I wonder what logic Karp has used to convince Peter Thiel that he's still a libertarian? I mean, talk about cognitive dissonance.
“If we as a democratic society believe that license plates in public trigger Fourth Amendment protections, our product can make sure you can’t cross that line”
The majoritarian argument - That's a popular one amongst libertarians /s.
On the other hand, Jimmy Wales considers himself an Objectivist... I guess, forget the mumbo-jumbo and judge people by their works?
It's not hard. Self-interest and/or the desire to avoid trouble are powerful motivators. Ideology is much less so. If the two conflict, we find ways to bend the ideology to fit, even if to an outside observer it looks like we've turned it completely inside out.
It gets even easier when the outside forces that are compelling us to go along give us pre-written rationalizations for doing so. "You're serving your country." "You're stopping terrorists from hurting innocent people." All we have to do then is just decide to not think about the rationalization we've chosen too hard.
I've spoken to Palantir folks about the libertarian angle, and their story went like this: by maximizing the utilization of available intelligence data, they could minimize the erosion of civil liberties that occurs in the pursuit of more data.
I'm not sure that story survives outside a vacuum, but there you have it.
“If we as a democratic society believe that license plates in public trigger Fourth Amendment protections, our product can make sure you can’t cross that line”
The majoritarian argument - That's a popular one amongst libertarians /s.
On the other hand, Jimmy Wales considers himself an Objectivist... I guess, forget the mumbo-jumbo and judge people by their works?