6 ms·

Culture flows from the top. Peter Thiel apparently views women's suffrage and poor people as "tough for libertarians [like him]". Can we talk about, well, how p

Culture flows from the top. Peter Thiel apparently views women's suffrage and poor people as "tough for libertarians [like him]". Can we talk about, well, how problematic it is that a company that has information on just about everyone (and all the power this yields) is lead by someone like this? > As Thiel’s wealth has grown, he’s gotten more strident. In a 2009 essay for the Cato Institute, he railed against taxes, government, women, poor people, and society’s acquiescence to the inevitability of death. (Thiel doesn’t accept death as inexorable.) He wrote that he’d reached some radical conclusions: “Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” The 1920s was the last time one could feel “genuinely optimistic” about American democracy, he said; since then, “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.”

opportune 8y ago
"I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." So it seems like Thiel's been a fascist for quite a while. And he's working on surveillance technology with law enforcement agencies... You're absolutely right that Thiel is probably the worst person, for society, to be running a business like this.I can't believe YCombinator partnered with him after he said things like this, and managed an entire two years with him until they dumped him over Trump. Look, I'm not saying that libertarianism is fascism. But what kind of libertarianism is non-democratic? It would either be authoritarian capitalism (fascism), or anarcho-capitalism.
- exelius 8y ago
  Values will always be secondary to money in this world.
  - chillingeffect 8y ago
    1. That's a gloomy self-fulfilling prophecy. Try thinking more constructively. 2. Money is a value, so your assertion is a paradox.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  the lack of democracy is not fascism. Anarchy is non-democratic but is pretty much the exact opposite of fascism. Thiel is a libertarian which is a political system that is neither inherently authoritarian nor democratic. [edit] clarify "inherently". Libertarianism can be a lot of things given its primary focus on economics and contract law.
  - opportune 8y ago
    Since Thiel is a capitalist and not in support of democracy, that means he is either a fascist or an extreme libertarian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but mainstream libertarianism is still democratic, they tend to be supporters of government in the style of the original US constitution. That would mean that if Thiel is non-authoritarian he would be an anarcho-capitalist, which I have a hard time believing he is.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      I see no indication that he's a fascist unless we have vastly different understandings of the term. His comment about freedom and democracy being incompatible reads to me like the classic issue of the inherent conflict between the interests of the individual (freedom) and the interests of the collective (democracy). I can only speculate what his ideal political system would be, but calling an individualist a fascist just doesn't fundamentally make sense. As an example of a non-democratic libertarian governance system, consider minarchism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism.
- return1 8y ago
  if libertarianism is equated with fascism then i believe we have at last reached peak fascism edit: liberatianism is by its nature less demo-cratic because it reduces the "kratos" part of democracy but it is not fascist because it is not authoritarian. anarchocapitalism is its conclusive endgame.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    Anarchocapitalism is authoritarian rule by capitalists, where property is valued above all other rights.
    - return1 8y ago
      there is no rule or authority in anarchism. ancaps advocate a voluntary society.
      - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        Anarchocapitalism does not allow someone to opt out of the concept of property. That is not a voluntary society. Capital owners are the authorities in anarchocapitalism. A truly anarchistic society would have no private property.
        return1 8y ago
        of course it does. you can choose to create a commune, nobody is going to stop you unless you try to create it on the property they are homesteading in.
        TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        I didn't voluntarily agree to respect other people's purported ownership of property. They have authority to keep me off of their property that I didn't agree to. That is a non-voluntary society. Property ownership is inherently non-voluntary, otherwise it isn't ownership.
- elcapitan 8y ago
  Freedom and democracy are always in a conflict, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. A total democracy would mean that a majority can override personal freedoms and basic rights of individuals (like, vote about executing your neighbor). Because of that the combination of democracy with a bill of rights has become so commonplace that you don't even notice anymore, and think about someone who mentions that simple fact as a fascist.
  - musage 8y ago
    "in conflict" and "incompatible" are two different things. Observe how this sentence makes zero sense: Freedom and democracy are always incompatible, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. Democracy being incompatible with freedom is also something quite different from "mentioning the simple fact that the combination of democracy with a bill of rights has become commonplace". Your comment as is doesn't really compile. > A total democracy would mean that a majority can override personal freedoms and basic rights of individuals As opposed to what, though? If it's opposed to not even needing a majority to do that, what's the big insight? For example, dictatorships and freedom are in even harder conflict, that's why they don't even have constitutions that put individuals and their rights first. And private enterprise, at least in a vacuum (and when run by sociopaths) doesn't even have the concept of the workers or consumers having any "rights". If one talks about a 2,5 meter tall person and say they "aren't as tall as they could be", without even mentioning that in comparison to most people they're still freaking tall, that's not the honest mistake of saying something dumb in good faith, it's a rhetorical trick, it's sophistry.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  But what kind of libertarianism is non-democratic? Here's an interesting answer I found when I became curious about this question a few years ago: http://www.see.org/garcia/e02.htm http://www.see.org/garcia/e02.htm

