3 ms·
> 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
by 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.