I also agree that the two are incompatible, but in a different way: why don't we ditch the liberal concept of freedom and save democracy instead? From the Onli

I also agree that the two are incompatible, but in a different way: why don't we ditch the liberal concept of freedom and save democracy instead? From the Online Etymology Dictionary, "freedom": > Old English freodom "power of self-determination, state of free will; emancipation from slavery, deliverance;" see free (adj.) + -dom. > Meaning "exemption from arbitrary or despotic control, civil liberty" is from late 14c. > Meaning "possession of particular privileges" is from 1570s. Isn't it interesting that the definition of freedom has changed from escape from control, to control itself? This happened roughly around the time when the Enlightenment started and liberal thoughts were beginning to spread in Europe, which is also the time when ideas of private property and capitalism were starting to take shape. Take note that one of the most fundamental "freedoms" of liberalism which is private property, can only be enforced by the state with violence or threats of violence, usually done by the police or the army. So at this point freedom has become an oxymoron, since to be free one has to submit to total authority of the law. I think neoliberalism is just an extension of this contradiction - you are encouraged to participate "freely" in the free market, which is held by the global financial system which is backed by the dollar and consequently the military powers of the United States. No matter where you escape to, any economic activity has to be done through the hegemonic powers of the world, and losing access to it means doom for your country and your people (ex. Cuba). So I view Thiel's search for his ultimate ideal of freedom by ditching democracy is futile, since the liberal conception of freedom itself was already contradictory and impossible to achieve. He can only think of more totalitarian ways to enforce a "free" system upon the people (so probably they can do whatever they want, like you have already said). The problem is that believing in contradictions don't automatically make societies fall, as Deleuze has said: "No one has ever died from contradictions. And the more it breaks down, the more it schizophrenizes, the better it works, the American way.” So as you have described nicely in your last sentence, most people will continue to get fucked regardless, until we fucking do something about it. By the way, Graeber has written a lot about the subject of freedom in many of his books and papers (the most evident one being his last book "The Dawn of Everything" co-written by Wengrow.) I think you'll enjoy his works if you have some shared sympathies with Thiel's views of libertarianism, regardless of if you're labelled left/right in the current political climate. Graeber has once written about a topic Thiel was also interested in ("Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit": https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declini...), and they've also met together and had a debate about this topic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF0cz9OmCGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF0cz9OmCGw).