5 ms·
> Reading the quote with a reasonable level of charity suggests Thiel would prefer to convince these voters of the appeal of limited-government policy, not revo
by confounded 9y ago
> Reading the quote with a reasonable level of charity suggests Thiel would prefer to convince these voters of the appeal of limited-government policy, not revoke their right to vote.
Where are you getting this from? He says nothing of the sort; simply that women and poor people have destroyed capitalist democracy, by attaining the right to vote.
There are a great many on HN who rush to Theil's defense, who seem unfamiliar with his very public, very outspoken politics. He's also said that "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."
His solution to the fact that democracies may disagree with him is to weaken and destroy democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
- gaurav_v 9y agoHe clarified that he didn't want to revoke rights to vote explicitly as an addendum to the essay (see bottom): https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... Seems like an open and shut case of bad journalism.
- studentrob 9y ago> Seems like an open and shut case of bad journalism. Hmm.. Seems like an open and shut case of a conservative saying words that mean one thing, then saying more words that are directly contradictory. We've seen enough of this "subtlety" in 2017 to recognize it. He could, in the future, also claim that he only made that correction in order to be PC, and that he felt censored and shamed.
- TimPC 9y agoTo put the quote in context it was in an essay that addressed people leaving countries through seasteading. So I think it's pretty much in evidence his view is not to deny people the right to vote, but to allow departure from societies one radically disagrees with for new ones.
- Analemma_ 9y agoAnd would women have the right to vote in this hypothetical new society he forms? Secession doesn't solve Thiel's problem, or the problems people have with him.
- TimPC 9y agoThere is a big difference between saying a negative comment consequence of X is Y and therefore consider Z. And saying X was wrong therefore revoke X. X had a negative consequence does not even mean that he thinks X was net negative never mind that he thinks X should be revoked.
- TimPC 9y agoThere is a big difference between saying a negative comment consequence of X is Y and therefore consider Z. And saying X was wrong therefore revoke X. X had a negative consequence does not even mean that he thinks X was net negative never mind that he thinks X should be revoked.
- randyrand 9y ago> His solution to the fact that democracies may disagree with him is to weaken and destroy democracy. does he say this? or is this an inference. I would think he'd be okay with not having ideal libertarianism and keeping democracy.
- confounded 9y agoInference. From the Wikipedia page: > One milestone was the April 2009 discussion hosted at Cato Unbound among libertarian thinkers (including Patri Friedman and Peter Thiel) in which disillusionment with the direction and possibilities of democratic politics was expressed with unusual forthrightness. Thiel summarized the trend bluntly: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” I think it's certainly fair to say that he is not a supporter of democracy. Whether he has specific plans, only he knows. The Gawker suit certainly established that he's willing to use his wealth to involve himself where others (with less money) go against his personal views, and attempt to set legal precedent in his favor. Ideally without the knowledge of the general public, of course. I don't think it's outrageous to characterize him as an activist.