10 ms·

> He is a libertarian I just find this impossible to reconcile with his support for Trump, the most authoritarian presidential candidate in a very long time an

• madaxe_again 10y ago
  Conversely, he could from a family like mine - my Omi is Austrian, along with a slew of cousins. Dinner table conversation still turns to how things would have been better had herr Hitler won. My uncle has to leave the room he so vociferously objects to his mother and his children. So, that collective memory swings both ways. Maybe Thiel lacks education in history and pines for a glorious fictitious past, which is a core tenet of the trump campaign. And fascism. He may be a decent technologist and business person, but that doesn't make him wise.
  • AvenueIngres 10y ago
    Thiel has bachelor and JD degrees in Philosophy and Law from Stanford. I think it is a little bit preposterous to assume he holds his current views about Trump simply because he is too uneducated to think otherwise. >Maybe Thiel lacks education in history and pines for a glorious fictitious past, which is a core tenet of the trump campaign. And fascism. Maybe you are the one confusing narratives built around each candidate by one camp or another with actual ideological separation between those two candidates. Trump is not an authoritarian and Clinton is not a progressive. This election is about solving the great stagnation problem the world and the US are facing. Thiel understands that should Clinton win, there will be war and an ever increasing flow of immigration that will slowly grow to become impossible to assimilate into what is current mainstream American culture. > And fascism. Besides, this is not even the case. You understand concepts have definitions and you can manipulate those to fit whatever pisses you off in a candidate campaigning rhetoric.
    • morgante 10y ago
      > Trump is not an authoritarian He fits very squarely into the definition of an authoritarian. His greatest goal is "power" and he openly praises authoritarian leaders like Hussein and Putin. His supported policies include registration of minorities, torture, curtailing of the free press, restriction of religious freedom, and reprisals against political enemies—all straight out of the authoritarian playbook. At this point, I'm having a hard time thinking of an authoritarian policy which Trump wouldn't support. There is zero evidence that he has any coherent plan to solve the "great stagnation" problem unless you think the real problem in this country is it isn't white enough. Read this article and tell me it doesn't apply to Trump: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
      • forgetsusername 10y ago
        >"His supported policies include registration of minorities, Do you have a source for this? What is considered a "minority"? I thought it was directed at "illegal immigrants", which I agree is a dumb idea. But saying it applies to "minorities" is a stretch. >torture, curtailing of the free press, restriction of religious freedom, and reprisals against political enemies" How much worse is it to openly support these things, than to say you don't support them, but do so behind the scenes? Because all these things have happened under the watch of nearly every politician I can think of.
        • morgante 10y ago
          > Do you have a source for this? There are two different proposals I'm thinking of. One for making a national registry of all Muslims in the United States (a religious minority) and another for police being able to demand immigration papers at any time. The problem is that there isn't any way to look at someone and say they are an "illegal immigrant" so you end up with a totalitarian regime where police are stopping minorities and demanding to see their papers. I honestly don't know how anyone can look at Trump and say he's not an authoritarian. He literally advocates stuff straight out of a comic book authoritarian regime: "stop and show me your papers." > How much worse is it to openly support these things, than to say you don't support them, but do so behind the scenes? Much worse. Openly advocating something so abhorrent pushes it into the room of acceptability and makes doing it acceptable en mass. It's the difference between the occasional hate crime and genocide. When something is unacceptable, you can't do it too much of it or you risk causing a scandal. I also having a lot of trouble agreeing that these things "happened under the watch of nearly every politician I can think of." Has Obama thrown political enemies in prison? Has Hillary asked her supporters to violently attack enemies? Heck, has Bush tried to ban an entire religion from the United States? Citations severely needed.
  • DominikR 10y ago
    Hitler was a Socialist, not a right wing politician. That's what you Austrians/Germans get wrong. Hitler enacted a 70% income tax for the highest incomes, implemented a full welfare state, free childcare, free schools, free everything to force propaganda down their throats. He was an arts student (probably he would have done well with SJW's of today), a vegetarian, anti smoking, pro animal rights, anti religion etc. The right wing wants to get rid of all mandatory welfare and government influence on our lives in order to make it impossible for authoritarians like Hitler to hijack the system. German people in specific are culturally one of least capable in understanding what freedom actually means. That's something that makes them unique in Europe. (and btw the main reason why Benjamin Franklin was so critical of allowing Germans into the US - he feared that they would subvert the system and freedoms with their hive mind mentality)
    • anotherhacker 10y ago
      Hitler was a Fascist / Authoritarian, not a Socialist. This confusion about Socialist vs Fascism is common because - as you point out - they enact similar policies, e.g. high taxes. There are numerous differences between the two. The biggest has to do with the relationship between the state and the individual: In a Fascist / Authoritarian regime, the individual is subordinated to the state. E.g. "The state knows what's best for me. I'll do whatever they tell me to do." That's why Nazi = "National Socialism..." In a Socialist government, the state is subordinated to the individual. This is also sometimes referred to as "active state liberalism". E.g. "The state exists to ensure we all live a happy life that enables us to pursue our own interests." France is a good example of this. These are in contrast to what is called "classic" or "minimal state" liberalism. A liberal will say "The state exists to make sure that no one oppresses me, but it's not the state's responsibility to take care of me". This is the original version that comes from Locke, Mills, F. A. Hayek...
