5 ms·

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 abstr

by 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.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > We aren't currently "repressing" a vast number of Uyghur Muslims for the crime of existing / beliefs. The US has done no small number of utterly terrible things in its history (I was going to make a list, but do I really need to?) – and, arguably for some of them, it still hasn't stopped – despite being a "democracy" all that time. I am not saying the US regime is currently as bad as that of the Chinese Communist Party – but maybe that's not saying that much. It seems at least plausible that some dictatorships may have contributed less evil to human history than American democracy has. Other famous "democracies" – such as the "Mother of Parliaments" herself – also have a rather sullied historical record, and the same may well be true of them. (I'm also not saying Thiel, or anyone he might pick, would make a "good" dictator – I don't know how that would turn out, but I certainly don't recommend that anyone perform that experiment.)
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > I think that Thiel makes some thought provoking points He doesn't. It's the same boring ground that's been trod for 2,500 years. There isn't an original thought in anything Thiel has said. > all I've seen in this thread is a lot of name-calling. There is none.
  - specialist 4y ago
    The scourge of bureaucracy run amuck plagues all forms of government. Liberal democracies certainly don't have a monopoly on red tape. James Scott's book Seeing Like a State is an oft-cited critical analysis of the phenomenon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
- yucky 4y ago
  > In a democracy you have some. You have made Thiel's point.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Incorrect. Thiel advocates maximal unaccountable freedom for winners like himself, and none for every one else. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Frank Wilhoit
    - yucky 4y ago
      Interesting, the above quote seems to apply perfectly to the current administration as well. Maybe it's not conservatism, but neo-liberalism in general.
- caeril 4y ago
  > In an authoritarian regime you have none This is a pretty myopic view. History is absolutely resplendent with examples of Kings deposed and overthrown, either by rival aristocracy with popular blessing, or by straight up popular revolution. Authority has always been backed up by popular power, in one way or another. Democracy is a (poor) attempt to codify it, but it's always been there. Nobless Oblige existed primarily because rulers knew that fucking over the people of their kingdom would mean their head. It would be nice if we lived in a polity in which legislators were personally responsible for their own mistakes. Instead, we're treated to a smorgasbord of moral hazard on the part of those who pretend to represent us. I'd take a King or Queen in fear of their life over the status quo any day.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > History is absolutely resplendent with examples of Kings deposed and overthrown So.. everything's cool because we always have bribery, corruption, revolution, and war to fall back on? Why not just run things better in the first place? Like.. some kind of way to devolve power to the people. Like a kind of people power. I feel like I'm close to a breakthrough idea here. If only there was some word to succinctly describe it. > I'd take a King or Queen in fear of their life over the status quo any day. You want people, any people, cowering in fear of you? That's pretty messed up.
lowbloodsugar 4y ago
Individual freedom is incompatible with individual freedom. If I want to kill you, then one of us is going to experience a lack of individual freedom.
- yucky 4y ago
  Look up the Non-Aggression Principle.
  - lowbloodsugar 4y ago
    Right. So the Non-Aggression Principal is incompatible with Individual Freedom. The point is that everything is incompatible with Individual Freedom, even Individual Freedom. So saying Democracy is incompatible with Individual Freedom is meaningless. Authoritarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. Communism in incompatible with Individual Freedom. Libertarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. In fact Individual Freedom can only be possible if there is exactly one Individual - and this should give you a clue to why narcissists make claims about Individual Freedom: they aren't talking about your Individual Freedom, they're talking about theirs and no one else's.
    - yucky 4y ago
      It sounds like you're struggling with the definition of freedom. It encompasses the NAP. Therefore by definition, harming someone else is incompatible with the concept of freedom.
      - lowbloodsugar 4y ago
        I understand that your definition of freedom encompasses the NAP. So by your definition, harming someone blah blah blah. I don't know if you're trolling or genuinely ignorant. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The issue with the Individual Freedom schtick is that everybody has a different definition for what shouldn't be allowed while still saying their definition is "Individual Freedom". Rich Libertarian's have property, so they say that Individual Freedom should include property ownership, and there should be a government who enforces these recognized deeds of ownership and evicts poor communists. Poor communists don't have property, and so they say that property is theft, and that Individual Freedom should include the right to shelter, and there should be a government that takes property from Rich Libertarians. Individual Freedom can have only one indisputable definition, and it's in the name: Individual Freedom means I can do anything I want. Unfortunately, that is paradoxical unless there is exactly one person. As soon as we hedge, and say "well, individual freedoms means you can do anything that doesn't harm other people", then we open the floodgates to any and all rationalizations for anything. You can't drive a truck to work because it is causing climate change. You can't own this 50 acres in this scenic area because thats enough room for 250 houses. You can't be here at all because all this land is owned by Native Americans and you stole it. You can't preach that I'm going to hell because that harms me. You can't stop me from preaching that you're going to hell because that harms me. etc. Meaningless.
buttercraft 4y ago
Have you considered your neighbors' freedom at all?
- yucky 4y ago
  Absolutely! I also don't think that I should be able to band together with others to prevent my neighbors freedoms. As long as his actions don't cause me physical harm or deprive me of my property, why would I?
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > As long as his actions don't cause me physical harm or deprive me of my property So.. you're saying you want to limit his individual freedoms with like laws and rules and red tape and shit? You freedom hating bastard. I'd really recommend you learn your history. Your efforts at reinventing the legal system and government are not new ideas. People have thought about this before.
    - yucky 4y ago
      The Non-aggression principle answered the questions many years ago, it's worth a study. You may find yourself not being as authoritarian afterwards.
      - clouddrover 4y ago
        It isn't. Your utopia is utterly disconnected from practical realities and is unworkable.
        yucky 4y ago
        It's not Utopian, of course many things would be more difficult without the constant threat of force. But the question was "is democracy compatible with freedom", and by definition it is not. How much you value democracy (and the constant threat of force) vs freedom is up to you, but we can't pretend they work well together. And we're seeing democracies being destabilized around the world now, even in the US.
specialist 4y ago
Thiel's political philosophy of freedom is minoritarian, meaning the few rule over the many. To better establish greater freedoms for those few, at the expense of the majority. This is related to laissez faire and right-wing libertarianism.

