7 ms·

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 “Da

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]

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]