9 ms·

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.

by jules 9y ago

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!
wwweston 9y ago
It's one thing to consider problems that might be in play if a bare majority had arbitrary power. Worth doing, but then again, an odd point to underscore considering that such considerations are already well-woven into most western democracies, including the United States. It's another thing to propose that where representative government itself is in tension with capital... the problem is representation. Or perhaps even civic/state power in general.
- maccard 9y ago
  > It's one thing to consider problems that might be in play if a bare majority had arbitrary power. ..... including the United States The last election for the POTUS had the declared winner elected by an overall loss of 3mm votes. The UK is plowing ahead with a hard brexit with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout (38% of the electorate explicitly said they wanted to leave), with a minority government propped up by a bribe with a minor political party from Northern Ireland. I'm sure I can find more examples (and I'm aware that I'm cherry picking examples too), but to say that that you require a "supermajority" in most western countries isn't strictly true. (excuse the phrasing)
  - malmsteen 9y ago
    > The UK is plowing ahead with a hard brexit with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout (38% of the electorate explicitly said they wanted to leave) I hate this argument because you would just not count if brexit had been rejected as you wish it had been. You would just say "sigh it's normal, i'm happy people are not that stupid" and you wouldn't bother arguing with "stupid people". Even if i wanted to argue on that level, you can say there was - 38% who explicitly said they wanted to leave - 37% who explicitly said they wanted to stay - 25% who had no opinion / didn't care so it make absolute sense to leave in that case. EDIT: To be clear i'm not pro-brexit, i just think "echo chamber blah blah biaised opinions" like this one are the reason people "can't understand" election such as brexit and trump and question the legitimacy...
    - dagw 9y ago
      so it make absolute sense to leave in that case. That's one way to look it at it. Another is to take the result and say there is no clear majority either way, and since there is no clear public majority for either option it should be up parliament to decide since that's their job.
ubernostrum 9y ago
American "libertarianism" has gotten pretty, um, corrupted compared to the philosophic ideals it's allegedly based on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/0... It’s probably true that some of the overlap between libertarians and alt-righters can be explained by their companionship as members of the political fringe. But it’s not purely accidental, either. Historically, prominent libertarian thinkers have made the decision to cultivate ties with the nationalist far right, and have viewed racial demagoguery both as an efficacious political tool and an intellectually defensible position. The libertarian-to-fascist pipeline may have been forged partially by coincidence, but it was also crafted and maintained.
- asddddd 9y ago
  > the alt-right, which is a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state. It amuses me to see every article about the "alt right" define it as something different.
- jules 9y ago
  Historically there was a far greater overlap between socialism and racism, so the historical argument doesn't hold much water. Libertarianism (no govt control over the economy) is the polar opposite of fascism (almost full govt control over the economy), so if people went from one to the other they either radically changed their position or were incorrectly calling themselves libertarian. The article insinuates that "America first" economic nationalism has something to do with libertarianism, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Libertarianism is staunchly opposed to tariffs and special treatment of chosen companies. The so-called "globalism" that the alt right rails against is textbook libertarianism: open borders for goods, services, and people.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    I have no doubt that your personal libertarianism finds racism, nationalism and isolationism distasteful. I also have no doubt that prominent people who identify and are accepted as libertarian, and sites which are cited as and claim to be libertarian, have cultivated alliances with racist/nationalist/isolationist groups. To those groups, many libertarian positions are appealing: sweeping away all government regulation, for example, would get rid of those pesky laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. Holding private contracts to be sacred and doing away with government interference in their performance means exploitative contracts -- close or even identical to actual slavery -- "entered" into on extremely coercive terms become perfectly acceptable. And so on and so forth.
b1daly 9y ago
A key point in the philosophical foundation of democracy is that it is a good system for making decisions of consequence. One can fashion a simplistic thought experiment where a simple majority votes to take resources from the minority, presumably against the minoritys' will. That seems rather unjust, or unfair. What this glosses over is that governments need to make policy and decisions. Inevitably, there will be winners and losers. Just because decision making power is taken away from the majority does not mean that more fair outcomes are likely. Some other method of making decisions, let's say by rule of a (hopefully enlightened) monarch, still needs to be implemented. And these decisions will have major consequences on the population, creating some winners and losers in the outcome. The argument for Democracy is that it, on balance, will protect the population from potential tyranny of a despotic or corrupt ruler, better than other forms of government. The political structure of the US government has built in protection against a tyrannical reign by the majority of the population over the minority. The system of "checks and balances" is a good idea, however imperfectly it is implemented. As a practical matter, the "power of the people" is limited in any case. There is an actual "elite" in the US, and members of the elite hold disproportionate power. For better or worse.
- jules 9y ago
  Usually it is not a monarch but a law that limits the power of the 51%. In some countries you need a two thirds majority to make constitution changes, for instance.

