support me in court? What Peter Thiel has highlighted is that justice in America is a privilege only afforded to the wealthy.
Now - I do question why it requires 10 million dollars for an individual to fight a media company that has broken the law. What if a media company infringed on my rights and I don't have a wealthy backer to support me in court? What Peter Thiel has highlighted is that justice in America is a privilege only afforded to the wealthy.
13
I think you are missing some information here. Gawker's insurance company was prepared to settle with Hogan. However, Thiel's aim was not compensation for Hogan but to decimate Gawker - which is why he brought the case.
1
Wow. Spot on. My compliments to Ms. Cagle.
15
So is the suggestion that we make sure no one gets "too rich" to be give their wealth to, as you call it, "vague philanthropy"? Tax Bill Gates 99% of his wealth (what he has committed to "vague philanthropy") so the loonies in government can just give it back to their crony supporters and financiers, sorry, ahem I mean ... give it back to society.
I mean lets be real, every generation has had the super-rich, and I welcome the narrative and rhetoric of the Giving Pledge, that by sheer peer pressure brings more resources to the philanthropic table. We should certainly analyze *how* the money is actually spent and strive for transparency to keep the disbursement gatekeepers honest. In contrast, this article while awash in brilliant articulation, has the substantive content and analysis worthy of a high school essay written from meta facts gleaned from the chatter of the day on the Internet. If the intent is to inform the public, then please do more research and get us more facts. Vague references to "robber barons", "stolen wealth" and tax dodges" are rather like campaign ads in their rhetorical value, but don't illuminate a jot on what is so wrong about how the Gates Foundation is spending its money.
I mean lets be real, every generation has had the super-rich, and I welcome the narrative and rhetoric of the Giving Pledge, that by sheer peer pressure brings more resources to the philanthropic table. We should certainly analyze *how* the money is actually spent and strive for transparency to keep the disbursement gatekeepers honest. In contrast, this article while awash in brilliant articulation, has the substantive content and analysis worthy of a high school essay written from meta facts gleaned from the chatter of the day on the Internet. If the intent is to inform the public, then please do more research and get us more facts. Vague references to "robber barons", "stolen wealth" and tax dodges" are rather like campaign ads in their rhetorical value, but don't illuminate a jot on what is so wrong about how the Gates Foundation is spending its money.
8
Vast wealth tends to both put people in their own world and to give them enormous power over the world we share. Look at today's editorial about the Saudi's promotion of Wahhabism for an extreme example. Obviously, not all wealthy people go off the deep end, but Mr. Thiel's promotion of anti-science demagogues like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump reveals that the internal divisions of power in America are so vast that those who buy our political debates probably don't take them seriously--except as tools to manipulate people and protect their own power. Just as he wraps a personal grievance in improvised principle in the Gawker case, Mr. Thiel uses his Supreme-Court-given right to buy speech in order to prevent public discussion, amplifying the voices of people who carry out a shouting match with no respect for truth in order to prevent the democratic debate that would certainly want to evaluate his inordinate power and the corrupt system it exploits.
31
Can no one separate the legal bases of the court cases in question from the sad fact that Thiel supports the orange candidate? The legal issues happen to be important and relate to personal privacy, not gagging genuine research and reporting.
Since philanthropic "donations" are tax deductible and these folks are in a marginal 30 plus percent tax bracket, they actually are deciding how to spend not only their money but ours.
43
But money spent on litigation is not tax deductible.
1
Litigation is a business expense, David.
6
njglea - not a business expense for an individual, and not a business expense if you are donating money to a party.
"Peter Thiel and other members of the Silicon Valley elite crusade for their own vision of justice."
You mean like Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, Chase, GE? Please. This is a distraction.
You mean like Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, Chase, GE? Please. This is a distraction.
19
I believe it the opposite of a distraction. Money, power, and government are the core issues. This is an excellent piece IMO.
10
Arrogance is illuminating.
Thiel feels his feelings are more important than any thing or any one else on the planet. He was outraged that a media outlet made public something that is true. His kickback from the $140 million will not change the truth.
Thiel is a legend in his own mind. Would someone please explain the difference between Thiel's behaviour and Donald Trump's?
Thiel feels his feelings are more important than any thing or any one else on the planet. He was outraged that a media outlet made public something that is true. His kickback from the $140 million will not change the truth.
Thiel is a legend in his own mind. Would someone please explain the difference between Thiel's behaviour and Donald Trump's?
40
@brian reid: "Thiel is a legend in his own mind."?? And Gawker feels it is entitled to earn money from publicizing anything it can get its hands on, regardless of the ethics of doing that. Gawker is a legend in its own mind. So what's the difference between Gawker's behavior and Donald Trump's?
1
Peter Thiel is a toxic, narcissistic, sexist libertarian. Here’s a sample from one of his writings on the Cato Institute website:
“Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”
He later clarified, reassuring the female half of the population that he doesn’t want to take the franchise away from us. Gee thanks, Pete.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_us_57470...
“Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”
He later clarified, reassuring the female half of the population that he doesn’t want to take the franchise away from us. Gee thanks, Pete.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_us_57470...
