Drudge headline: Silicon Valley Techies 'Like' Rand Paul... 'Conservatarian' Movement

[TomtheTinker]

SAN JOSE (KPIX 5) — There’s a new app in Silicon Valley — conservatarianism.
It’s the app that conservative Senator Rand Paul is pushing. He wants to join forces with local techies.
But how can technology and liberty flourish side by side? Paul’s answer, “shrink government.”
“Is government inherently stupid?” the Kentucky Republican the audience at the Lincoln Labs Reboot 2014. “I say no, but it’s a debatable question.”
Since Paul’s visit a new political term is being coded — the conservatarian… part conservative, part libertarian.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...tor-rand-paul/

[Brian4Liberty]

“I come out here, and people say, ‘we loved President Obama, we’re all for President Obama, we’re from the tech community’ but why?” said Senator Paul. “He’s not for innovation, he’s not for freedom, he’s for the protectionism crowd, the crowd that would eliminate the activity of these companies.”

I'm not sure what the context is with that statement or what it means exactly. What "protectionism" is Obama involved with? What activities of companies would be eliminated?

And the full video is here. It's a great speech by Rand. That segment was intentionally taken out of context by the media. Rand was talking about domestic crony corporatism, and how regulation is used by the government-corporatist complex to "protect" cronies.

He speaks about that at the 14:00 mark.

[AlexAmore]

I'm not sure what the context is with that statement or what it means exactly. What "protectionism" is Obama involved with? What activities of companies would be eliminated?

Protectionism implies protecting big American corporations from competition. Usually it's done through tariffs and regulations.

[acptulsa]

I'm not sure what the context is with that statement or what it means exactly. What "protectionism" is Obama involved with? What activities of companies would be eliminated?

Protectionism implies protecting big American corporations from competition. Usually it's done through tariffs and regulations.

If the federal code finishes getting to the point where it takes three lawyers and six CPAs just to stay in compliance, then Wal Mart won't bat an eyelash. They have more than enough stores to comply. But will your local burger joint or candle dipper be able to support three lawyers and six CPAs?

And if not, how long until you're buying your burgers and candles only at Wal Mart?

This is an old concept. In the 1970s all of the sudden to sell cars in the U.S. you had to make them safer (which meant making them heavier), you had to make them pollute less (which meant making them less efficient, at least to cut oxides of nitrogen), and you had to make them get better mileage (which meant making them lighter and more efficient). American Motors, the Rambler people, couldn't do it, and the Big Three had that much less competition as a result. GM wound up selling them a lot of engines, because GM could afford to design compliant engines, which cut AMC's profit margin. Eventually, Chrysler wound up with the remains.

Regulations allow government to pick winners and losers. They haven't had any other purpose that I can see for a long time.

[CPUd]

If the federal code finishes getting to the point where it takes three lawyers and six CPAs just to stay in compliance, then Wal Mart won't bat an eyelash. They have more than enough stores to comply. But will your local burger joint or candle dipper be able to support three lawyers and six CPAs?

And if not, how long until you're buying your burgers and candles only at Wal Mart?

Wal Mart has an army of lawyers. They are the "most sued" company in the U.S., or at least they used to be.

[invisible]

GM wound up selling them a lot of engines, because GM could afford to design compliant engines, which cut AMC's profit margin.

Making some pretty lousy cars in the 1970's cut into AMC's profit margin, too. Remember the Hornet? Or how about the Pacer?

[Brian4Liberty]

Protectionism implies protecting big American corporations from competition. Usually it's done through tariffs and regulations.

How does that apply to this situation?

Updated:

And the full video is here. It's a great speech by Rand. That segment was intentionally taken out of context by the media. Rand was talking about domestic crony corporatism, and how regulation is used by the government-corporatist complex to "protect" cronies.

He speaks about that at the 14:00 mark.

[Brian4Liberty]

Regulations allow government to pick winners and losers. They haven't had any other purpose that I can see for a long time.

Update:

Yep, that is it:

And the full video is here. It's a great speech by Rand. That segment was intentionally taken out of context by the media. Rand was talking about domestic crony corporatism, and how regulation is used by the government-corporatist complex to "protect" cronies.

He speaks about that at the 14:00 mark.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is the news story. I have not been able to find anything with the full speeches that were made.

[acptulsa]

Making some pretty lousy cars in the 1970's cut into AMC's profit margin, too. Remember the Hornet? Or how about the Pacer?

And what might they have produced if they hadn't been drowning in a sea of unprecedented and poorly executed regulations? Guess we will never know.

What regulations are in play with high tech companies in Silicon Valley? Of course there are the standard and obvious bureaucratic mandates that every corporation has to comply with, but Obama's biggest action (error) in Silicon Valley was probably funding Solyndra.

Don't know. Does it matter? Are all politics so local that they can't support Rand Paul until their business benefits very directly from his policies?

These guys have the entrepreneurial spirit. They know what that can do for an economy. They understand the meaning of the old proverb, 'A rising tide floats all boats.'

If they have to have a selfish reason, how about they want general prosperity so more people can afford what they produce?

[jllundqu]

Cool... I'm a conservatarian

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't know? Does it matter?

My question was about the exact context and meaning of this quote:

"he’s for the protectionism crowd, the crowd that would eliminate the activity of these companies.”

