Andreessen Horowitz, a prominent venture capital firm, has revealed its intention to engage in lobbying activities with the U.S. government. Their plan, akin to the misguided “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” from this summer, involves offering support to anyone who backs an optimistic, technology-driven future.
Co-founder Ben Horowitz, the author of the blog post detailing their stance, perceives this as a noble, single-issue commitment. However, the reality is that they are affluent ideologues openly expressing their readiness to financially support politicians aligning with their agenda, irrespective of their broader perspectives.
The underlying premise of prioritizing technology over people is evident in their approach. They contend that advocating for artificial intelligence (AI) aligns with being pro-people, asserting that AI has the potential to elevate humanity’s quality of life significantly.
The question arises: Would Andreessen and Horowitz endorse a politician proposing a national abortion ban or the censorship of “woke agenda” books if they professed trust in AI companies promoting the greater good? According to a16z’s stated purpose, issues like abortion are deemed irrelevant to their non-partisan, single-issue voter stance.
However, labeling their position as non-partisan is dubious. Issues related to technology regulation, such as net neutrality, Section 230, TikTok, disinformation on social media, and their favored tech domains—AI, cryptocurrency, and biotech—are inherently partisan. Choosing not to engage in lobbying is also a partisan decision, signaling a reluctance to take a side.
The purported non-partisan language serves as mere rhetoric. a16z’s philosophy appears to be a thinly veiled, deregulatory, and pro-capital agenda adorned with empowerment language. This mirrors historical instances where industries like tobacco, plastics, and leaded gas employed similar tactics to dismantle regulatory obstacles.
The blog post lacks acknowledgment of the potential impact on people and current political issues that their lobbying may influence. By exclusively focusing on the theoretical future benefits or harm to abstract concepts like “uplifting” people, a16z sidesteps the real-world consequences of their actions.
It is unrealistic to believe that supporting politicians aligned with their deregulatory vision will not also endorse other policies crucial to voters, such as voting rights, reproductive care, and education. The firm conveniently sidesteps this conflict of interest, raising questions about the ethical boundaries of their support.
a16z’s understanding of lobbying and politics is unlikely to be as naive as their statement suggests. Despite the intelligence within the firm, their declaration implies a narrow focus on sectoral growth, portraying an ostensibly idealistic pro-humanity stance that masks a self-interested and fundamentally anti-people perspective.
In essence, a16z’s concern is not for individual people but for humanity as a whole. As we usher in a technological golden age, the potential consequences on civil and social policies may lead to a dark age. While individuals may lose certain rights, proponents like Kate Cox may find solace in the advancements of technology, exemplified by the blockchain.