15
Pure drivel. American media (and really, media around the world) has always been controlled by rich and powerful families - Hearst, Graham, Murdoch, Sulzberger, etc. They all had their agendas too, and they claim some kind of public interest or moral high ground as their smokescreen.
So why is Thiel wrong for wanting to influence society his way? Because the writer and the Times have a different agenda. Hypocrites.
So why is Thiel wrong for wanting to influence society his way? Because the writer and the Times have a different agenda. Hypocrites.
10
The knee jerk reaction to defend all kinds of "journalism" in the name of free speech, is equivalent to the NRA attacking any type of regulation on guns as an assault on the Second Amendment.
Gawker has zero respect for the right to privacy. Whether its watching hours of cat videos, a weird fascination with Japanese body pillows, or the study of witchcraft, we all have things that we'd prefer to keep to ourselves that do no harm to anyone else. Gawker made money, and lots of it, by embarrassing, harassing, and insulting people.
This might be a fight between a guy worth $1.5 billion against a media company worth $500 million. But there seems to be more at stake here.
Gawker has zero respect for the right to privacy. Whether its watching hours of cat videos, a weird fascination with Japanese body pillows, or the study of witchcraft, we all have things that we'd prefer to keep to ourselves that do no harm to anyone else. Gawker made money, and lots of it, by embarrassing, harassing, and insulting people.
This might be a fight between a guy worth $1.5 billion against a media company worth $500 million. But there seems to be more at stake here.
6
If you create great wealth with a product that wasn't even imagined 20 years ago, Google or Facebook to name two, how has that wealth been stolen from the public? Of course they are monopolistic, they created the space. When and how would the author break them up? In a world where technology moves so fast today's monopoly is tomorrow's My Space. The author would create a world which might have less inequity, but would certainly have less innovation and much slower pace of technological progress. It seems a poor trade.
3
As Professor Cagle implies, the problem with the philanthropic model of reinvesting wealth back into the society stems from who decides how the resources will be used. Under this model, the donor distributes money that a more equitable system of taxation would have transferred to public coffers. Had the tycoon paid the money in taxes, the community, through its elected representatives, would have determined the best use of the resources.
The government, to be sure, often wastes taxpayer money, but philanthropists frequently misuse their largess as well, by donating to causes that do not benefit the public at large. When a popularly elected government determines the proper use of resources, democracy benefits. When a tiny group of tycoons makes those decisions, we encourage their autocratic pretensions.
The government, to be sure, often wastes taxpayer money, but philanthropists frequently misuse their largess as well, by donating to causes that do not benefit the public at large. When a popularly elected government determines the proper use of resources, democracy benefits. When a tiny group of tycoons makes those decisions, we encourage their autocratic pretensions.
8
This was a rather unimpressive piece that instead of decrying the real scandal--that it should cost upwards of $10 million for an aggrieved party to obtain justice--prefers to take cheap digs at Mr. Thiel.
More generally, the media's reaction to this case strikes me as very similar to what we are always told the cops do when one of their own is found to have committed some excess.
More generally, the media's reaction to this case strikes me as very similar to what we are always told the cops do when one of their own is found to have committed some excess.
3
If noblesse creates oblige, please save our own widows and orphans first. https://www.ssa.gov/agency/donations.html
2
Mr. Thiel reminds me of the "pharma bro", Martin Shkreli and his charging exorbitant rates for a life saving drug.
5
Peter created Paypal. As far as I can tell, using PayPal is a choice. No lives were shortened from not using it.
The fact you cannot tell the difference makes me weep for the future of this country.
The fact you cannot tell the difference makes me weep for the future of this country.
How, exactly?
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
- Ronald Reagan
Look, I don't know the tax rates paid by Peter Thiel and other successful business people and neither do you. But let's assume they should be higher - 50%, 60%, whatever makes you feel better. For many of these billionaires, that still leaves them as...billionaires (ok, maybe several hundred millionaires in some cases). What then do you propose that they do with their money? Or what do you propose the government does? What makes you think the government is better at spending the money, is more efficient, less corrupt, and less self-interested, than these successful people? Should we implement a law that says no one is allowed to accumulate more than xx?
We can only guess what your solution is because you aren't very specific. Perhaps you are purposely vague because you know the historical success rate of what you really want to see is...zero. It is un-American. It reduces incentive. It hinders advancement. It is why so few great companies and successful entrepreneurs, institutions that drive progress in health care, information technology, consumer goods and energy hail from outside America.
- Ronald Reagan
Look, I don't know the tax rates paid by Peter Thiel and other successful business people and neither do you. But let's assume they should be higher - 50%, 60%, whatever makes you feel better. For many of these billionaires, that still leaves them as...billionaires (ok, maybe several hundred millionaires in some cases). What then do you propose that they do with their money? Or what do you propose the government does? What makes you think the government is better at spending the money, is more efficient, less corrupt, and less self-interested, than these successful people? Should we implement a law that says no one is allowed to accumulate more than xx?
We can only guess what your solution is because you aren't very specific. Perhaps you are purposely vague because you know the historical success rate of what you really want to see is...zero. It is un-American. It reduces incentive. It hinders advancement. It is why so few great companies and successful entrepreneurs, institutions that drive progress in health care, information technology, consumer goods and energy hail from outside America.