Protectionism can apply to many things. And I don't know what "protectionist" actions Obama has been involved in.

[twomp]

My question was about the exact context and meaning of this quote:


Protectionism can apply to many things. And I don't know what "protectionist" actions Obama has been involved in.

My first answer would be those wall street banker friends of his who ripped off the country and are continuing to do so.

[GunnyFreedom]

This kind of thing could change the whole game in the long run though. Our biggest weakness as a movement in electoral politics is a lack of funding for local candidates. If we get a silicon valley buy-in to this political movement, that could really change.

[acptulsa]

My question was about the exact context and meaning of this quote:


Protectionism can apply to many things. And I don't know what "protectionist" actions Obama has been involved in.

Well, that garbage he passed a few years ago after the big peanut butter salmonella soap opera certainly does protect Monsanto, to no one's surprise. If it weren't for some last minute amendments, that one would have made farmers' markets illegal. That was in '08 or '09. Doesn't affect silicon valley, of course, but it demonstrates that Obama seems never to have refused to do a rich multinational a favor.

It would be interesting to hear what in particular they're worried about. I doubt there's an industry in the nation that isn't affected by that sort of thing. Yes, if we could get all the small banks and small farmers and small this and small that donating to our candidates, that would be very, very good for us and them both. Assuming, of course, they have any money left to invest at all...

[AlexAmore]

How does that apply to this situation? What has Obama proposed to hurt Silicon Valley companies? What is being done right now to hurt Silicon Valley companies?

The tech crowd comes from the roots of small start-ups - little guys with big ideas. Obama is all about centralization and regulation. If I recall, I believe the owner of Home Depot said he couldn't start that business in today's climate. Rand Paul is simply applying the Home Depot concept to the tech crowd.

[philipped]

This kind of thing could change the whole game in the long run though. Our biggest weakness as a movement in electoral politics is a lack of funding for local candidates. If we get a silicon valley buy-in to this political movement, that could really change.

Local candidates would flood the gates creating each state that is inclined to become more libertarian do so without him even becoming the President if it happens before he's elected. I hope they buy in big time coming mid 2015 for RandPAC coming into the 2016 elections.

[twomp]

My question was about the exact context and meaning of this quote:


Protectionism can apply to many things. And I don't know what "protectionist" actions Obama has been involved in.

The cable companies would be another example. Here is an article on what the government is currently doing to a company called Aereo, possibly cockblocking the rest of us from lower cable rates.

As part of its last-ditch effort to be classified as a cable company, Aereo has filed documents with the US Copyright Office that has made public previously unknown details about the company.

At the end of 2013, Aereo had 77,596 subscribers in 10 cities, according to Peter Kafka of Re/code, who published the information earlier today. About 27,000 of them lived in New York City, Aereo's first market. Boston, its second market, had 12,000 subscribers, while Atlanta had 10,000.

By way of comparison, Kafka notes that Netflix has more than 50 million subscribers worldwide, while Hulu has 6 million subscribers for its premium service.

In October, Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia told The Wall Street Journal that his company could have supported 350,000 subscribers in New York City. In the same interview, Kanojia emphasized that the company was shooting for breadth rather than depth.

"It's better for us to get 10,000 subscribers in 50 markets than 500,000 in New York City," he said.

Aereo customers paid between $8 and $12 per month, getting them Internet-streamed versions of local broadcast TV stations, as well as DVR capabilities. All of those subscribers were shut off after Aereo lost its Supreme Court case last month. Aereo argued that it was simply an equipment-rental service, leasing dime-sized antennas and DVR space to thousands of customers. But the high court found that it looked too much like a cable system to qualify for free re-broadcast.

Now, in a final effort, Aereo is attempting to pay the same copyright fees that cable systems have to pay in order to go legal. Those fees are low, at around 1 percent of total revenue.

However, the TV companies are sure to argue that Aereo shouldn't be treated to the same license as cable systems and that "public performance" rights to their copyrighted content are being infringed no matter what.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...reo-customers/

So the supreme court rules this company "too much like a cable providers" and denies them opportunity to do certain operations. YET AT THE SAME TIME, deny them the same rights that cable providers have.

[LibertyEsq]

Did Paul talk about Patent reform at all at this event? I'm sure that is one issue that would get Silicon Valley on board...

[specsaregood]

My question was about the exact context and meaning of this quote:
Protectionism can apply to many things. And I don't know what "protectionist" actions Obama has been involved in.

I think his use of the word protectionism was intentionally calculated as part of a long term plan to turn the isolationist smears back onto the smear-artists as protectionism is 1/2 of the textbook definition of isolationism.

[Brian4Liberty]

If the federal code finishes getting to the point where it takes three lawyers and six CPAs just to stay in compliance, then Wal Mart won't bat an eyelash. They have more than enough stores to comply. But will your local burger joint or candle dipper be able to support three lawyers and six CPAs?
...
Regulations allow government to pick winners and losers. They haven't had any other purpose that I can see for a long time.

That was exactly what he was talking about.

Here's an update:

The full video is here in it's full context. It's a great speech by Rand. That segment was taken out of context by the media. Rand was talking about domestic crony corporatism, and how regulation is used by the government-corporatist complex to "protect" cronies.

He speaks about that at the 14:00 mark.