5 ms·

Do you have a citation for Thiel openly advocating for abolishing democracy?

clouddrover 4y ago
Thiel thinks democracy is incompatible with freedom: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/15/peter-thiel-who-is-he-republican-donor-tech-entrepreneur https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/15/peter-thi... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Did you actually read the 2009 article? No where in it did he advocate for abolishing democracy. His argument, simplified, is that it isn't possible to maximize freedom in a democracy. The simplified reason is because everyone can vote themselves bread and circuses until other people's money runs out. He doesn't propose a better solution, instead he seems to be in the camp of "democracy is the worst form of government... Except for everything else" and thinks that freedom is maximized by living in frontiers (cyberspace, outer space, and seasteading). I'm hard pressed to find anything particularly controversial about what he wrote in that article. It's really strange how much people like to demonize those who aren't in their tribe...
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > Did you actually read the 2009 article? Did you actually read about his 2022 behavior? He busily supported election deniers. Thiel says, “We’re close to a Toto moment, a little dog pulling aside the curtain on the holy of holies only to find there’s nobody there”. And “We always think of democracy as a good thing. But … where do you shift from the wisdom of crowds to the madness of crowds? When does it become a mob, a racket, a totalitarian lie?” His position is that democracy is illegitimate and when he is king everything will be better: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/peter-thiel-bankrolling-jd-vance-reactionary-nationalism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/peter-thi...
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      Well, you certainly have your mind made up. By the way, the founders were skeptical about democracy too, and weren't sure whether it would work. They tried to mitigate the obvious problems with it (as Thiel points out) by creating a Constitutional Republic instead, dampening the threat of the tyranny of the majority. It's been reasonably successful so far, and has lasted longer than some of them thought it would. Perhaps they should be scorned as well?
      - clouddrover 4y ago
        > Well, you certainly have your mind made up. It's not that I've made my mind up, it's that Thiel has made up his. > Perhaps they should be scorned as well? Dumb ideas will always be scorned. That is the correct result.
        claytongulick 4y ago
        > Dumb ideas will always be scorned. That is the correct result. So the founders had dumb ideas? Or is it the idea of a Constitutional Republic that's dumb? Because it was designed specifically to reduce the threats posed by raw democracy. It was only about 100 years ago that Senate elections were changed to a popular vote (17th amendment). Prior to that they were assigned by the state legislature. Discussing the weaknesses of Democracy is dumb? You must be much smarter than most philosophers, political science scholars and the founders themselves then.
      - brnt 4y ago
        > Well, you certainly have your mind made up. There's only one here ignoring evidence.
        claytongulick 4y ago
        What evidence would you say I'm ignoring? An opinion piece in the Washington Post? There have been wild claims made in this thread, like Thiel wants to abolish democracy, and that he wants to be a king, etc... Yet I haven't seen any evidence of him saying anything like that. If he has, then be all means, I'd like to see it. But so far the only thing I've seen is partisan cheap shots without any substance.
- yucky 4y ago
  Well, he's technically correct right? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. What freedom does the lamb have? Or in a less abstract sense, if my neighbors don't want me to do something and vote against me doing it, then I no longer have the freedom to do it. So I guess the question is, how exactly is democracy compatible with individual freedom?
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    No. All human societies, big or small, authoritarian or democratic, have rules. You derive freedoms from within the framework of the rules. Pretending it will ever be otherwise is just naive. The question is how much say do you have? In an authoritarian regime you have none. In a democracy you have some. Some is better than none. All people like Thiel are arguing for is a state of affairs where they make the rules and the rules don't apply to them. It's boring pattern repeated throughout all of human history.
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      Democracy and freedom are loosely correlated, at best. I read a fascinating article several years ago comparing the experience of setting up a hot dog stand in New York City vs communist china. In China, after bribing the right people, the author was in business after a day or two. As of the time of the article, the author had been trying for six months to get the necessary permits in New York and still hadn't succeeded. Obviously China isn't the poster child for individual liberty, but it's also a mistake to ignore the flaws in democratic systems. I think that Thiel makes some thought provoking points, but all I've seen in this thread is a lot of name-calling. It's a shame.
      - kccoder 4y ago
        The phrase "loosely correlated" is loosely correlated with precision. In your example, one vendor has to engage in likely illegal, but sanctioned behavior (bribery), while the other has to wait for permits to be approved, which apparently takes some time. How long? Not sure. What I can tell you is that I've been to NYC several times, and I can confirm that there are hotdog vendors all over the place, so, apparently they do get around to those permits eventually, even if it isn't quick enough to avoid being used as an anecdote about how we should forgo democracy. Another example: We aren't currently "repressing" a vast number of Uyghur Muslims for the crime of existing / beliefs. Yet another example: When Covid hit China literally nailed people shut inside their houses. The US govt and state govts set up some guidelines and did things like mandate masks (not that you'd get arrested). Pretty sure I know which brand of freedom I, and well, pretty much everyone else I know would choose. So, which one is it for you? Another statement from Thiel, "fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism." Gee, I wonder who he thinks that person should be? Clearly himself. (Also, "makes the world safe for capitalism."?! What planet does he live on?) Thiel is just another fairly intelligent person who was in the right place at the right time, leading to generational wealth, leading to a bunch of sycophants bumping up his ego so much that he thinks he should be the person deciding how everyone lives their lives. Hard pass from me, Petey. In reality, any degradation in freedom we've witnessed in democracy has to do with forces aligned against giving the voters power. We should focus on fixing those issues, not throwing democracy away so that a single narcissist can decide what is best for all of us.
Henhound 4y ago
It's partially because of Curtis Yarvin's influence. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/23373795/curtis-yarvin-neoreaction-redpill-moldbug https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy...