1
The premise of our government is that everyone pays their share of taxes to support it. The deductibility of charitable donations hinders that process, and is particularly regressive. In addition, it allows donors to empower institutions and causes of their choice as the expense of a government that theory represents everyone.
Utter nonsense, Tim. You might begin by reflecting on the fact that were it not for government intervention, foreign car companies would have put that great icon of American industry, General Motors, out of business.
A "gospel of government"?
Yes, that would be so much better than free people and free markets allocating resources based on millions of individual, rational decisions. As long as your guy is running the government, right?
Keep your totalitarianism off our liberties.
Yes, that would be so much better than free people and free markets allocating resources based on millions of individual, rational decisions. As long as your guy is running the government, right?
Keep your totalitarianism off our liberties.
1
"Wealth gleaned by way of tax dodges and monopolistic business practices is wealth stolen from the public" is a phrase which explains exactly the position of the author who is not an economist of academic but a journalism reporter who was arrested while reporting on Occupy Wallstreet. It shows a basic lack of understanding of a system where wealth is not a zero sum game but is created. She then expresses her hope for a system that taxes people who create wealth to redirect resources to government as the arbiter of what is good.
Ms Cagle seems more concerned about protecting the already impenetrable and irresponsible press from the likes of Mr Thiel then weaves in populist tax the rich themes to divert attention. The press runs amok in this country with infinite legal defense budgets bolstered by a huge asymmetric protection in the courts/constitution. It is virtually impossible to sue and beat the press. As such, the press routinely, consciously, lies, berates, slanders their targets. Watch Fox or MSNBC any night. The Nytimes is hardly immune. We need more people like Mr Thiel who take their hard earned (not by tax dodge and monopolistic practices) wealth and stand up for the little guy against an unaccountable press.
Ms Cagle seems more concerned about protecting the already impenetrable and irresponsible press from the likes of Mr Thiel then weaves in populist tax the rich themes to divert attention. The press runs amok in this country with infinite legal defense budgets bolstered by a huge asymmetric protection in the courts/constitution. It is virtually impossible to sue and beat the press. As such, the press routinely, consciously, lies, berates, slanders their targets. Watch Fox or MSNBC any night. The Nytimes is hardly immune. We need more people like Mr Thiel who take their hard earned (not by tax dodge and monopolistic practices) wealth and stand up for the little guy against an unaccountable press.
4
Hulk Hogan is hardly a "little guy" either figuratively or literally.
3
And yet he still has the same rights to privacy, under his real name.
The robber barons came down like a ton of bricks on everyone whom they felt had crossed them, and used their newspapers to destroy lives and reputations. Now, they are remembered as wonderful benefactors, even though they were ruthless competitors and mercilessly exploited their workers.
Will Thiel also be whitewashed? History will tell. But from what we know of American history, it is pretty naive to assume that a journalist can interfere with a billionaire's private life and remain unscathed. Gawker is not paying the price for negative reporting on Thiel's business ventures. He gets plenty of that from real journalists working for actual papers. What Thiel is taking revenge for is for being outed as gay, something he very clearly did not want. When Hearst came after Orson Welles and citizen Kane it was primarily for the unflattering portrayal of his beloved wife.
Denton should understand this all too well. He has used Gawker as a tool for petty vengeance far too often to complain that Thiel is now using his money to nuke him. Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
Will Thiel also be whitewashed? History will tell. But from what we know of American history, it is pretty naive to assume that a journalist can interfere with a billionaire's private life and remain unscathed. Gawker is not paying the price for negative reporting on Thiel's business ventures. He gets plenty of that from real journalists working for actual papers. What Thiel is taking revenge for is for being outed as gay, something he very clearly did not want. When Hearst came after Orson Welles and citizen Kane it was primarily for the unflattering portrayal of his beloved wife.
Denton should understand this all too well. He has used Gawker as a tool for petty vengeance far too often to complain that Thiel is now using his money to nuke him. Who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
5
The last three paragraphs of this article should be required, challenge-conventional-wisdom reading for every American.
4
Peter Thiel could have climbed out of his PayPal / Facebook morality by producing more free speech rather than gagging Gawker.
And it still a source of fury to be accused of freely enjoying legal sexual practices?
Evan as a Cis-male it wouldn't bother me at all--certainly not $10 million dollars worth--to be accused of being any of the LGBTQ letters or any of the other letter of the Latin, Greek or Hebrew alphabet for that matter.
And it still a source of fury to be accused of freely enjoying legal sexual practices?
Evan as a Cis-male it wouldn't bother me at all--certainly not $10 million dollars worth--to be accused of being any of the LGBTQ letters or any of the other letter of the Latin, Greek or Hebrew alphabet for that matter.
2
Missed the point by a mile.
"Mr. Thiel told an interviewer in 2012 that he feared the result of this precipitous wealth gap. “In the history of the modern world, inequality has only been ended through Communist revolution, war or deflationary economic collapse,” he said. “It’s a disturbing question which of these three is going to happen today, or if there’s a fourth way out.”
