7 ms·

Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on t

Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on the rich, Theil is effectively a feudalist. Both men were billionaires who invested in computing and were involved in the 'military industrial complex'. But the word 'libertarian' has been dragged so far to the right in the US in recent years that it's not a meaningful category to compare the two with.

SapphireSun 9y ago
Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  This is is irrelevant with regard to Thiel, because, as the parent points out, he’s a neo-feudalist working for the abolition of democracy. He funds several “Dark Enlightment” figures like Curtis Yarvin and even says as much himself: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-menciu... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
  - sjcsjc 9y ago
    Democracy does not equal liberty. It may, arguably, be the best way of preserving liberty. But then again it may not. "Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1] [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versus-liberty https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versu...
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      We call what the founders described a representative democracy, whether they used the word or not isn't relevant as what they meant by democracy is more aptly called direct democracy today. You are objecting to the use of a term because you aren't using the term in the modern way, and that's a silly semantic debate. The United States is a democracy according to the modern use of the word, please just accept it and stop making this silly argument.
      - olalonde 9y ago
        I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". For example, countries with a strong constitution like the USA have a more constrained democratic process.
        masklinn 9y ago
        > I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". alphonsegaston's point is the exact opposite.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- olalonde 9y ago
  Most US libertarians are just proponents of classical liberalism. "Left libertarianism" is very niche and sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me. I don't know much about Peter Thiel but it's hard for me to reconcile his outspoken support for Trump with the "libertarian" label.
  - alphonsegaston 9y ago
    The term was invented by anarcho-communists and co-opted by the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
    - confounded 9y ago
      I imagine the downvotes are out of disbelief, but this is not really disputed (it's worth clicking the link).
      - alphonsegaston 9y ago
        And also avoid things like entries in the Oxford English Dictionary to prevent becoming similarly enraged.
        Nuzzerino 9y ago
        Perhaps for the better, as it's hardly a subject that does any good when driven by emotional impulses.
    - olalonde 9y ago
      The question I was replying to was specifically about the US. From the same Wikipedia article: > The term libertarianism was first used in the U.S. as a synonym for classic liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself. What precedes that paragraph is mainly about the French word "libertaire" which is not the French translation for "libertarian" but does shares a root with it (liberty). Interestingly, the French Wikipedia article[0] claims that the word "libertarian" was coined specifically to distinguish classical liberals from modern liberals in the US. In the US at least, libertarians very rarely identify with the "left" label. [0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme
- x3n0ph3n3 9y ago
  Many US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but certainly not all. Most are just minarchists.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maximizing one's ability to make use of their freedoms. To put those words into a descriptive use, I prefer this; You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself. So, libertarians are concerned with increasing personal liberties and typically for everyone. So, no, to use the above example, a libertarian would not suggest they have the right to kill people because that's reducing the right of the other person to live. Typically, a libertarian would have wanted to ensure one can most appreciate their freedoms while protecting the commons. I use the past tense because the usual perception of libertarian is the current incarnation which is mostly made up of ashamed republicans who can no longer feel comfortable being associated with the republican party. Really, Ayn Rand was an idiot and adoption of her book was absolutely not libertarian in nature. Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them. The goal is to maximize the ability to enjoy your freedoms, and that isn't just reserved for the wealthy. Furthermore, wealth isn't an indicator of productivity or value to society. Wealth is an absolutely horrible metric for determining liberties or rights. Way back when, libertarians were considered the kooky left. Now, they are seen as the crazy right. Really, it's a very broad spectrum that isn't easy to pin down and put onto a bumper sticker. I identify as a libertarian, I'd probably be considered close to a Scandinavian Social-Democrat but with a touch of greater rights and expecting a bit more personal responsibility. I believe in things like a strong social safety net, inexpensive health care, inexpensive education, and a right to individual autonomy. On the political compass, I'm fairly far to the left (very far by US standards) and down in the lower quadrant, as a libertarian. Sorry for the novella, but hopefully this makes sense. For the most part, the leftist leaning libertarians are extinct in the US. The party has been usurped. Even before that, there weren't many calls for anarchy. I kinda wish this could be more succinct. Again, sorry about that.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.
jules 9y ago
Thiel is hardly alone in this view. Many libertarians are in favour of a constitutional republic over a democracy where 51% of the people have absolute power.
- aaroninsf 9y ago
  Precisely. Because 51% affords far too much voice for the rabble. Relevant: http://dalependell.com/essays/remembering-the-regulation-called-shayss-rebellion/ http://dalependell.com/essays/remembering-the-regulation-cal...
  - indubitable 9y ago
    Studies [1] on this question show exactly the opposite. The view of the majority of the population shows no meaningful impact on the policies that our government actually chooses to adopt. The interests of "economic elites" (to use the phrasing of the paper) do tend to be predictive of what passes. Their 'disinterests' tend to be very strongly predictive of what does not pass. The study concludes that the US has already devolved into an oligarchy though "Americans [still] enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." On the other hand, I am always reluctant to link to social papers since data can be so easily massaged to affirm nearly any presupposed conclusion. Do you have any evidence or logic to support your view that the masses have any substantive and, more importantly, lasting effect on policy? I do not think it's self evident that the masses are having any direct effect on the current themes of net neutrality and PIPA/SOPA/CISPA/CISA. The apparent effect seems more due to the fact that very influential "economic elites" are themselves divided on the issues. [1] - http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...
  - winter_blue 9y ago
    Wow, that was an amazing read. I'm adding Dale Pendell to my list of blogs to follow. Thanks for sharing!
- 9y ago
hal9000xp 9y ago
I'm tired of two so wide spread dogmas - "will of majority is absolute good", "rich owes money to society, so we need rip them off". I lived in Sweden and now I live in the Netherlands. You have better chance to meet alien from another galactic than a person who doesn't believe in these dogmas. So I definitely see absolute political monogamy here. In centralized democracy high earners have absolutely no voice. I.e. formally they can vote but they will be always in the minority. So middle class and ultra-rich rule the game. Ones through voting, others through lobbying. So middle class can very effectively rips off high earners (a good example - Sweden). In other words, middle class strive to "equalize" them as they are not normal. They completely forgot that high earners already brought value to society while earning their money. The culture in many western european countries despise those who want to stand out of the crowd. So in this sense the crowd is against highly motivated and ambitious people. That's why I don't believe that Europe could beat Silicon Valley without significant cultural shift. Here are things I deeply hate in Swedish culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante Very similar ideologically thing in Dutch culture "Doe Normaal" which often translates to English as "Act normal, it's already crazy enough". Fortunately not every swede or dutch likes these "normality" things.
- marvin 9y ago
  Well said. I have been trying to pinpoint these sentiments for a while, but haven't quite figured it out. The ultra-rich and the middle-class ruling above others is a very eloquent way of phrasing it. Your description hits my native Norway very well. It is very difficult to excel and get recognition for it. In a discussion with my SO the other day, I was trying to find a Norwegian word for 'excel' and realized that we do not have this word in our language.
  - lokedhs 9y ago
    In Swedish we have the word "överträffa" and I was sure there must be a corresponding Norwegian word. However, after looking at several different dictionaries, I really can't find a Norwegian word that translates to this. Two separate sources translates it with "stige" which doesn't sound right at all.

