I think this thread needs a lot more context. In Zero to One, which they are discussing in this exchange, Thiel is not so much talking about political ideas, as business ideas. One of his ideas is that startups are based around “secrets”—that the way to start a business is to know something that few know, and profit from that. But the flipside is that these ideas are dangerous, not necessarily because they will cause opprobrium to be heaped on you, but because it’s hard to get traction for ideas that most people think are wrong. They are risky, and if successful can change the world in unanticipated ways.
So (pace buybuyanddavis) I don’t think Thiel is talking about antidemocratic ideas—or at least, not simpliciter. Indeed, it’s a cliche that “Washington is broken,” even more so than that it’s a cliche that the university system is broken. There are a thousand organisations in the MOOC space, but there must be a million in the “change the government” space—even more crowded. I think the exchange on charter cities is instructive.
Naturally, if I had what I considered “secrets” in the Thielian sense, I would not be sharing them on this board. I would be trying to turn them into cash. But let me give you a candidate “secret” that I don’t think I can exploit:
“Disruptive innovation often works only by leveraging political splits within regulatory battles. If Uber were just another taxi firm, the Powers That Be would have come down on them with the full force of the law. But really, Uber is just another taxi firm. Their success is based solely on the fact that they are not treated as such, and so can escape from the pro-incumbent regulations that would crush any other insurgent. And the reason they are not treated as such is a combination of:
Woo from the fact that they use the internet.
The fact that free-market political forces have some purchase in taxi regulation.
Uber’s own lobbying.
Given the constantly increasing regulatory reach, startup opportunities are increasingly limited. Consequently, a startup aiming to make a huge splash needs to be a political organisation as much as a business one, along the lines of Uber.”
Let’s say I believe that “secret” to be 60% true.
EDITED TO ADD: The rough draft version of Zero To One can be read, for free here.
I think this thread needs a lot more context. In Zero to One, which they are discussing in this exchange, Thiel is not so much talking about political ideas, as business ideas.
I think he’s talking about both. When he asks the question as an interview question he does allow for both answers.
Having the question as a standard interview question also allows Thiel to get a lot of good answers from different people.
I think this thread needs a lot more context. In Zero to One, which they are discussing in this exchange, Thiel is not so much talking about political ideas, as business ideas. One of his ideas is that startups are based around “secrets”—that the way to start a business is to know something that few know, and profit from that. But the flipside is that these ideas are dangerous, not necessarily because they will cause opprobrium to be heaped on you, but because it’s hard to get traction for ideas that most people think are wrong. They are risky, and if successful can change the world in unanticipated ways.
So (pace buybuyanddavis) I don’t think Thiel is talking about antidemocratic ideas—or at least, not simpliciter. Indeed, it’s a cliche that “Washington is broken,” even more so than that it’s a cliche that the university system is broken. There are a thousand organisations in the MOOC space, but there must be a million in the “change the government” space—even more crowded. I think the exchange on charter cities is instructive.
Naturally, if I had what I considered “secrets” in the Thielian sense, I would not be sharing them on this board. I would be trying to turn them into cash. But let me give you a candidate “secret” that I don’t think I can exploit:
“Disruptive innovation often works only by leveraging political splits within regulatory battles. If Uber were just another taxi firm, the Powers That Be would have come down on them with the full force of the law. But really, Uber is just another taxi firm. Their success is based solely on the fact that they are not treated as such, and so can escape from the pro-incumbent regulations that would crush any other insurgent. And the reason they are not treated as such is a combination of:
Woo from the fact that they use the internet.
The fact that free-market political forces have some purchase in taxi regulation.
Uber’s own lobbying.
Given the constantly increasing regulatory reach, startup opportunities are increasingly limited. Consequently, a startup aiming to make a huge splash needs to be a political organisation as much as a business one, along the lines of Uber.”
Let’s say I believe that “secret” to be 60% true.
EDITED TO ADD: The rough draft version of Zero To One can be read, for free here.
I think he’s talking about both. When he asks the question as an interview question he does allow for both answers.
Having the question as a standard interview question also allows Thiel to get a lot of good answers from different people.