Unless we're willing to tax wealth, not income, isn't it already too late?
Unless we're willing to tax wealth, not income, isn't it already too late?
1
In this election cycle we have two people, both from NY, one a self described billionaire and another who with her husband and daughter control a 4 billion dollar size foundation. Both have foundations. both use those foundations as they choose to do so and money flowing through them goes untaxed.
Many Billionaires are champions of Government, Buffet one of the richest of all supports the party of the candidate whose main business is a Foundation; and Buffet is passing most of his billions to Bill Gates on the theory that Gates can make better decisions about uses of the money than the Government oriented party that he supports.
Is there any billionaire who has dedicated her or his fortune to Government to spend?
Many Billionaires are champions of Government, Buffet one of the richest of all supports the party of the candidate whose main business is a Foundation; and Buffet is passing most of his billions to Bill Gates on the theory that Gates can make better decisions about uses of the money than the Government oriented party that he supports.
Is there any billionaire who has dedicated her or his fortune to Government to spend?
3
Given the huge conflicts of interest presented by their foundations, neither of those two people should ever be president. For the same reason, one of them should never have been Secretary of State either.
"Is there any billionaire who has dedicated her or his fortune to Government to spend?"
If they were that foolish, they wouldn't have become billionaires in the first place.
If they were that foolish, they wouldn't have become billionaires in the first place.
Get rid of the charitable deduction above a modest level and the super wealthy will have to find some other way to show how magnanimous they truly are. And we'll all survive quite nicely without their virtue, if it comes to that.
9
The article might well be entitled "Promoting the General Welfare Outsourced to Philanthropy." Its conclusion, that restoring the function to democratic government would be less oligarchic but would require rescuing government from the slander of "government as the problem" is no doubt true. Referring to the latter, however, as A New Gospel of Government is unfortunate. Idealizing government is no more desirable than defaming it.
3
Be careful who you mess with. Gawker messed with the wrong guy, and now they are paying the price.
3
This is a slippery slope. Sometimes the "wrong guy" is a criminal who wants to cover up his misdeeds.
1
But in this case, it was a human who did not want his sex tape in the public. There are clear rules about what's publishable under the First Amendment. Stop acting like they are the end of democracy.
We live in a capitalistic society. Why are some folks surprised when this capital buys better education, health care or even justice?
1
None of the three things you mention ( education, health care and justice ) should be bought, unless you believe we would be better off with the old system of Patron-peon.
4
It's also worth noting that the immense wealth accumulated by many of these tech billionaires comes from market valuations of companies that haven't made profits, or products whose actual value is simply hypothetical. These fortunes can disappear overnight in tech bubble 2.0 (or 3.0, depending on how you're counting), but it isn't always the tech billionaires who are left holding the bag, thanks to tax dodges, offshore holdings, and of course philanthropic foundations.
No, when the money disappears--poof!--somebody does have to foot the bill, and it's often the 401k plans, pension accounts, endowments, and individual retirement savings of the police officers and firefighters, educators, public employees, and blue- and white-collar workers that take the hit. Meanwhile, people like Sean Parker and Peter Thiel can just brush themselves off and go found another company. I guess that's what counts as public-mindedness in the 21st century.
No, when the money disappears--poof!--somebody does have to foot the bill, and it's often the 401k plans, pension accounts, endowments, and individual retirement savings of the police officers and firefighters, educators, public employees, and blue- and white-collar workers that take the hit. Meanwhile, people like Sean Parker and Peter Thiel can just brush themselves off and go found another company. I guess that's what counts as public-mindedness in the 21st century.
21
Yes, these billionaires are both ultra-rich and ultra-arrogant. As a retired public high school teacher, I've been sickened by the reach into 'education' by the kings. 'Reform', which was a real and effective political tool used by Bush, has been a rallying cry for many smarty-pants billionaires. They know so little about education but act, and fund, other wise. Of course, one of the greatest problems is poverty and low-income families. These people are poor because of billionaires, that take far more than their share of the public pie. The grotesque inequality here is an unmentionable. Don't go there. We've redistributed towards the top, but to speak of moving income and wealth towards the bottom smacks of 'communism'. Yes, lost in the woods we are, led by the self-interested.
Here's just one example of their dishonorable, illegitimate 'leadership' in education: preps. Yes, simple as that; how many preps does one teacher have? Personally, I'd say one to two is acceptable; to try to make us prepare 3 or 4 or 5 different lesson plans every day, and be the knowledge center of them, and create and grade different quizzes, essays and tests is anti-education. There's so many other ways to improve education, including creating a society of equals. Billionaires be gone!
Here's just one example of their dishonorable, illegitimate 'leadership' in education: preps. Yes, simple as that; how many preps does one teacher have? Personally, I'd say one to two is acceptable; to try to make us prepare 3 or 4 or 5 different lesson plans every day, and be the knowledge center of them, and create and grade different quizzes, essays and tests is anti-education. There's so many other ways to improve education, including creating a society of equals. Billionaires be gone!