SapphireSun 9y ago

Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?

alphonsegaston 9y ago
This is is irrelevant with regard to Thiel, because, as the parent points out, he’s a neo-feudalist working for the abolition of democracy. He funds several “Dark Enlightment” figures like Curtis Yarvin and even says as much himself: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-mencius-moldbug-urbit-curtis-yarvin-tlon https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14671978/alt-right-menciu... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
- sjcsjc 9y ago
  Democracy does not equal liberty. It may, arguably, be the best way of preserving liberty. But then again it may not. "Many will be shocked to learn that the word “democracy” was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority." [1] [1] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versus-liberty https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/democracy-versu...
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    We call what the founders described a representative democracy, whether they used the word or not isn't relevant as what they meant by democracy is more aptly called direct democracy today. You are objecting to the use of a term because you aren't using the term in the modern way, and that's a silly semantic debate. The United States is a democracy according to the modern use of the word, please just accept it and stop making this silly argument.
    - olalonde 9y ago
      I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". For example, countries with a strong constitution like the USA have a more constrained democratic process.
      - masklinn 9y ago
        > I think parent's point was simply that being critical of democracy does not automatically make you a "neo-feudalist". alphonsegaston's point is the exact opposite.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
olalonde 9y ago
Most US libertarians are just proponents of classical liberalism. "Left libertarianism" is very niche and sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me. I don't know much about Peter Thiel but it's hard for me to reconcile his outspoken support for Trump with the "libertarian" label.
- alphonsegaston 9y ago
  The term was invented by anarcho-communists and co-opted by the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
  - confounded 9y ago
    I imagine the downvotes are out of disbelief, but this is not really disputed (it's worth clicking the link).
    - alphonsegaston 9y ago
      And also avoid things like entries in the Oxford English Dictionary to prevent becoming similarly enraged.
      - Nuzzerino 9y ago
        Perhaps for the better, as it's hardly a subject that does any good when driven by emotional impulses.
  - olalonde 9y ago
    The question I was replying to was specifically about the US. From the same Wikipedia article: > The term libertarianism was first used in the U.S. as a synonym for classic liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself. What precedes that paragraph is mainly about the French word "libertaire" which is not the French translation for "libertarian" but does shares a root with it (liberty). Interestingly, the French Wikipedia article[0] claims that the word "libertarian" was coined specifically to distinguish classical liberals from modern liberals in the US. In the US at least, libertarians very rarely identify with the "left" label. [0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianisme
x3n0ph3n3 9y ago
Many US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, but certainly not all. Most are just minarchists.
KGIII 9y ago
Not really, no. Libertarian is, on the political compass, the opposite of authoritarian. As such, there's actually a whole spectrum of beliefs. Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy. Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maximizing one's ability to make use of their freedoms. To put those words into a descriptive use, I prefer this; You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself. So, libertarians are concerned with increasing personal liberties and typically for everyone. So, no, to use the above example, a libertarian would not suggest they have the right to kill people because that's reducing the right of the other person to live. Typically, a libertarian would have wanted to ensure one can most appreciate their freedoms while protecting the commons. I use the past tense because the usual perception of libertarian is the current incarnation which is mostly made up of ashamed republicans who can no longer feel comfortable being associated with the republican party. Really, Ayn Rand was an idiot and adoption of her book was absolutely not libertarian in nature. Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them. The goal is to maximize the ability to enjoy your freedoms, and that isn't just reserved for the wealthy. Furthermore, wealth isn't an indicator of productivity or value to society. Wealth is an absolutely horrible metric for determining liberties or rights. Way back when, libertarians were considered the kooky left. Now, they are seen as the crazy right. Really, it's a very broad spectrum that isn't easy to pin down and put onto a bumper sticker. I identify as a libertarian, I'd probably be considered close to a Scandinavian Social-Democrat but with a touch of greater rights and expecting a bit more personal responsibility. I believe in things like a strong social safety net, inexpensive health care, inexpensive education, and a right to individual autonomy. On the political compass, I'm fairly far to the left (very far by US standards) and down in the lower quadrant, as a libertarian. Sorry for the novella, but hopefully this makes sense. For the most part, the leftist leaning libertarians are extinct in the US. The party has been usurped. Even before that, there weren't many calls for anarchy. I kinda wish this could be more succinct. Again, sorry about that.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Ayn Rand was not an idiot. You just misunderstood what her book was, as did many other people who have never lived under a communist regime. I have lived under a communist regime, and I remember it well, so I can tell you that her book is basically a fantasy world diameterally opposed to communism, or to be exact the form of it that the Soviet Union was aiming for. Nothing more, nothing less.