opportune 8y ago

"I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." So it seems like Thiel's been a fascist for quite a while. And he's working on surveillance technology with law enforcement agencies... You're absolutely right that Thiel is probably the worst person, for society, to be running a business like this.I can't believe YCombinator partnered with him after he said things like this, and managed an entire two years with him until they dumped him over Trump. Look, I'm not saying that libertarianism is fascism. But what kind of libertarianism is non-democratic? It would either be authoritarian capitalism (fascism), or anarcho-capitalism.

exelius 8y ago
Values will always be secondary to money in this world.
- chillingeffect 8y ago
  1. That's a gloomy self-fulfilling prophecy. Try thinking more constructively. 2. Money is a value, so your assertion is a paradox.
beaconstudios 8y ago
the lack of democracy is not fascism. Anarchy is non-democratic but is pretty much the exact opposite of fascism. Thiel is a libertarian which is a political system that is neither inherently authoritarian nor democratic. [edit] clarify "inherently". Libertarianism can be a lot of things given its primary focus on economics and contract law.
- opportune 8y ago
  Since Thiel is a capitalist and not in support of democracy, that means he is either a fascist or an extreme libertarian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but mainstream libertarianism is still democratic, they tend to be supporters of government in the style of the original US constitution. That would mean that if Thiel is non-authoritarian he would be an anarcho-capitalist, which I have a hard time believing he is.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I see no indication that he's a fascist unless we have vastly different understandings of the term. His comment about freedom and democracy being incompatible reads to me like the classic issue of the inherent conflict between the interests of the individual (freedom) and the interests of the collective (democracy). I can only speculate what his ideal political system would be, but calling an individualist a fascist just doesn't fundamentally make sense. As an example of a non-democratic libertarian governance system, consider minarchism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism.
return1 8y ago
if libertarianism is equated with fascism then i believe we have at last reached peak fascism edit: liberatianism is by its nature less demo-cratic because it reduces the "kratos" part of democracy but it is not fascist because it is not authoritarian. anarchocapitalism is its conclusive endgame.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  Anarchocapitalism is authoritarian rule by capitalists, where property is valued above all other rights.
  - return1 8y ago
    there is no rule or authority in anarchism. ancaps advocate a voluntary society.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      Anarchocapitalism does not allow someone to opt out of the concept of property. That is not a voluntary society. Capital owners are the authorities in anarchocapitalism. A truly anarchistic society would have no private property.
      - return1 8y ago
        of course it does. you can choose to create a commune, nobody is going to stop you unless you try to create it on the property they are homesteading in.
        TheCoelacanth 8y ago
        I didn't voluntarily agree to respect other people's purported ownership of property. They have authority to keep me off of their property that I didn't agree to. That is a non-voluntary society. Property ownership is inherently non-voluntary, otherwise it isn't ownership.
elcapitan 8y ago
Freedom and democracy are always in a conflict, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. A total democracy would mean that a majority can override personal freedoms and basic rights of individuals (like, vote about executing your neighbor). Because of that the combination of democracy with a bill of rights has become so commonplace that you don't even notice anymore, and think about someone who mentions that simple fact as a fascist.
- musage 8y ago
  "in conflict" and "incompatible" are two different things. Observe how this sentence makes zero sense: Freedom and democracy are always incompatible, that's why most democracies have constitutions which put the individuals and their rights first. Democracy being incompatible with freedom is also something quite different from "mentioning the simple fact that the combination of democracy with a bill of rights has become commonplace". Your comment as is doesn't really compile. > A total democracy would mean that a majority can override personal freedoms and basic rights of individuals As opposed to what, though? If it's opposed to not even needing a majority to do that, what's the big insight? For example, dictatorships and freedom are in even harder conflict, that's why they don't even have constitutions that put individuals and their rights first. And private enterprise, at least in a vacuum (and when run by sociopaths) doesn't even have the concept of the workers or consumers having any "rights". If one talks about a 2,5 meter tall person and say they "aren't as tall as they could be", without even mentioning that in comparison to most people they're still freaking tall, that's not the honest mistake of saying something dumb in good faith, it's a rhetorical trick, it's sophistry.
tomhoward 8y ago
But what kind of libertarianism is non-democratic? Here's an interesting answer I found when I became curious about this question a few years ago: http://www.see.org/garcia/e02.htm http://www.see.org/garcia/e02.htm