11
I met a rich little first grader today. I asked her the name of her teacher, she named 5 people. I asked why so many, she explained as if I were a moron that she had a different teacher for each subject. Of course my instinct was to throttle this little brat, when other worthy children so close by do not even have pencils. But I realized it is not HER fault that she is so spoiled, it is that we as a society have decided it's okay for her to have it all, and for the rest to have so little. Then, when she does well, we can blame it on those who don't for not trying hard enough. See?
1
The conclusion drawn in the last paragraph is most piquant.
"Philanthropy has the power to do a great deal of good, but so do tax dollars allocated in an equitable democratic system. Perhaps it’s time to adopt a Gospel of Government."
Perceptrive observation and comment.
"Philanthropy has the power to do a great deal of good, but so do tax dollars allocated in an equitable democratic system. Perhaps it’s time to adopt a Gospel of Government."
Perceptrive observation and comment.
9
Thiel is doing a public service. American libel law was inadequate even before the internet. Its weakness has endangered both the level of public discourse and the constitutional right of privacy.
5
The constitutional right to privacy you refer to is the concept that individuals have a sphere of personal actions that the government cannot interfere with; it has literally nothing to do with a "right" to keep things hidden from the media or your neighbors. Such a right, if it exists, is not protected by the Constitution. The right to free speech is.
And it's worth noting that Mr. Thiel has made literally billions of dollars off of companies that seek to invade consumers' privacy for profit at every chance they get.
And it's worth noting that Mr. Thiel has made literally billions of dollars off of companies that seek to invade consumers' privacy for profit at every chance they get.
4
I did not address the constitutional right of privacy in Hogan's case -- only the likely impact on the constitutional right of privacy if the constitutional right of free speech is expanded to override libel law protections as the NY Times advocates.
But it is worth mentioning, also, that the Times' recommendations also constitutes reduction in the ability of public interest lawfirms and the organizations such as the ACLU to file third party lawsuits.
The Times' brilliant concept is a legal revolution in fact.
But it is worth mentioning, also, that the Times' recommendations also constitutes reduction in the ability of public interest lawfirms and the organizations such as the ACLU to file third party lawsuits.
The Times' brilliant concept is a legal revolution in fact.
Funny how people like Bill Gates makes his money mostly off of us but his charity is mostly for foreigners. To bad they killed cock robin.
3
Uh, nothing?
Bill Gates is a recreational investor under the terms of a newly defined Philanthropist that wants the foundation to get a 10x $ ROI, exactly like a VC firm. Think-it-through, sense Bill used a sophisticated PR maneuver announcing his tricks his wealth increased. He gives nothing away and just watch his weath continue to grow instead of decrease. The idea that he is "giving away" 1/2 is a whopper that Donald Trump would be proud of.
5
Government is never allowed to advertise the value of higher taxes. Other items can charge a premium and advertise themselves as being superior, and such brands are doing very well. But only a few mainly local governments dare try defending their high taxes as a mark of their exclusivity and desirability.
Government is also not allowed to advertise the value of its retirement service, Social Security, that may not pay as well as some private investments but is much safer. We find the idea floating around that Social Security could go bankrupt and reduce payments by a large amount, but private investments would be safer. But any economic calamity that would necessitate large cuts in Social Security would also have large effects on stock dividends and prices, so the private sector is not a refuge here if government fails.
As consumers in a free market we decide which tech titans rule. If the market is not free, then we lose this power without realizing it, and the tech titans often battle to manage the market to benefit themselves. As citizens, we should decide what happens with some of the profit we have created by working together.
Government is also not allowed to advertise the value of its retirement service, Social Security, that may not pay as well as some private investments but is much safer. We find the idea floating around that Social Security could go bankrupt and reduce payments by a large amount, but private investments would be safer. But any economic calamity that would necessitate large cuts in Social Security would also have large effects on stock dividends and prices, so the private sector is not a refuge here if government fails.
As consumers in a free market we decide which tech titans rule. If the market is not free, then we lose this power without realizing it, and the tech titans often battle to manage the market to benefit themselves. As citizens, we should decide what happens with some of the profit we have created by working together.
54
Wealth gleaned by way of tax dodges and monopolistic business practices is wealth stolen from the public, even when it is returned in the form of supposed gifts?
Yes.
Amen, Amen, and Amen.
Yes.
Amen, Amen, and Amen.
123
If I had been on the Hulk Hogan jury, I would have tried to persuade fellow jurists to rule in Hogan's favor and award him $1000 for his loss of privacy and $1000 in punitive damages. If this is the best case Thiel can find to back, well, that's pitiful.
46
Investing $10 million in another man's lawsuit might be dubious but a court spelling out a $140 million judgement in a case of defamation is ridiculous.
55
It wasn't $10 million for one suit. And $140 million is not shocking in acase like this--intentional bad actions often get punitive damages.
I agree there is a danger in the rich getting to decide which causes are worthy and which causes are not -- but that risk is inherent to a society with such a gap between the haves and have-nots. That being said, funding litigation probably IS a good way to get a lot of philanthropic bang for the buck.
I can think of a wonderful way to move the social needle by funding litigation. Fund the legal defense of individuals who are sued by debt collectors. $10 million dollars would fund the defense of about 6,000 individual consumers, all to the benefit of society.