jules 9y ago

Thiel is hardly alone in this view. Many libertarians are in favour of a constitutional republic over a democracy where 51% of the people have absolute power.

aaroninsf 9y ago
Precisely. Because 51% affords far too much voice for the rabble. Relevant: http://dalependell.com/essays/remembering-the-regulation-called-shayss-rebellion/ http://dalependell.com/essays/remembering-the-regulation-cal...
- indubitable 9y ago
  Studies [1] on this question show exactly the opposite. The view of the majority of the population shows no meaningful impact on the policies that our government actually chooses to adopt. The interests of "economic elites" (to use the phrasing of the paper) do tend to be predictive of what passes. Their 'disinterests' tend to be very strongly predictive of what does not pass. The study concludes that the US has already devolved into an oligarchy though "Americans [still] enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise." On the other hand, I am always reluctant to link to social papers since data can be so easily massaged to affirm nearly any presupposed conclusion. Do you have any evidence or logic to support your view that the masses have any substantive and, more importantly, lasting effect on policy? I do not think it's self evident that the masses are having any direct effect on the current themes of net neutrality and PIPA/SOPA/CISPA/CISA. The apparent effect seems more due to the fact that very influential "economic elites" are themselves divided on the issues. [1] - http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...
- winter_blue 9y ago
  Wow, that was an amazing read. I'm adding Dale Pendell to my list of blogs to follow. Thanks for sharing!
9y ago

hal9000xp 9y ago

I'm tired of two so wide spread dogmas - "will of majority is absolute good", "rich owes money to society, so we need rip them off". I lived in Sweden and now I live in the Netherlands. You have better chance to meet alien from another galactic than a person who doesn't believe in these dogmas. So I definitely see absolute political monogamy here. In centralized democracy high earners have absolutely no voice. I.e. formally they can vote but they will be always in the minority. So middle class and ultra-rich rule the game. Ones through voting, others through lobbying. So middle class can very effectively rips off high earners (a good example - Sweden). In other words, middle class strive to "equalize" them as they are not normal. They completely forgot that high earners already brought value to society while earning their money. The culture in many western european countries despise those who want to stand out of the crowd. So in this sense the crowd is against highly motivated and ambitious people. That's why I don't believe that Europe could beat Silicon Valley without significant cultural shift. Here are things I deeply hate in Swedish culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante Very similar ideologically thing in Dutch culture "Doe Normaal" which often translates to English as "Act normal, it's already crazy enough". Fortunately not every swede or dutch likes these "normality" things.

marvin 9y ago
Well said. I have been trying to pinpoint these sentiments for a while, but haven't quite figured it out. The ultra-rich and the middle-class ruling above others is a very eloquent way of phrasing it. Your description hits my native Norway very well. It is very difficult to excel and get recognition for it. In a discussion with my SO the other day, I was trying to find a Norwegian word for 'excel' and realized that we do not have this word in our language.
- lokedhs 9y ago
  In Swedish we have the word "överträffa" and I was sure there must be a corresponding Norwegian word. However, after looking at several different dictionaries, I really can't find a Norwegian word that translates to this. Two separate sources translates it with "stige" which doesn't sound right at all.