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.

by 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!

wwweston 9y ago

It's one thing to consider problems that might be in play if a bare majority had arbitrary power. Worth doing, but then again, an odd point to underscore considering that such considerations are already well-woven into most western democracies, including the United States. It's another thing to propose that where representative government itself is in tension with capital... the problem is representation. Or perhaps even civic/state power in general.

maccard 9y ago
> It's one thing to consider problems that might be in play if a bare majority had arbitrary power. ..... including the United States The last election for the POTUS had the declared winner elected by an overall loss of 3mm votes. The UK is plowing ahead with a hard brexit with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout (38% of the electorate explicitly said they wanted to leave), with a minority government propped up by a bribe with a minor political party from Northern Ireland. I'm sure I can find more examples (and I'm aware that I'm cherry picking examples too), but to say that that you require a "supermajority" in most western countries isn't strictly true. (excuse the phrasing)
- malmsteen 9y ago
  > The UK is plowing ahead with a hard brexit with a 52% majority on a 72% turnout (38% of the electorate explicitly said they wanted to leave) I hate this argument because you would just not count if brexit had been rejected as you wish it had been. You would just say "sigh it's normal, i'm happy people are not that stupid" and you wouldn't bother arguing with "stupid people". Even if i wanted to argue on that level, you can say there was - 38% who explicitly said they wanted to leave - 37% who explicitly said they wanted to stay - 25% who had no opinion / didn't care so it make absolute sense to leave in that case. EDIT: To be clear i'm not pro-brexit, i just think "echo chamber blah blah biaised opinions" like this one are the reason people "can't understand" election such as brexit and trump and question the legitimacy...
  - dagw 9y ago
    so it make absolute sense to leave in that case. That's one way to look it at it. Another is to take the result and say there is no clear majority either way, and since there is no clear public majority for either option it should be up parliament to decide since that's their job.

ubernostrum 9y ago

American "libertarianism" has gotten pretty, um, corrupted compared to the philosophic ideals it's allegedly based on: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/19/libertarians-have-more-in-common-with-the-alt-right-than-they-want-you-to-think/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/0... It’s probably true that some of the overlap between libertarians and alt-righters can be explained by their companionship as members of the political fringe. But it’s not purely accidental, either. Historically, prominent libertarian thinkers have made the decision to cultivate ties with the nationalist far right, and have viewed racial demagoguery both as an efficacious political tool and an intellectually defensible position. The libertarian-to-fascist pipeline may have been forged partially by coincidence, but it was also crafted and maintained.

asddddd 9y ago
> the alt-right, which is a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state. It amuses me to see every article about the "alt right" define it as something different.
jules 9y ago
Historically there was a far greater overlap between socialism and racism, so the historical argument doesn't hold much water. Libertarianism (no govt control over the economy) is the polar opposite of fascism (almost full govt control over the economy), so if people went from one to the other they either radically changed their position or were incorrectly calling themselves libertarian. The article insinuates that "America first" economic nationalism has something to do with libertarianism, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Libertarianism is staunchly opposed to tariffs and special treatment of chosen companies. The so-called "globalism" that the alt right rails against is textbook libertarianism: open borders for goods, services, and people.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  I have no doubt that your personal libertarianism finds racism, nationalism and isolationism distasteful. I also have no doubt that prominent people who identify and are accepted as libertarian, and sites which are cited as and claim to be libertarian, have cultivated alliances with racist/nationalist/isolationist groups. To those groups, many libertarian positions are appealing: sweeping away all government regulation, for example, would get rid of those pesky laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. Holding private contracts to be sacred and doing away with government interference in their performance means exploitative contracts -- close or even identical to actual slavery -- "entered" into on extremely coercive terms become perfectly acceptable. And so on and so forth.

b1daly 9y ago

A key point in the philosophical foundation of democracy is that it is a good system for making decisions of consequence. One can fashion a simplistic thought experiment where a simple majority votes to take resources from the minority, presumably against the minoritys' will. That seems rather unjust, or unfair. What this glosses over is that governments need to make policy and decisions. Inevitably, there will be winners and losers. Just because decision making power is taken away from the majority does not mean that more fair outcomes are likely. Some other method of making decisions, let's say by rule of a (hopefully enlightened) monarch, still needs to be implemented. And these decisions will have major consequences on the population, creating some winners and losers in the outcome. The argument for Democracy is that it, on balance, will protect the population from potential tyranny of a despotic or corrupt ruler, better than other forms of government. The political structure of the US government has built in protection against a tyrannical reign by the majority of the population over the minority. The system of "checks and balances" is a good idea, however imperfectly it is implemented. As a practical matter, the "power of the people" is limited in any case. There is an actual "elite" in the US, and members of the elite hold disproportionate power. For better or worse.

jules 9y ago
Usually it is not a monarch but a law that limits the power of the 51%. In some countries you need a two thirds majority to make constitution changes, for instance.