Hundreds of thousands of people are sued by debt buyers for credit card debt each year. These lawsuits result in judgments that financially destroy the consumers who are sued -- destroying their aspirations for retirement, for sending their children to college ... for eating.
Among consumers who can hire an attorney, almost ALL of them prevail, yet self represented consumers almost all lose.
Debt buyers serve no social function, merely existing as an investment to make windfall profits from poor people. Funding the legal defense of consumers sued by debt buyers, maximizes the social utility of a philanthropic investment in a way that would be difficult to match!
I am an attorney who represents consumers in this situation, so my bias is clear -- but the facts are the facts. One of those facts, is that consumer attorneys frequently have to turn away needy consumers who cannot afford a modest attorney's fee.
I can think of a wonderful way to move the social needle by funding litigation. Fund the legal defense of individuals who are sued by debt collectors. $10 million dollars would fund the defense of about 6,000 individual consumers, all to the benefit of society.
Hundreds of thousands of people are sued by debt buyers for credit card debt each year. These lawsuits result in judgments that financially destroy the consumers who are sued -- destroying their aspirations for retirement, for sending their children to college ... for eating.
Among consumers who can hire an attorney, almost ALL of them prevail, yet self represented consumers almost all lose.
Debt buyers serve no social function, merely existing as an investment to make windfall profits from poor people. Funding the legal defense of consumers sued by debt buyers, maximizes the social utility of a philanthropic investment in a way that would be difficult to match!
I am an attorney who represents consumers in this situation, so my bias is clear -- but the facts are the facts. One of those facts, is that consumer attorneys frequently have to turn away needy consumers who cannot afford a modest attorney's fee.
77
So justice in our courts is dependent on how much money one has? Well, I guess everyone knows this but every time it is stated explicitly I'm sicken by the implication. Why would anyone trust a legal system that is based on your ability to pay?
1
I could not agree more! Why not go further and fund an effort to expand the reach of Gideon v. Wainwright so that poor civil litigants are guaranteed a right to counsel? A shady foreclosure by a bank or action by a debt buyer can land someone in the kind of economic death spiral that leads to homelessness, mental health problems and broken families, to name a few. One doesn't have to go to jail to end up in prison.
You are to be commended for the work you do, but it isn't something that can be done by a few individuals; this demands social & legislative change. Anyone willing to fund that?
You are to be commended for the work you do, but it isn't something that can be done by a few individuals; this demands social & legislative change. Anyone willing to fund that?
2
You had me cheering until the very last line. Gospel of Government? Let's get serious, the polling data on trust in government is at an all time low. Most people do not find much meaning in the false dichotomy of government vs. business (mostly propagated by old party tropes). There are plenty of inept and corrupt players on both sides of that fence.
If you want businesses to pay a fair tax burden, it will have to start with real campaign finance reform and maybe some legislatively defined self-supporting government endowments that use extra corporate tax revenue to pay for big ticket programs like education and health care. Trust in our democracy will have to be rebuilt slowly, if it happens at all. Why don't you finish the column and sing the Gospel of Government (i.e. tell us how we get to the promised land) rather than just use it as an ambiguous ending note?
If you want businesses to pay a fair tax burden, it will have to start with real campaign finance reform and maybe some legislatively defined self-supporting government endowments that use extra corporate tax revenue to pay for big ticket programs like education and health care. Trust in our democracy will have to be rebuilt slowly, if it happens at all. Why don't you finish the column and sing the Gospel of Government (i.e. tell us how we get to the promised land) rather than just use it as an ambiguous ending note?
26
During the last century the declining trust in government was largely engineered by a reactionary rear guard through propaganda by bought and paid for think tanks, lobbyists, and pundits. It was intended to undermine a government that was increasing the power of the common man. It worked. Oligarchs now rule the land much as they did in the 1800's. Unfortunately, not only has this propaganda undermined our trust in government, we also distrust each other unlike those in any other nation. While we are duly distracted, our government is free to work in concert with business to prey upon the common man.
11
"Mr. Thiel made no secret of his grudge against Gawker, since the company’s Valleywag blog revealed his homosexuality in a 2007 post that lampooned the straight male culture of Silicon Valley more than Mr. Thiel himself."
Wow. This summary is both pathetic and dishonest. Look, Gawker outed a gay man for titillation and web hits and coated it in a disingenuous "Hey, there's nothing wrong with being gay" veneer. The purpose of their post was not to "lampoon" "the straight male culture of Silicone Valley." It was to expose aspects of someone's sexuality that he wanted to keep private for Gawker's financial gain - and because Gawker delights in such cruel antics.
It was typical Gawker. An incredibly sleazy act that also tried and failed to be witty.
You can disapprove of someone while still defending their First Amendment rights (Nazis marching in America and Hustler magazine with its misogyny and racist cartoons were both defended by the ACLU.) But if you want to be taken seriously, you should at least acknowledge what they are.
The ruling will no doubt be overturned as it should be. But Gawker remains a sleazy, pathetic site. And this op-Ed (whose overall sentiment I agree with) is grossly misleading. The growing power of big money in all aspects of our society is to be decried. Free speech can (and should) be defended by writers who are honest with their readers. Ms. Cagle has shown she isn't one.
