I could list a bunch of counterpoints to all that, but let's just say that people (mainly Musk) have done some good things, and continue to do things many view as bad (or worse). A couple anyway.
Well yes, they are like most people a mixed bag, I agree, (I still think the Hyperloop is an absolutely idiotic wastefull vanity project lol) But when it comes to making the world a better place defacto the virtuous accomplishments demonstrably outweigh the, shall we say “less desirable” parts or actions like edgy twitter behavior or supporting the least worst of a horrible binary option,
Climate change is an interesting case. Solarcity was actually on of Musk's cousin's companies IIRC, which Tesla bought for interesting financial reasons too complicated to get in here (note, SEC corruption lol). Thiel and Musk both acknowledge climate change is real, but support politicians who say it's not real. - a hoax, even. The politicians set the policy in the US, which also has an impact on what other countries do right? It's one of those massive contradictions where one side of the coin (selling electric cars and solar systems) is a huge benefit, (even though that void would be filled by another company selling similar products) while at the same time, propping up the admin that says climate change is not real and is dismantling all protections to slow it down.. Musk and Thiel's funding says: "economic policy that benefits me trumps all else'. It's one of the most corrosive aspects of modern policy really. Under normal conservative admins of old, who cares, it's a different approach to a problem. Under Trump 1.0 and 2.0, the consequences are severe. The election rebuked all of that based on economics., but also on being lied to bluntly (a core feature of this admin)
It is multiheaded hydra, climate change yeah, but The thing thats colloquially considered the “hoax” is not the blanket fact that the climate is changing or the anthropogenic influence. its 1 the, often contradictory and panic ridden alarmism and tabloidism.. and 2 the proposed solutions by the other camp, which for some reason always involves Big Globalist Governments/initiative "educating" or restricing the common pleb, as opposed to adaptibility and Innovation.
It is given that also not contradictory from their ideological (leaning) perspective to support him over the blues though.
Government as an institution is notoriously bad, (And this is across the board mainly thanks to its aforementioned set up) of actually getting a set of not-inept protections or solutions in place that don’t lead to Polder-modelling or a Cobra effects. And the ones that they
do manage to get in place aren’t particularly effective. This is the rule pretty much everywhere, not just the US. couple of noticable examples are Germany’s disastrous nuclear policy, The woodstove rush in NL over an increase in gas prizes, and the broader EU “non detachable caps” farce, which is a great example of a not very effective measure.
And so in light of the problem of ACC and the solutions
they offer market wise (mainly increasing and selling sustainable wealth so to speak), Musk and Thiel look at that overall mess and have a binary choice to make.
- Support the Dems who will make life more difficult for them and their solution to the problem
- or the Reps/ Trump who, yes, thinks it a hoax, not of the biggest import but will leave them alone for the most part business wise, let the market decide.
Obviously they will go, even considering ACC in its full scope for the latter and with good reason. If the Dems wish to see this change they need to stop treating them as “heretics” to their ideological purity.
Most of the other examples aren't examples of Musk's altruism, more side affects of him being a savvy businessman.
Sure But how that is a problem precisely? If there is a clear win win scenario going on , so, one helps improve the world whilst making profit in the long run, which can (and is) spend on other initiatives on that front, you have an upward trajectory that benefits all.
10 years ago he was generally a voice for a lot of good things, and he was pretty well liked on both sides of the aisle. As he's gotten more involved in politics, people see more where his motivations really lie. If we had stronger campaign finance laws, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. But he just spent 225 mil in Texas alone and almost 500mil nationally to prop up conservatives. That's madness! No one should have that much sway in our elections, not him, not Thiel, not Soros.
Well you know.. politics (especially a change in) is inherently divisive and if one, for pragmatic or other reasons switches camps/ support the other side.. your previous team will instinctively view you as “a traitor” , despite your credentials and common interrest.. yes..
As for the finger in elections, Any libertarian worth their salt would be all in favor of a stricter separation between market and state/government on pricinple.
The problem of actually achieving that is twofold.
1, not every (filthy) rich person shares that sentiment. (Gates and Zuckerberg being 2 direct “collegues” of them zumbeispiel) and so you end up with the same problem that is currently all the rage in Ai development. Namely if one continues to fund you create a massive power in-dynamic.
but even more crucially than that, 2, The government “Apparatchik” if you will, does not
want it, despite what some politicians might try to sell the demos.
Sure, they want “the market” to leave them alone at their convenience and so called principle (and in particular only the counter political spectrum) whilst simultaneously wanting to use
their monopoly on hard power to push through more taxation, fair or unfair, to fatten their own “treasury” so to speak. They basically want to have their cake and eat it. All the benefits, non of the downsides.
And so yeah I agree with you that a stop on market-government intertwinement would as beneficial as separation of church and state.. But it has to mean at the very least that there is also, a maximum ceiling of in how far government can interfere with business, not just business with government.
I am very grateful for the combo USAID program and Starlink funded help for Ukraine, though again, it's tainted by recent actions Musk took with the admin (still unclear what happened there). I think Poland and Ukraine pay for Starlink/Starshield now.
They do now yes, Poland already had Commercial Starlink which is what was used in the early onset of the conflict, Currently Ukraine and Poland have access to the militairized version (which is no longer under the control of Musk to my knowledge but the Pentagon)
it’s lazy demonization calling a milk-toast contrarian tech investor with libertarian views like Thiel “a bastard”. And “ evil”. Reeks of left wing shlop, sorry, skip. I highly doubt it actually addresses any of his positions intellectually
)