      • DominikR 10y ago
        Why is it then that Socialist governments which are supposedly subordinated to the individual all seem to end up in having re education camps, Gulags, forced labour or concentration camps to crack down on dissenters. Why can't they let individual dissenting opinions exist beside their own hive mind ideology. Why do Socialist governments always try to get control over education to indoctrinate the next generation instead of allowing parents to raise their children however they see fit. Why do Socialists always attack people who are successful for merely being successful. (back then: filthy Jewish bankers, today: filthy bankers) No, I do not buy it that in Socialism the government is subordinated to the individual, my family actually lived in such a shit system and I've seen it as a child myself. You can maybe convince gullible youth and students in the West who frequent overrated Universities that this is true but not me. Edit: And last but not least: Hitler himself frequently said and wrote that he is a Socialist. Not an International Socialist like the Soviet Union but a National Socialist.
• quirkafleeg 10y ago
  > We of all people should know better. Not if Austria's 2016 presidential elections are anything to go by.
  • DominikR 10y ago
    I'm in Austria, it was a disgrace. All of media was attacking the right wing guy with no dissenting voices, and you have to be afraid of personal and professional consequences if you endorse him or say anything against the Socialist candidate they are trying to push. It's literally like in the Soviet Union, at least that's what my parents told me as they came from a Communist country.
    • mrcarrot 10y ago
      The media can't be very good at propaganda if they were 'all attacking the right wing guy' and he _still_ managed to poll almost 50% of the vote.
      • blfr 10y ago
        It's a feedback loop of adverse selection. They become more politically slanted, fewer people listen to them, their revenues plummet, their recruitment pool gets shallower, they become more politically slanted... At a certain point only true propaganda believers willing to work for ~minimum wage remain. Now, they're also getting hammered by social media hastening the process. The same thing happened to communists. After 50 years only idiots and sociopathic opportunists (since they still had the spoils of power) could be found in the party.
    • golemotron 10y ago
      Just like the US this year. This is not an exaggeration. Many people would have professional and personal consequences for supporting Trump in public. People like Peter Thiel and Scott Adams have enough money to not care. Scott isn't even endorsing him and he says that his speaking engagements have dried up. We may see a big difference between the polling and the election results this year. The Shy Tory Effect came to America.
• dreta 10y ago
  We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms. Democrats can call it "common sense" whatever, but that's what it is.
  • jinfiesto 10y ago
    I guess I'm committed to wearing long sleeves now. Though seriously, I don't think anyone can argue that Trump doesn't fall squarely in the "Authoritarian" camp. Also, the parent doesn't even mention that Trump is "Authoritarian?" Only that he "appeals to white identity politics?"
  • dcposch 10y ago
    > Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.
    • dreta 10y ago
      There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.
      • Keverw 10y ago
        I know they say there's online loopholes too. Last time I checked the law was they had to ship the gun to a local licensed firearms dealer, who then does a background check and hands over the gun for a reasonable fee.
      • douche 10y ago
        This. It's admittedly pretty simple if you want to go buy a firearm in a reasonable state, like Maine or New Hampshire. You go to the gun dealer/sporting goods store/Walmart. You pick out what you want. They submit your information to the background checking system. You go get lunch and come back an hour later. Assuming you're a law-abiding citizen, you pay the cashier and walk out the store with your new firearm. Now, what you can also do legally in most states is purchase a firearm from another private individual through a private sale. An enormous number of second-hand gun sales occur in this fashion, through Craigslist or classified ads or personal acquaintances. Effectively, this is no different than if you were buying and selling lawnmowers or comic books, or any other mundane object. I am skeptical of any attempts to really regulate this activity, because it is effectively unenforceable given the number of firearms currently in circulation and the almost complete lack of any records of ownership history for most of them.