Wow. This summary is both pathetic and dishonest. Look, Gawker outed a gay man for titillation and web hits and coated it in a disingenuous "Hey, there's nothing wrong with being gay" veneer. The purpose of their post was not to "lampoon" "the straight male culture of Silicone Valley." It was to expose aspects of someone's sexuality that he wanted to keep private for Gawker's financial gain - and because Gawker delights in such cruel antics.
It was typical Gawker. An incredibly sleazy act that also tried and failed to be witty.
You can disapprove of someone while still defending their First Amendment rights (Nazis marching in America and Hustler magazine with its misogyny and racist cartoons were both defended by the ACLU.) But if you want to be taken seriously, you should at least acknowledge what they are.
The ruling will no doubt be overturned as it should be. But Gawker remains a sleazy, pathetic site. And this op-Ed (whose overall sentiment I agree with) is grossly misleading. The growing power of big money in all aspects of our society is to be decried. Free speech can (and should) be defended by writers who are honest with their readers. Ms. Cagle has shown she isn't one.
34
God. I hope you read the gawker post.
The wealthy want to make government in their own image. They won't pay for cops, but they'll live in gated communities with private security. They won't pay for public schools, but they send their kids to elite, expensive, private institutions. They won't pay for transportation infrastructure, but they will get their own private jets and helicopters to get them around.
It's important to remember that morality and a sense of public duty does not come automatically with great wealth. It would be nice to see more of these folks talk about the need to contribute more via taxes, and more via legitimate philanthropy.
It's important to remember that morality and a sense of public duty does not come automatically with great wealth. It would be nice to see more of these folks talk about the need to contribute more via taxes, and more via legitimate philanthropy.
226
Sure .. more VA disasters, more computer goofs, more TSA lines, more EPA disasters like the Colorado River.
And money buys success? Like Eric Cantor?
Utterly ridiculous, absurd, and dumbness, from those who have actually never done front-line work.
And money buys success? Like Eric Cantor?
Utterly ridiculous, absurd, and dumbness, from those who have actually never done front-line work.
2
In fact it is often opposite, as Ms. Cagle cogently illuminates. We still live in the shadow of the companies created during rise of the industrial barons and, should the planet not reject us as an occupant, our children will find themselves in the shadow of Zuckerberg's propaganda/addiction machine which we once called 'community' and 'social fabric'
They pay for cops, they donate at a higher rate than anyone else, their crime is that they made more money and expressed their opinions with this money (which are very individual and sometimes flawed expressions, no different than anyone else who would express themselves). I'm not clear why there is such a condemnation of these folks, other than a lot of envy and jealousy. We could tax them down to everyone else's size, and maybe some of this would be good, but to attack them as being evil and a villains seems so off base.
Gawker attacked Thiel by outing him. Gawker's business model is to draw traffic to its website by attacking people, typically by disclosing a person's private information that, when publicized, causes great emotional harm to that person. It is normal and expected for these people to strike back at Gawker. Mr. Thiel's thinking of his $10 million in litigation support as being philanthropic appears to refer to all the people who have been attacked by Gawker but don't have the means to fight back.
So long as Gawker trades on inflicting pain and suffering of others, it should include being sued and paying out large money judgments as a cost of doing business.
So long as Gawker trades on inflicting pain and suffering of others, it should include being sued and paying out large money judgments as a cost of doing business.
93
Then why wouldn't Mr. Thiel sue Gawker directly for outing him, if he was so aggrieved? Or if not that, why wouldn't he simply have waged his war on Mr. Hogan's behalf directly and publicly, acknowledging his agenda and without all the secret proxy stuff? Or lobby our democratic process to change laws that govern libel and slander so that the solution is debated and resolved in a manner consistent with our democratic principles? The furtiveness makes me think his agenda wasn't so noble nor for the public's benefit.
12
Let's not confuse gawker with journalism. This lawsuit was largely similar to the suits against the national enquirer and comparable rags in the 1980's. I agree with Peter Thiel that he has done a great thing.
72
While the courts determine the fringes of free speech, it is important to remember that a free and robust press is the bedrock of democracy. Truth, justice, and freedom are at stake. Widening the libel laws, a la Trump, is a path to intimidation by the wealthy, and leads to lies, injustice and tyranny.
5
Butr why should his wealth give him such disporoportionate power? What if next time he decides to massively support something that you feel is reprehensible? Would that also be a great thing?
Why do we think that oligarchy is an acceptible substitute for democracy? Why does Mr. Thiel's great wealth allow him such great power relative to you or me? Shouldn't we have some proportionate say in the matter?
Maybe we'll just let the billionaires work it out for us. That must be the best option.
Why do we think that oligarchy is an acceptible substitute for democracy? Why does Mr. Thiel's great wealth allow him such great power relative to you or me? Shouldn't we have some proportionate say in the matter?
Maybe we'll just let the billionaires work it out for us. That must be the best option.
