Venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz has announced its intention to begin lobbying the U.S. government, but their plan is as tone-deaf and insensitive as this summer’s dreaded “Techno-Optimist Manifesto.” Essentially, they would give anyone — literally anyone — Someone who “supports an optimistic technology-enabled future.”

These are called single-issue voters, and co-founder Ben Horowitz (who wrote the blog post) believes that publicizing themselves that way lends a childlike innocence to lobbying. It seems like it is, but it is quite the opposite.

The fact is that they are rich ideologues who have expressed a willingness to pay politicians who promote their agenda, regardless of what that politician’s other opinions may be. It’s really easy!

Fundamental to their approach is that technology is more important than people. They claim to be pro-human in the sense that they are pro-technology, e.g., writing, “Artificial intelligence has the potential to lift all humanity to an unprecedented quality of life.” right.

Therefore, being more AI-oriented means being more human-oriented.And actually, if you think about it, if you have AI. did it It justifies taking actions that lead to a 100-fold improvement in the human condition in the long term but have worse outcomes in the short term. For example, supporting politicians who oppose basic civil rights simply because they propose more liberal technology regulations.

For example, if a politician proposing a national abortion ban or a widespread ban on “Wake Agenda” books said he trusts AI companies to do what’s best for everyone, Andreessen and Would Horowitz support it? Now, according to A16Z’s statement of purpose here, abortion is not their business. They are “nonpartisan, one-issue voters.”

But that’s just bullshit, right?

To begin with, the idea that this one issue is bipartisan is at risk. Supporters of forced birth will likely describe themselves as independent, one-issue voters. After all, it’s not about politics, it’s about the right to life. It is irrelevant that a single political party has cynically linked this and other “traditional values” to all other policy proposals for decades.

No, no, you can’t just do that declare Nonpartisanship in blog posts. Technology regulation, like everything else, is a partisan issue. Net neutrality, Section 230, TikTok, social media disinformation, A16Z’s pet tech Debate about AI, cryptocurrencies, and biotech are all partisan. That’s just the nature of politics today.flat do not have Participating in lobbying is, in a sense, a partisan decision because it shows that you are not taking sides.

But that partisan language is just the usual pretense for this kind of announcement. Everyone claims it because it is a meaningless property and cannot be proven or disproved. The problem with A16Z’s philosophy here is that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing: an overtly deregulatory and pro-capitalist agenda masked superficially in the language of empowerment.

You have to imagine some tobacco industry executive wrote a similar blog post in the 60’s. We are nonpartisan, single issue voters on a faulty regulatory system that unfairly prevents Americans from enjoying the great taste and health benefits of our natural tobacco products.

The same goes for plastics, food additives, leaded gas, and everything else. All they were interested in, and all Andreessen Horowitz was interested in, was removing onerous obstacles to increasing wealth from the boardroom.

If they actually cared at all about people and how politics and lobbying affect them, then perhaps “the people” would theoretically mean “exalted” in some imagined future. It would have been referred to as more than an abstract concept that could be ” or hurt.

It’s unrealistic to think that by donating to politicians who support a vision of deregulation, A16Z won’t also support other policies that people are actually voting for right now. voting rights, reproductive care, education, etc. This obvious conflict of interest is conveniently avoided. Are any positions or proposals so despicable that they will withdraw their support, or will they stand by their principles, if it can be described as such?

They cannot expect us to believe that their understanding of lobbying and politics is this simple. There are smart people in that company. We have to take at face value their statements that they really don’t care about anything other than growing the areas they’re investing in. But what they are proclaiming is not an idealistic pro-humanity position as they suggest, but cynical selfishness. Basically an anti-people attitude.

But A16Z doesn’t care. people — I’m curious about that. Human race.

And as we enter this golden age of technology and enter a dark age of social policy, humanity will no doubt be grateful, right? Women like Kate Cox may not have physical independencebut at least they will have blockchain.