• DominikR 10y ago
  He does not explicitly appeal to or endorse white identity politics. Where's the proof for your outrageous statement? And what exactly is wrong with wanting to "take back your country"? He's talking about enforcing existing laws like having borders.
  • mrcarrot 10y ago
    He may not explicitly endorse them, but his dog-whistling is certainly resonating with a particular crowd[1]. [1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hat...
    • briandear 10y ago
      Could it not be argued that Clinton engages in non-white identity politics? Her 'deplorables' comment was almost entirely referring to white people. Plenty of deplorables that are Democrat and non-white but her comment was playing the identity card just as deftly as Trump's people have.
      • atomi 10y ago
        Trump's mass deportations are a form of ethnic cleansing.
        • kazagistar 10y ago
          This is the sort of BS that ruins any chance of dialogue. Just calling someone or some action a label is not productive, just like anti-abortion activists calling it baby killing or whatever. The people who support those actions aren't going to think they are any less good, just, fair, moral etc just because you gave it an overly dramatic label. Why not discuss impact, moral principles, or whatever else actually makes it possible to at least start from a middle ground?
          • atomi 10y ago
• chrischen 10y ago
  As a libertarian he believes in survival of the fittest, so a lot of his strategy involves "fuck shit up" and see what survives. Or just letting things sort themselves out.
  • datashovel 10y ago
    I wonder what a world full of people who proactively "fuck shit up" would look like.
    • Nydhal 10y ago
      Antifragile.
      • datashovel 10y ago
        I believe we're thinking about this at different orders of magnitude. My initial reaction was that it would very likely lead to a nuclear holocaust.
        • sitkack 10y ago
          And the surviving organisms would be ... Antifragile!
      • notthemessiah 10y ago
        Babies need to survive the pits before being part of society. Only the fittest survive in ruthless competition we impose. Let god sort them out.
• neonbat 10y ago
  thiels philosophy is actually deeply technocratic authoritarian. in a lot of ways he is a technocrat and not a true libertarian. hes said on multiple occasions that politics has failed libertarians and that they should try 'alternatives.'
  • empath75 10y ago
    Yeah he seems more of a Mencius moldbug dark-enlightenment type.
  • zappo2938 10y ago
    I tried looking up libertarian on Wikipedia and there are so many definitions I'm not sure what people mean when they say the word, libertarian. What I thought the word meant years ago was no government, turns out that is called anarchism. When people tell me that they are libertarian I always wonder what the hell that means or if they even know.
    • davemel37 10y ago
      IMO it means you believe in a right freedom so long as you dont infringe on someone elses rights. So, in theory you would be against forcing someone to pay taxes to build roads or provide education, but would arguably be for paying for a police department and justice system to protect people from having others infringe on their rights. It basically means the only function of government should be to protect our freedoms and anything outside that purview should be done by the private sector and let the markets decide what has real value and is worth investing in.
      • wsgeorge 10y ago
        I haven't looked into this myself, but your definition of "libertarian" fits exactly with my concept of an ideal government: one that's sole purpose is to protect the freedoms and dignities of all those within its jurisdiction, and within that framework, allowing everything else to be more or less self-determined, so long as the freedoms and dignity of all those within it are not harmed.
• zo1 10y ago
  >"I've lived in America my whole life, but I was born in Austria, and German is my first language. It pains me to see a fellow German-speaking immigrant support a right-wing populist who appeals pretty explicitly to white identity politics. We of all people should know better." As opposed to black identity politics? Or female identity politics? Would you feel better if the context was a place like South Africa where the white minority is actively being persecuted/discriminated against? Would that make white identity politics okay in your book? >"I just find this impossible to reconcile with his support for Trump, the most authoritarian presidential candidate in a very long time and possibly ever." I'm not an American, but I'm a libertarian and I definitely support Donald Trump. He represents an active regression back to a mean, rather than further towards the socialist-left. That is why I think it'll be better for him to be president, rather than someone like Hillary or Obama, or even Gary Johnson.
  • kybernetyk 10y ago
    I'm, too, not an American but a libertarian. And I don't support either candidate. Tbh. I find it horribly sad how much time and energy people invest in this election where the both possible outcomes are equally bad. "Voting for the lesser evil" is still voting for evil. So why not take all that time wasted on internet arguments about which evil is the lesser one and do something fun instead?
    • ZoF 10y ago
      You saying they're the same doesn't make them the same, you're aware of that right?
      • kybernetyk 10y ago
        You saying they're not the same doesn't make them not the same, you're aware of that right? As you see that's a non-argument.
        • ZoF 10y ago
          Actually me saying they're not the same would be a statement of fact. As an American, forgive me for actually caring about my countries politics.