5
Phil Ab, you are certainly attaching a lot of significance to this event. What sort of "say" ought we have in a lawsuit between a rich guy and a rich company? If the rich guy can draw on other rich people for support, so can the company. All that is being worked out here is their dispute.
"Wealth gleaned by way of tax dodges and monopolistic business practices is wealth stolen from the public, even when it is returned in the form of supposed gifts." This sums it up well. It's been hard to watch some of the Silicon Valley largess, the so-called philanthropy, going to vanity projects at Stanford University, other universities, and hospitals already flush with billions -- when government and local communities are being short-changed.
182
Complete misconception here. They didn't make money through "tax dodges" and
"monopolistic practices", they invented new technologies and business models and were (perhaps over) rewarded for their efforts. They are creating value, and maybe it is true that they are over rewarded, but stop making them villains, they are the ones that can possibly save the U.S. from becoming a second-rate nation and remain and premier nation, and create new jobs and opportunities. If they didn't do what they did to start this companies, they wouldn't exist, and the great amount of technology innovation and possible new avenues for the future would be lost. Maybe some reigning in terms of how they are compensated would make some sense, but stop this nonsense that they are convicts -- they are the ones that can possibly save this country from obscurity.
"monopolistic practices", they invented new technologies and business models and were (perhaps over) rewarded for their efforts. They are creating value, and maybe it is true that they are over rewarded, but stop making them villains, they are the ones that can possibly save the U.S. from becoming a second-rate nation and remain and premier nation, and create new jobs and opportunities. If they didn't do what they did to start this companies, they wouldn't exist, and the great amount of technology innovation and possible new avenues for the future would be lost. Maybe some reigning in terms of how they are compensated would make some sense, but stop this nonsense that they are convicts -- they are the ones that can possibly save this country from obscurity.
I have to wonder what some of these guys are thinking, their real motivations. Gates and Buffett seem to be on the up-and-up, but some others …
When Andrew Carnegie decided to use his immense steel wealth for public works, he didn’t get cute with how he used it, avoiding the assumption that his corporate brilliance at expanding the steel industry in the late 19th Century extended to similar brilliance in public works. He built libraries and founded the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh (today’s Carnegie-Mellon University). Believing, with a great deal of wisdom, that knowledge and education were the access paths normal people had to middle-class lives, he put his money to use creating and sustaining the means for widely offering these supports. Much like a country that invests in basic science and leaves the innovative engineering to innovative sorts.
But some of today’s cyber-gazillionnaires don’t seem to possess the same kind of wisdom – or appropriate humility. They seem to believe that brilliant marketing at some piece of arcane software and good timing qualifies them to be social architects. And, after all, it’s their money.
But infrastructure is more than highways. It’s also schools and Wikipedia and desperately needed efforts to equalize the quality and effectiveness of education across ALL American communities. And these desperately needed infrastructure projects go wanting while … Hulk Hogan cashes in.
When Andrew Carnegie decided to use his immense steel wealth for public works, he didn’t get cute with how he used it, avoiding the assumption that his corporate brilliance at expanding the steel industry in the late 19th Century extended to similar brilliance in public works. He built libraries and founded the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh (today’s Carnegie-Mellon University). Believing, with a great deal of wisdom, that knowledge and education were the access paths normal people had to middle-class lives, he put his money to use creating and sustaining the means for widely offering these supports. Much like a country that invests in basic science and leaves the innovative engineering to innovative sorts.
But some of today’s cyber-gazillionnaires don’t seem to possess the same kind of wisdom – or appropriate humility. They seem to believe that brilliant marketing at some piece of arcane software and good timing qualifies them to be social architects. And, after all, it’s their money.
But infrastructure is more than highways. It’s also schools and Wikipedia and desperately needed efforts to equalize the quality and effectiveness of education across ALL American communities. And these desperately needed infrastructure projects go wanting while … Hulk Hogan cashes in.
125
Yes Richard, as you say, these infrastructure projects go wanting, Unfortunately, it's your Republicans who are responsible. How on earth do you square this?
8
Not just Hogan. Let's not forget the venture capitalists who have found a way to make a profit out of justice system. They invest in lawsuits where they believe they stand to make money with the correct verdict. Not only is this immoral, it should be banned as their investment money can buy, through the lawyers, researchers, etc. the verdict they are seeking. The money must flow...
5
Excellent comment. My small upstate New York town had a beautiful Carnegie library, of which I have such fond memories.
1
Perhaps it's time to make a distinction between tax-deductible donations that go more directly to those less fortunate and/or have unquestionable value, like dollars or food donated to a food bank, and tax-deductible donations having more nebulous value. The fact is that, even under our current and supposedly lax tax code, the extremely wealthy, no matter how well intentioned they are, are allowed to redirect significant amounts of what would otherwise be tax dollars to their favorite causes.
101
Perhaps it's time to eliminate ALL charitable tax deductions and exemptions, including religious exemptions, which cost the taxpayers $80B+ a year.
If a corporation or person wants to contribute their money to charity, it should cost them and only them the full freight, else the public is being forced to subsidize their choices.
If a corporation or person wants to contribute their money to charity, it should cost them and only them the full freight, else the public is being forced to subsidize their choices.
7
European justice?