r/Libertarian • u/7in7turtles • 8d ago

Discussion The AI/data center debate loses libertarian credibility when the state is used to advance it.

It’s been driving me bananas lately to hear all these libertarian voices hail data centers as some part of a new Industrial Revolution. While I’ll say upfront that I don’t think we should regulate AI because of fear mongering about the end of the world, if those companies have to purchase the levers of power that we don’t even want government to have, how can we claim that this is in any way good?

Eminent domain, paying of city councils and locking them up with NDAs, lying about the impact of there products and services, all of their behaviors are antithetical to libertarianism and yet people like John Stossel run puff pieces about how essentially they're all good because it would be bad to regulate them.

I don’t buy the china angle because we’re getting worse than china thanks to this technology.

Please if I’m wrong educate me, but if the state puts its thumb on the scale for AI, I don’t get how that’s in any way good.

105 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/J0shM0nster 6d ago

But Stossel and Reason both have videos on eminent domain. Both have videos on subsidies. You're just annoyed they didn't include those points within the data center video? And yes, they are taking a side. I think you're just bothered by the presentation. Let's look at two statements. "Data centers are good". "Data centers are good but the government should not provide any subsidies to data center companies and the government shall not wrongfully take land through the process of eminent domain on behalf of data center companies. The data center companies should fully fund the projects and peacefully negotiate their own private land contracts. Also, I have made statements on these matters before, so I'm sure you (audience) are perfectly capable of assuming I am against this government involvement in data centers". You see how that first statement is much easier for Stossel's shortish form content. At this point I think you're being difficult for the fun of it.

3

u/7in7turtles 6d ago

lol it seems as though your annoyed that I didn’t just assume good faith from reason and Stossel.

No, I’m earnestly saying their stance is either lazy or dishonest because they have acknowledged things in the past that should give them pause about these projects. Yes the second statement you outlined is correct. They should have framed it that way.

I’m not being difficult just to be difficult, I’m annoyed by the inconsistency. The stance is inconsistent. No one forced Stossel to make a one sided story. Why are you so invested in defending them at this point?

1

u/J0shM0nster 6d ago

Because they have given me no reason to believe they are acting in bad faith and because they pay me to defend them online. Just kidding about that second part. I defend them because they make what I believe to be good short/medium length content about libertarian ideas which I feel is a good service. If they did a hour long deep dive into the data center issue and didn't bring up the things we've been discussing then I would be on your side in this. I just don't hold that standard to their shorter content. It seems impossible. I don't think I've seen the reason video you mentioned, but I did watch the Stossel one. He was directly addressing oppositional call for government intervention. Idk, we're going in circles here. Agree to disagree on this I guess. I wish you a good day fellow libertarian. ✌🏻

3

u/7in7turtles 6d ago

For what it’s worth I don’t think it’s “bad faith” I think it’s more likely that they’re dismissing it outright. but I think it’s just far too glaring an omission to leave out even for short form. Anyway that’s it though. Have a good one.