8 ms·

In his own words: "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educat

In his own words: "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

Simon_says 9y ago
This is a pretty run of the mill opinion in Libertarian circles. As a Libertarian, it's hard not to feel that way as you see decades of what the majority of people vote for and what the majority of people put up with in their elected officials. Unless your argument is that Libertarians, generally, are unlikable, in which case, you may have a point ...
- somedangedname 9y ago
  People vote wrong so take their votes away?
  - Simon_says 9y ago
    I'm totally with you, but if you read the article, this wasn't Thiel's argument. His solution was to establish societies in new frontiers: Cyberspace, the Ocean, and Space.
hoorayimhelping 9y ago
I tend to agree with him. Look at what happens whenever we put things to a popular vote in this country. Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?
- honestoHeminway 9y ago
  Because the other half of the species is frankly in constant denial of human nature? This is how we kept the tribe working before the modern state. A instinct in hetero man- telling them to hate on homosexuals. A instinct in hetero woman to test for this behaviour and use it, by having a drug addicted hetero male with which to threaten homo-sexual men into forming a contract-upholding-support group. Thus religion was born. To declare this phobia synthetic is heresy.
- mrkrabo 9y ago
  And what makes you think you are universally and undeniably right if you support homosexuality and marijuana?
  - islanderfun 9y ago
    Don't believe it has to do with being "universally and undeniably right" but rather freedom to have gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Nothing to be "correct" about.
    - mrkrabo 9y ago
      Where do we draw the line? If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? If marijuana, why not cocaine?
      - untog 9y ago
        > If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? Because animals are not able to give consent, nor are they capable of the thinking required to do so. Suggesting that homosexuality and zoophilia are two points on the same line is a very tired and inaccurate point to try to make. > If marijuana, why not cocaine? Actually a fair question. There's an interesting line of thought in legalising all drugs to bring them out into the open.
- somedangedname 9y ago
  I think that someone who thinks democracy cramps his style has no business advising the president.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    The president isn't elected via democracy. It seems like congresspeople should be most concerned with democracy.
    - somedangedname 9y ago
      The electoral college is weighted representative democracy as opposed to a direct vote. It's clumsy but still reflects the popular vote.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        It's actually unequally-weighted doubly indirect representation with structural incentives (but no guarantee) for the representatives actually tasked with choosing the voting representatives to both delegated that task to the citizenry and a separate set of incentives and abide by the results and a separate set of incentives (and, again, no guarantee) for the set of voting representatives to vote in accordance with the preferences expressed by the voters by whom they were elected. And neither of those sets of incentives is, unlike the doubly-indirect structure itself, part of the federal Constitution; they are both much more recent federal statute and state law incentives.
        somedangedname 9y ago
        Yah, so like I said it's clumsy.
      - yellowapple 9y ago
        The most recent presidential election suggests otherwise.
- bsder 9y ago
  > Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. First, California is only very liberal in certain places. It is very conservative in others (the Central Valley) Second, gay marriage opposition had a huge campaign by a religious organization. That religious organization should have been fined heavily or lost its tax exemption for doing so. Third, it takes time for the attitudes about things like marijuana legalization to shift. That moment was, in fact, the last moment when the legalization opponents could have won. And they were backed by large amounts of money being thrown around by things like the alcohol lobby who are deathly afraid of legalization affecting their profits (they are correct).
mmirate 9y ago
Thiel is correct. Any centralized system wherein multiple cultures must fight for a majority with which to impose their culture on everyone else, does not respect the freedom of slightly under half its citizens. ("Red Tribe" and "Blue Tribe", as one may call the collection of traits held by the average conservative and average neoliberal, respectively, are effectively different cultures[1].) [1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
- somedangedname 9y ago
  You can enact laws that respect and support multiple points of view. See: national service but with exemptions for reasons of faith, mixed public private medical systems etc. Also, I would say that you are using a shallow definition of culture.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    > mixed public private medical systems etc. As best I understand, having a single system with aspects of both extremes, has not brought out the advantages of either. We'd be better served by having a public system and a market that competes with it; except that nobody in good health would find the public system to be competitive, and that thus the public system would devolve into a public charity for the chronically ill/injured/etc. > national service but with exemptions That's all well and good, but exemptions become more difficult for a number of other things. For instance, rural residents (a.k.a. "Red Tribe") generally prefer to be taxed less and receive less subsidized services overall in return; whereas many urban residents wish for a sort of Northern-European "nanny state" which provides every service imaginable in exchange for having negligible post-tax net income. And here's another example which speaks more directly to geography. In rural areas there are (a) hostile and/or food-bearing wildlife, (b) large wooded areas devoid of humans (or, at least, demarcated with warnings that all humans within must wear high-visibility vests) and (c) an abundance of soft, bullet-absorbing ground. For this reason, rurals see firearms as a useful tool that can be handled safely enough to not cause injury to humans or damage to human property. (Unless, of course, one is an outlaw who intends to do so.) In urban areas, by contrast, there is scarcely any direction at all in which one can point a muzzle without "flagging" something valuable or someone; either directly, or on the ricochet from the hard materials that are common in urban areas, or even penetrating through a wooden wall/floor/ceiling of your apartment. It is no surprise, then, that many urbans see no purpose to civilian firearms ownership whatsoever; and would never see such a thing without entering a rural area; and would thus have no empathy or respect whatsoever for their rural neighbors who are so wary of firearms restrictions.

