5 ms·

He's fairly closely aligned with the neoreactionary / dark enlightenment movement which does have some elements of libertarianism but is more focused on the rej

He's fairly closely aligned with the neoreactionary / dark enlightenment movement which does have some elements of libertarianism but is more focused on the rejection of democracy, taxes, and anything approaching egalitarianism. He wrote an essay for Cato a few years ago that spells out his views fairly specifically: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... There are some stark quotes, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" or "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. In that sense, his support for Trump makes more sense.

mindcrime 10y ago
Good point. This whole "dark enlightenment" stuff seems so ridiculous to me though. :-(
pjscott 10y ago
Those are the parts of that essay that people always quote -- which is odd, since they're just statistical observations about what the electorate will support. The real meat of the essay is what Thiel proposes we do about it: not some political project to seize power or disenfranchise people who disagree, but a few ideas for how to sidestep politics with technology that will make freedom easier. In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.” The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it. Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom. He then goes on to talk about the internet, space colonization, and seasteading. I'm not really seeing the neoreactionary angle here. Am I missing something?
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  The part where he says giving half the population the right to vote made impossible his perverse fantasy? Substitute "blacks" or "Jews" in that statement if his fascist leanings need to be made more clear.
- mseebach 10y ago
  The controversy of the quotes isn't around the statistical truth of what they say, it's that they reject the "democratist" assertion of a monotonically causal chain of more voting -> more democracy -> better. For "democratists", freedom lost to democratic decisions pretty much by definition isn't really lost. Ancient and not-so-ancient democracies have predicated the right to vote on such things as military service, land ownership, not being on welfare and other things. The idea is that voters should have a substantial stake in the republic (not saying that either predicate is a good, much less perfect, proxy for such a stake), not merely inhabiting it. Returning to that, rejecting "democratism" is the reactionary part.
  - adrianratnapala 10y ago
    Heck man, I'm a "democratist" -- in the sense that I hold democracy to be a sacred value. But I don't beleive in that causal chain; and I probably don't beleive in the less sloppy alterntives you might think of given time. Also freedom-first thinkers like Thiel (and me for that matter) can just say: sure I believe in democracy -- and the most effective way to get it is almost alway to let people rule themselves. You can argue that that is playing with definitions -- but every republic since Athens that was worth a damn found ways to give individuals their space to do stuff that other people didn't like.
- 5040 10y ago
  The concept of escape is of primary importance to neoreactionaries. For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/ http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-b...
drumdance 10y ago
My gut feeling is his support for Trump has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with throwing a gigantic wrench in the works. In the best case it leads to a realignment of the electorate. In the worst case a lot of things go to hell, but he's a billionaire so he can always just up and move.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  I think Thiel supports trump because he wants trump to blow everything up. He says women voting was bad for his political block (libertarians). He thinks we shouldn't have got enforcing things like safety - instead just sue people who wronged you. just like he did to gawker.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I think that supporting Trump on alt-right grounds while once claiming to support the "NAP" style of "freedom" is a textbook example of being so sharp you cut yourself. One doesn't obtain freedom from state intervention of any kind by putting an egotistical fascist strongman into power.

mindcrime 10y ago

Good point. This whole "dark enlightenment" stuff seems so ridiculous to me though. :-(

pjscott 10y ago

Those are the parts of that essay that people always quote -- which is odd, since they're just statistical observations about what the electorate will support. The real meat of the essay is what Thiel proposes we do about it: not some political project to seize power or disenfranchise people who disagree, but a few ideas for how to sidestep politics with technology that will make freedom easier. In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.” The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it. Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom. He then goes on to talk about the internet, space colonization, and seasteading. I'm not really seeing the neoreactionary angle here. Am I missing something?

alphonsegaston 10y ago
The part where he says giving half the population the right to vote made impossible his perverse fantasy? Substitute "blacks" or "Jews" in that statement if his fascist leanings need to be made more clear.
mseebach 10y ago
The controversy of the quotes isn't around the statistical truth of what they say, it's that they reject the "democratist" assertion of a monotonically causal chain of more voting -> more democracy -> better. For "democratists", freedom lost to democratic decisions pretty much by definition isn't really lost. Ancient and not-so-ancient democracies have predicated the right to vote on such things as military service, land ownership, not being on welfare and other things. The idea is that voters should have a substantial stake in the republic (not saying that either predicate is a good, much less perfect, proxy for such a stake), not merely inhabiting it. Returning to that, rejecting "democratism" is the reactionary part.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Heck man, I'm a "democratist" -- in the sense that I hold democracy to be a sacred value. But I don't beleive in that causal chain; and I probably don't beleive in the less sloppy alterntives you might think of given time. Also freedom-first thinkers like Thiel (and me for that matter) can just say: sure I believe in democracy -- and the most effective way to get it is almost alway to let people rule themselves. You can argue that that is playing with definitions -- but every republic since Athens that was worth a damn found ways to give individuals their space to do stuff that other people didn't like.
5040 10y ago
The concept of escape is of primary importance to neoreactionaries. For the hardcore neo-reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/ http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-b...

drumdance 10y ago

My gut feeling is his support for Trump has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with throwing a gigantic wrench in the works. In the best case it leads to a realignment of the electorate. In the worst case a lot of things go to hell, but he's a billionaire so he can always just up and move.

NotSammyHagar 10y ago
I think Thiel supports trump because he wants trump to blow everything up. He says women voting was bad for his political block (libertarians). He thinks we shouldn't have got enforcing things like safety - instead just sue people who wronged you. just like he did to gawker.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

I think that supporting Trump on alt-right grounds while once claiming to support the "NAP" style of "freedom" is a textbook example of being so sharp you cut yourself. One doesn't obtain freedom from state intervention of any kind by putting an egotistical fascist strongman into power.