Thiel thinks democracy is incompatible with freedom: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/15/peter-thiel-who-is-he-republican-donor-tech-entrepreneur https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/15/peter-thi... https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

claytongulick 4y ago
Did you actually read the 2009 article? No where in it did he advocate for abolishing democracy. His argument, simplified, is that it isn't possible to maximize freedom in a democracy. The simplified reason is because everyone can vote themselves bread and circuses until other people's money runs out. He doesn't propose a better solution, instead he seems to be in the camp of "democracy is the worst form of government... Except for everything else" and thinks that freedom is maximized by living in frontiers (cyberspace, outer space, and seasteading). I'm hard pressed to find anything particularly controversial about what he wrote in that article. It's really strange how much people like to demonize those who aren't in their tribe...
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > Did you actually read the 2009 article? Did you actually read about his 2022 behavior? He busily supported election deniers. Thiel says, “We’re close to a Toto moment, a little dog pulling aside the curtain on the holy of holies only to find there’s nobody there”. And “We always think of democracy as a good thing. But … where do you shift from the wisdom of crowds to the madness of crowds? When does it become a mob, a racket, a totalitarian lie?” His position is that democracy is illegitimate and when he is king everything will be better: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/peter-thiel-bankrolling-jd-vance-reactionary-nationalism/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/05/peter-thi...
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Well, you certainly have your mind made up. By the way, the founders were skeptical about democracy too, and weren't sure whether it would work. They tried to mitigate the obvious problems with it (as Thiel points out) by creating a Constitutional Republic instead, dampening the threat of the tyranny of the majority. It's been reasonably successful so far, and has lasted longer than some of them thought it would. Perhaps they should be scorned as well?
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      > Well, you certainly have your mind made up. It's not that I've made my mind up, it's that Thiel has made up his. > Perhaps they should be scorned as well? Dumb ideas will always be scorned. That is the correct result.
      - claytongulick 4y ago
        > Dumb ideas will always be scorned. That is the correct result. So the founders had dumb ideas? Or is it the idea of a Constitutional Republic that's dumb? Because it was designed specifically to reduce the threats posed by raw democracy. It was only about 100 years ago that Senate elections were changed to a popular vote (17th amendment). Prior to that they were assigned by the state legislature. Discussing the weaknesses of Democracy is dumb? You must be much smarter than most philosophers, political science scholars and the founders themselves then.
    - brnt 4y ago
      > Well, you certainly have your mind made up. There's only one here ignoring evidence.
      - claytongulick 4y ago
        What evidence would you say I'm ignoring? An opinion piece in the Washington Post? There have been wild claims made in this thread, like Thiel wants to abolish democracy, and that he wants to be a king, etc... Yet I haven't seen any evidence of him saying anything like that. If he has, then be all means, I'd like to see it. But so far the only thing I've seen is partisan cheap shots without any substance.
yucky 4y ago
Well, he's technically correct right? Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. What freedom does the lamb have? Or in a less abstract sense, if my neighbors don't want me to do something and vote against me doing it, then I no longer have the freedom to do it. So I guess the question is, how exactly is democracy compatible with individual freedom?
- clouddrover 4y ago
  No. All human societies, big or small, authoritarian or democratic, have rules. You derive freedoms from within the framework of the rules. Pretending it will ever be otherwise is just naive. The question is how much say do you have? In an authoritarian regime you have none. In a democracy you have some. Some is better than none. All people like Thiel are arguing for is a state of affairs where they make the rules and the rules don't apply to them. It's boring pattern repeated throughout all of human history.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    Democracy and freedom are loosely correlated, at best. I read a fascinating article several years ago comparing the experience of setting up a hot dog stand in New York City vs communist china. In China, after bribing the right people, the author was in business after a day or two. As of the time of the article, the author had been trying for six months to get the necessary permits in New York and still hadn't succeeded. Obviously China isn't the poster child for individual liberty, but it's also a mistake to ignore the flaws in democratic systems. I think that Thiel makes some thought provoking points, but all I've seen in this thread is a lot of name-calling. It's a shame.
    - kccoder 4y ago
      The phrase "loosely correlated" is loosely correlated with precision. In your example, one vendor has to engage in likely illegal, but sanctioned behavior (bribery), while the other has to wait for permits to be approved, which apparently takes some time. How long? Not sure. What I can tell you is that I've been to NYC several times, and I can confirm that there are hotdog vendors all over the place, so, apparently they do get around to those permits eventually, even if it isn't quick enough to avoid being used as an anecdote about how we should forgo democracy. Another example: We aren't currently "repressing" a vast number of Uyghur Muslims for the crime of existing / beliefs. Yet another example: When Covid hit China literally nailed people shut inside their houses. The US govt and state govts set up some guidelines and did things like mandate masks (not that you'd get arrested). Pretty sure I know which brand of freedom I, and well, pretty much everyone else I know would choose. So, which one is it for you? Another statement from Thiel, "fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism." Gee, I wonder who he thinks that person should be? Clearly himself. (Also, "makes the world safe for capitalism."?! What planet does he live on?) Thiel is just another fairly intelligent person who was in the right place at the right time, leading to generational wealth, leading to a bunch of sycophants bumping up his ego so much that he thinks he should be the person deciding how everyone lives their lives. Hard pass from me, Petey. In reality, any degradation in freedom we've witnessed in democracy has to do with forces aligned against giving the voters power. We should focus on fixing those issues, not throwing democracy away so that a single narcissist can decide what is best for all of us.

Henhound 4y ago

It's partially because of Curtis Yarvin's influence. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/23373795/curtis-yarvin-neoreaction-redpill-moldbug https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy...