5 ms·

Isn’t Thiel essentially anarcho-capitalist? So pretty far right and extremely (in the literal sense) libertarian. EDIT: anachro->anarcho

woodruffw 5y ago
Thiel's hawkish military (and self-interested, given Palantir's contracts with Defense) positions on China probably put him outside of the pale of "normal" libertarian politics.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Normally libertarianism has an 'exception' for defense because it's a pure commons. There's no obvious way to have private sector military due to the nature of wars and invasions. Indeed, the government having a monopoly on violence is a core part of libertarian thinking.
  - enchiridion 5y ago
    Yes, libertarians generally define a government as having a monopoly on violence. That does not necessarily mean they think the government should have a monopoly of violence.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      I've never encountered a libertarian who thought otherwise, although I guess you can have 'sub-contracted violence' via things like private police forces licensed by the government. What exactly are you thinking of here?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Normally libertarianism has an 'exception' for defense because it's a pure commons. There's no obvious way to have private sector military due to the nature of wars and invasions. Indeed, the government having a monopoly on violence is a core part of libertarian thinking. This is an entirely parallel subject. The monopoly on violence (which is just a concept in the theory of state, not a uniquely libertarian concept) doesn't imply a hawkish foreign policy outlook. Put another way: the libertarian perspective (even the minarchist variants) don't entail the kind of aggression that Thiel publicly advocates. Being a hawk on China (e.g., extolling the US MIC to take a more aggressive stance in territorial disputes and information warfare) is a very conservative, not libertarian, position.
- RNCTX 5y ago
  Considering the primary trait of right wing libertarians is hypocrisy-fused self interest, I'd say he's right on the mark.
ch4s3 5y ago
Anarchism-capitalism isn’t a exactly a right wing ideology. It’s really only useful to think of it that way in comparison to the traditional anti-capitalist flavors of anarchism.
- pharmakom 5y ago
  Right anarchism and left anarchism only really differ in what they predict the steady state of anarchic conditions would be… and the culture of their advocates I suppose.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    That's sort of what I'm driving at. I would note that anarcho-capitalists are not pro social hierarchy which is a central belief in right wing political philosophy. Murray Rothbard described the ideology as being neither of the left nor fo the right, basically saying that self ownership is incompatible with both traditions. Notwithstanding Thiel isn't and anarcho-capitalist, he seems in practice to be almost a neoconservative. He describes himself as a "conservative libertarian", but has wrapped himself up in the war state and the surveillance industry, both of which are HIGHLY at odds with any kind of libertarianism. Thiel is much more like Liz Cheney than say Ron Paul.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      > anarcho-capitalists are not pro social hierarchy Are you sure about that? I mean, I believe they don't explicitly argue for it. But the ones I've come across seem to be practically in favor of the sort of wealth concentration and freedom of the rich to do as they please that they seem to be effectively in favor of strong social hierarchy.
      - ch4s3 5y ago
        Some of them are natural law types and some are definitely misanthropic but they are all opposed to central authority and hierarchy. The high concentration of wealth we see today seems to be met with Teo main responses by the more well read ancaps I know. They either view it as the result of government capture or in some cases the reward for finding a great idea first. I think it’s a weak spot for them ideologically, personally.
Piribedil 5y ago
I presume you meant anarcho-capitalist but I love the concept born from your typo : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism
specialist 5y ago
I thought Theil was a self-described neoreactionary, which is explicitly anti-democracy. Which I interpretted to mean something like Aristotelian philosopher-king style governance. A fairly obvious logical conclusion when one's starting assumption that people (the polis) are fundamentally stupid and corrupt. By the standards of the self annointed philosopher-king, of course.

woodruffw 5y ago

Thiel's hawkish military (and self-interested, given Palantir's contracts with Defense) positions on China probably put him outside of the pale of "normal" libertarian politics.

native_samples 5y ago
Normally libertarianism has an 'exception' for defense because it's a pure commons. There's no obvious way to have private sector military due to the nature of wars and invasions. Indeed, the government having a monopoly on violence is a core part of libertarian thinking.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  Yes, libertarians generally define a government as having a monopoly on violence. That does not necessarily mean they think the government should have a monopoly of violence.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    I've never encountered a libertarian who thought otherwise, although I guess you can have 'sub-contracted violence' via things like private police forces licensed by the government. What exactly are you thinking of here?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > Normally libertarianism has an 'exception' for defense because it's a pure commons. There's no obvious way to have private sector military due to the nature of wars and invasions. Indeed, the government having a monopoly on violence is a core part of libertarian thinking. This is an entirely parallel subject. The monopoly on violence (which is just a concept in the theory of state, not a uniquely libertarian concept) doesn't imply a hawkish foreign policy outlook. Put another way: the libertarian perspective (even the minarchist variants) don't entail the kind of aggression that Thiel publicly advocates. Being a hawk on China (e.g., extolling the US MIC to take a more aggressive stance in territorial disputes and information warfare) is a very conservative, not libertarian, position.
RNCTX 5y ago
Considering the primary trait of right wing libertarians is hypocrisy-fused self interest, I'd say he's right on the mark.

ch4s3 5y ago

Anarchism-capitalism isn’t a exactly a right wing ideology. It’s really only useful to think of it that way in comparison to the traditional anti-capitalist flavors of anarchism.

pharmakom 5y ago
Right anarchism and left anarchism only really differ in what they predict the steady state of anarchic conditions would be… and the culture of their advocates I suppose.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  That's sort of what I'm driving at. I would note that anarcho-capitalists are not pro social hierarchy which is a central belief in right wing political philosophy. Murray Rothbard described the ideology as being neither of the left nor fo the right, basically saying that self ownership is incompatible with both traditions. Notwithstanding Thiel isn't and anarcho-capitalist, he seems in practice to be almost a neoconservative. He describes himself as a "conservative libertarian", but has wrapped himself up in the war state and the surveillance industry, both of which are HIGHLY at odds with any kind of libertarianism. Thiel is much more like Liz Cheney than say Ron Paul.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    > anarcho-capitalists are not pro social hierarchy Are you sure about that? I mean, I believe they don't explicitly argue for it. But the ones I've come across seem to be practically in favor of the sort of wealth concentration and freedom of the rich to do as they please that they seem to be effectively in favor of strong social hierarchy.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      Some of them are natural law types and some are definitely misanthropic but they are all opposed to central authority and hierarchy. The high concentration of wealth we see today seems to be met with Teo main responses by the more well read ancaps I know. They either view it as the result of government capture or in some cases the reward for finding a great idea first. I think it’s a weak spot for them ideologically, personally.

Piribedil 5y ago

I presume you meant anarcho-capitalist but I love the concept born from your typo : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism

specialist 5y ago

I thought Theil was a self-described neoreactionary, which is explicitly anti-democracy. Which I interpretted to mean something like Aristotelian philosopher-king style governance. A fairly obvious logical conclusion when one's starting assumption that people (the polis) are fundamentally stupid and corrupt. By the standards of the self annointed philosopher-king, of course.