Simon_says 9y ago

This is a pretty run of the mill opinion in Libertarian circles. As a Libertarian, it's hard not to feel that way as you see decades of what the majority of people vote for and what the majority of people put up with in their elected officials. Unless your argument is that Libertarians, generally, are unlikable, in which case, you may have a point ...

somedangedname 9y ago
People vote wrong so take their votes away?
- Simon_says 9y ago
  I'm totally with you, but if you read the article, this wasn't Thiel's argument. His solution was to establish societies in new frontiers: Cyberspace, the Ocean, and Space.

hoorayimhelping 9y ago

I tend to agree with him. Look at what happens whenever we put things to a popular vote in this country. Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Either way, someone expressing a loss of belief in something makes them unlikable? You don't like Peter Thiel because he's become cynical about democracy?

honestoHeminway 9y ago
Because the other half of the species is frankly in constant denial of human nature? This is how we kept the tribe working before the modern state. A instinct in hetero man- telling them to hate on homosexuals. A instinct in hetero woman to test for this behaviour and use it, by having a drug addicted hetero male with which to threaten homo-sexual men into forming a contract-upholding-support group. Thus religion was born. To declare this phobia synthetic is heresy.
mrkrabo 9y ago
And what makes you think you are universally and undeniably right if you support homosexuality and marijuana?
- islanderfun 9y ago
  Don't believe it has to do with being "universally and undeniably right" but rather freedom to have gay marriage and marijuana legalization. Nothing to be "correct" about.
  - mrkrabo 9y ago
    Where do we draw the line? If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? If marijuana, why not cocaine?
    - untog 9y ago
      > If homosexuality, why not zoophilia? Because animals are not able to give consent, nor are they capable of the thinking required to do so. Suggesting that homosexuality and zoophilia are two points on the same line is a very tired and inaccurate point to try to make. > If marijuana, why not cocaine? Actually a fair question. There's an interesting line of thought in legalising all drugs to bring them out into the open.
somedangedname 9y ago
I think that someone who thinks democracy cramps his style has no business advising the president.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  The president isn't elected via democracy. It seems like congresspeople should be most concerned with democracy.
  - somedangedname 9y ago
    The electoral college is weighted representative democracy as opposed to a direct vote. It's clumsy but still reflects the popular vote.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      It's actually unequally-weighted doubly indirect representation with structural incentives (but no guarantee) for the representatives actually tasked with choosing the voting representatives to both delegated that task to the citizenry and a separate set of incentives and abide by the results and a separate set of incentives (and, again, no guarantee) for the set of voting representatives to vote in accordance with the preferences expressed by the voters by whom they were elected. And neither of those sets of incentives is, unlike the doubly-indirect structure itself, part of the federal Constitution; they are both much more recent federal statute and state law incentives.
      - somedangedname 9y ago
        Yah, so like I said it's clumsy.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      The most recent presidential election suggests otherwise.
bsder 9y ago
> Even in places that re known as being very liberal, like California, half the population regularly votes against gay marriage and marijuana legalization. First, California is only very liberal in certain places. It is very conservative in others (the Central Valley) Second, gay marriage opposition had a huge campaign by a religious organization. That religious organization should have been fined heavily or lost its tax exemption for doing so. Third, it takes time for the attitudes about things like marijuana legalization to shift. That moment was, in fact, the last moment when the legalization opponents could have won. And they were backed by large amounts of money being thrown around by things like the alcohol lobby who are deathly afraid of legalization affecting their profits (they are correct).

mmirate 9y ago

Thiel is correct. Any centralized system wherein multiple cultures must fight for a majority with which to impose their culture on everyone else, does not respect the freedom of slightly under half its citizens. ("Red Tribe" and "Blue Tribe", as one may call the collection of traits held by the average conservative and average neoliberal, respectively, are effectively different cultures[1].) [1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

somedangedname 9y ago
You can enact laws that respect and support multiple points of view. See: national service but with exemptions for reasons of faith, mixed public private medical systems etc. Also, I would say that you are using a shallow definition of culture.
- mmirate 9y ago
  > mixed public private medical systems etc. As best I understand, having a single system with aspects of both extremes, has not brought out the advantages of either. We'd be better served by having a public system and a market that competes with it; except that nobody in good health would find the public system to be competitive, and that thus the public system would devolve into a public charity for the chronically ill/injured/etc. > national service but with exemptions That's all well and good, but exemptions become more difficult for a number of other things. For instance, rural residents (a.k.a. "Red Tribe") generally prefer to be taxed less and receive less subsidized services overall in return; whereas many urban residents wish for a sort of Northern-European "nanny state" which provides every service imaginable in exchange for having negligible post-tax net income. And here's another example which speaks more directly to geography. In rural areas there are (a) hostile and/or food-bearing wildlife, (b) large wooded areas devoid of humans (or, at least, demarcated with warnings that all humans within must wear high-visibility vests) and (c) an abundance of soft, bullet-absorbing ground. For this reason, rurals see firearms as a useful tool that can be handled safely enough to not cause injury to humans or damage to human property. (Unless, of course, one is an outlaw who intends to do so.) In urban areas, by contrast, there is scarcely any direction at all in which one can point a muzzle without "flagging" something valuable or someone; either directly, or on the ricochet from the hard materials that are common in urban areas, or even penetrating through a wooden wall/floor/ceiling of your apartment. It is no surprise, then, that many urbans see no purpose to civilian firearms ownership whatsoever; and would never see such a thing without entering a rural area; and would thus have no empathy or respect whatsoever for their rural neighbors who are so wary of firearms restrictions.