4 ms·

A creepily common idea among certain libertarians. "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two co

A creepily common idea among certain libertarians. "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron." – the inimitable Peter Thiel

liquidise 9y ago
Anecdata, but i have never heard a self-described libertarian suggest that women should have their voting rights rescinded. At the risk of proclaiming No True Scottsman, the entire premise is so antithetical to a libertarian philosophy that i struggle to grasp how someone could embody such competing ideals. That being said, giving women the [due] right to vote effectively doubled the eligible voting pool in america. To think this wouldn't functionally alter the results is nonsense. Whether or not someone approves of those results should not, and indeed does not, get to change the underlying rights of those women.
- xupybd 9y ago
  I agree, I've always thought his comments were meaning that due to changing voter demographics there no longer exists enough supporters of his ideal form of government to achieve his utopia, within the western world. This is not stating that women and beneficiaries don't have a right to vote, but that they'll probably never side with him so if he want's to see a libertarian government they'll probably have to start their own society. I think they were looking at starting some sort of offshore man made island that they could govern themselves.
- noobermin 9y ago
  To be fair, if you are a libertarian, many people claim the libertarian moniker but then say very illiberal things; check any comment section of Reason when there is a black person killed by a cop. It is getting very hard for people outside your group to identify what libertarian means anymore because of that. A similar thing is happening on the left I think, but since it is my group, I might not be as mindful of it. The same might follow for you.
  - nnfy 9y ago
    Libertarian != liberal Also, it is unfortunate that people continue to politicize police killings and attribute them to race. Such treatment is ignorant of stastics. I think these glaring inconsistencies are just starting to tear the left apart. The right have their own problems, but they dont tend to be so obscenely inconsistent as to divide the base along racial and gender lines.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - lovich 9y ago
      What are the statistics they are ignorant of?
  - deathanatos 9y ago
    > check any comment section of Reason when there is a black person killed by a cop. It is getting very hard for people outside your group to identify what libertarian means anymore because of that. Care to elaborate? I don't read Reason, but am curious as to an example of what you mean? (I do agree the liberal moniker is losing value; most folks I interact w/ seem to take extreme characters as if they're the norm, and won't hardly discuss whether the values have any merit.)
- Bud 9y ago
  I have. In fact, I heard it about ten times in the 30 seconds I was googling this. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/womens-suffrage/ http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/womens-suffrage/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_us_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democr...
ue_ 9y ago
I agree that "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, but I come from the exact opposite side from Thiel; I believe that a democracy cannot function within capitalism when politicians can be bought off, and there is no democratic control over the economy, the economy being half of the societal coin; we accept democracy in matters of politics, but not in matters of economy, the economy having just as much if not more effect on our lives.
- averagewall 9y ago
  It can and does function. It's just that buying off a politician means they use the money to buy off or fool voters. Voters still make the ultimate decision about who's in power. American voters have a tradition of refusing to vote for any candidate that isn't enormously wealthy. They somehow equate advertising spending with "will do what I want". That's their own mistake though, and they experience the consequences themselves. That's the attractiveness of democracy, people get what they ask for so they won't be angry when it doesn't go their way.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Quite often people don't get what they ask for; if they did then my point about politicians taking money would be completely moot; this is why direct democracy is gaining traction; having a direct democracy with rotating or random delegates seems to be a much better plan for democracy as it helps to rid ourselves of this problem. Voters rarely make decisions as to who is in power; they are forced to select from a small group of candidates which have come so far already, and then a committee choses which candidate is best and makes them compete for election. I do not think that a system based on the agency of people rather than the agency of ideas is a good system. Sometimes the voters don't actually get their say; a national organisation overrides their will. Sometimes the democratic pathways are blocked by media misinformation. These are problems of the situation in which democracy is placed, and they have been recognised at least as far back as Marcuse wrote in the 1960s. The problem is less to do with whether people get candidates in power, it's more to do with how well people are informed as to the true nature of their reality. It may sound as though I'm saying "people don't know what they want", but my intention is to advance to the super-democratic status of "people must obtain the information they need". Marcuse puts it better than I ever could: >The liberating force of democracy was the chance it gave to effective dissent, on the individual as well as social scale, its openness to qualitatively different forms of government, of culture, education, work--of the human existence in general. The toleration of free discussion and the equal right of opposites was to define and clarify the different forms of dissent: their direction, content, prospect. But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge; in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly. Under the rule of monopolistic media--themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power--a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society.
paulddraper 9y ago
...but Mr. Thiel has never said women shouldn't have the right to vote. That comment was in the context of his doubts that libertarianism would ever become mainstream.

