It seems much of the political divide in the tech adjacent professional sphere actually hinges on whether one is able to believe that ‘the market’ (simple, promethean, ideal, escaping state structuration) is responsible for tech development post WW2, or on the other side, if one has read the history of tech and  ‘the market’ as a Cthulhu-like extension of state policy through three letter organizations and myriad capital allocation structures—both covert (shadow venture capital) and non-covert (DARPA, NASA, manhattan project etc).

Healthy tech Pyrrhonist. Maker of arbtr.com. Écoconceptionsplainer.

I'm eth newbie..just learning
(working on @farcaster)

terminally.online

I know what you mean. That’s the ideological knot I was trying to untie. But fundamentally they’re market liberals trying to re-occupy conservatism (the American tradition). Their fascination with reactionary/monarchic/China stuff is resolved into a kind of meta market liberalism of lots of little ‘absolute power’ centralizations that somehow balance each other out and provide ‘choice’ (continuing the American project). Isn’t it the same basic ‘invisible hand’ thinking with new clothes? On the other hand you have actual non-liberals, right and left, who just see labyrinthine power that needs reform. Curious how you see the breakdown/reconstruction though.

Isn't the most interesting thing happening lately seeing this divide break down? "American dynamism" is a bunch of market liberals striking a new bargain with the deep state.