> Is there not a more contradictory thing to say? I don't know how Libertarians are okay with others using their moniker for something that doesn't seem liberta

> Is there not a more contradictory thing to say? I don't know how Libertarians are okay with others using their moniker for something that doesn't seem libertarian. Its doublethink, yes. Thiel publicly proclaims he is a libertarian but his genuine, underlying belief is he can change the world and enforce his beliefs upon it. This is pretty much the antithesis of Gary Johnson who is very much the live and let live libertarian. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... > I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.” > But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today. http://archive.is/pQc1F http://archive.is/pQc1F > He is now not so much a libertarian as a corporate Nietzschean, who believes in the power of gifted entrepreneurs to change the world through the sheer force of will and intellect.