liquidise 9y ago

Anecdata, but i have never heard a self-described libertarian suggest that women should have their voting rights rescinded. At the risk of proclaiming No True Scottsman, the entire premise is so antithetical to a libertarian philosophy that i struggle to grasp how someone could embody such competing ideals. That being said, giving women the [due] right to vote effectively doubled the eligible voting pool in america. To think this wouldn't functionally alter the results is nonsense. Whether or not someone approves of those results should not, and indeed does not, get to change the underlying rights of those women.

xupybd 9y ago
I agree, I've always thought his comments were meaning that due to changing voter demographics there no longer exists enough supporters of his ideal form of government to achieve his utopia, within the western world. This is not stating that women and beneficiaries don't have a right to vote, but that they'll probably never side with him so if he want's to see a libertarian government they'll probably have to start their own society. I think they were looking at starting some sort of offshore man made island that they could govern themselves.
noobermin 9y ago
To be fair, if you are a libertarian, many people claim the libertarian moniker but then say very illiberal things; check any comment section of Reason when there is a black person killed by a cop. It is getting very hard for people outside your group to identify what libertarian means anymore because of that. A similar thing is happening on the left I think, but since it is my group, I might not be as mindful of it. The same might follow for you.
- nnfy 9y ago
  Libertarian != liberal Also, it is unfortunate that people continue to politicize police killings and attribute them to race. Such treatment is ignorant of stastics. I think these glaring inconsistencies are just starting to tear the left apart. The right have their own problems, but they dont tend to be so obscenely inconsistent as to divide the base along racial and gender lines.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - lovich 9y ago
    What are the statistics they are ignorant of?
- deathanatos 9y ago
  > check any comment section of Reason when there is a black person killed by a cop. It is getting very hard for people outside your group to identify what libertarian means anymore because of that. Care to elaborate? I don't read Reason, but am curious as to an example of what you mean? (I do agree the liberal moniker is losing value; most folks I interact w/ seem to take extreme characters as if they're the norm, and won't hardly discuss whether the values have any merit.)
Bud 9y ago
I have. In fact, I heard it about ten times in the 30 seconds I was googling this. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/womens-suffrage/ http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/womens-suffrage/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democracy_us_5747079be4b03ede4413f6f5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democr...

ue_ 9y ago

I agree that "capitalist democracy" is an oxymoron, but I come from the exact opposite side from Thiel; I believe that a democracy cannot function within capitalism when politicians can be bought off, and there is no democratic control over the economy, the economy being half of the societal coin; we accept democracy in matters of politics, but not in matters of economy, the economy having just as much if not more effect on our lives.

averagewall 9y ago
It can and does function. It's just that buying off a politician means they use the money to buy off or fool voters. Voters still make the ultimate decision about who's in power. American voters have a tradition of refusing to vote for any candidate that isn't enormously wealthy. They somehow equate advertising spending with "will do what I want". That's their own mistake though, and they experience the consequences themselves. That's the attractiveness of democracy, people get what they ask for so they won't be angry when it doesn't go their way.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Quite often people don't get what they ask for; if they did then my point about politicians taking money would be completely moot; this is why direct democracy is gaining traction; having a direct democracy with rotating or random delegates seems to be a much better plan for democracy as it helps to rid ourselves of this problem. Voters rarely make decisions as to who is in power; they are forced to select from a small group of candidates which have come so far already, and then a committee choses which candidate is best and makes them compete for election. I do not think that a system based on the agency of people rather than the agency of ideas is a good system. Sometimes the voters don't actually get their say; a national organisation overrides their will. Sometimes the democratic pathways are blocked by media misinformation. These are problems of the situation in which democracy is placed, and they have been recognised at least as far back as Marcuse wrote in the 1960s. The problem is less to do with whether people get candidates in power, it's more to do with how well people are informed as to the true nature of their reality. It may sound as though I'm saying "people don't know what they want", but my intention is to advance to the super-democratic status of "people must obtain the information they need". Marcuse puts it better than I ever could: >The liberating force of democracy was the chance it gave to effective dissent, on the individual as well as social scale, its openness to qualitatively different forms of government, of culture, education, work--of the human existence in general. The toleration of free discussion and the equal right of opposites was to define and clarify the different forms of dissent: their direction, content, prospect. But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, effective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge; in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly. Under the rule of monopolistic media--themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power--a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society.

paulddraper 9y ago

...but Mr. Thiel has never said women shouldn't have the right to vote. That comment was in the context of his doubts that libertarianism would ever become mainstream.