by yucky 4y ago

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.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > We aren't currently "repressing" a vast number of Uyghur Muslims for the crime of existing / beliefs. The US has done no small number of utterly terrible things in its history (I was going to make a list, but do I really need to?) – and, arguably for some of them, it still hasn't stopped – despite being a "democracy" all that time. I am not saying the US regime is currently as bad as that of the Chinese Communist Party – but maybe that's not saying that much. It seems at least plausible that some dictatorships may have contributed less evil to human history than American democracy has. Other famous "democracies" – such as the "Mother of Parliaments" herself – also have a rather sullied historical record, and the same may well be true of them. (I'm also not saying Thiel, or anyone he might pick, would make a "good" dictator – I don't know how that would turn out, but I certainly don't recommend that anyone perform that experiment.)
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > I think that Thiel makes some thought provoking points He doesn't. It's the same boring ground that's been trod for 2,500 years. There isn't an original thought in anything Thiel has said. > all I've seen in this thread is a lot of name-calling. There is none.
- specialist 4y ago
  The scourge of bureaucracy run amuck plagues all forms of government. Liberal democracies certainly don't have a monopoly on red tape. James Scott's book Seeing Like a State is an oft-cited critical analysis of the phenomenon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State
yucky 4y ago
> In a democracy you have some. You have made Thiel's point.
- specialist 4y ago
  Incorrect. Thiel advocates maximal unaccountable freedom for winners like himself, and none for every one else. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Frank Wilhoit
  - yucky 4y ago
    Interesting, the above quote seems to apply perfectly to the current administration as well. Maybe it's not conservatism, but neo-liberalism in general.
caeril 4y ago
> In an authoritarian regime you have none This is a pretty myopic view. History is absolutely resplendent with examples of Kings deposed and overthrown, either by rival aristocracy with popular blessing, or by straight up popular revolution. Authority has always been backed up by popular power, in one way or another. Democracy is a (poor) attempt to codify it, but it's always been there. Nobless Oblige existed primarily because rulers knew that fucking over the people of their kingdom would mean their head. It would be nice if we lived in a polity in which legislators were personally responsible for their own mistakes. Instead, we're treated to a smorgasbord of moral hazard on the part of those who pretend to represent us. I'd take a King or Queen in fear of their life over the status quo any day.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > History is absolutely resplendent with examples of Kings deposed and overthrown So.. everything's cool because we always have bribery, corruption, revolution, and war to fall back on? Why not just run things better in the first place? Like.. some kind of way to devolve power to the people. Like a kind of people power. I feel like I'm close to a breakthrough idea here. If only there was some word to succinctly describe it. > I'd take a King or Queen in fear of their life over the status quo any day. You want people, any people, cowering in fear of you? That's pretty messed up.

lowbloodsugar 4y ago

Individual freedom is incompatible with individual freedom. If I want to kill you, then one of us is going to experience a lack of individual freedom.

yucky 4y ago
Look up the Non-Aggression Principle.
- lowbloodsugar 4y ago
  Right. So the Non-Aggression Principal is incompatible with Individual Freedom. The point is that everything is incompatible with Individual Freedom, even Individual Freedom. So saying Democracy is incompatible with Individual Freedom is meaningless. Authoritarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. Communism in incompatible with Individual Freedom. Libertarianism is incompatible with Individual Freedom. In fact Individual Freedom can only be possible if there is exactly one Individual - and this should give you a clue to why narcissists make claims about Individual Freedom: they aren't talking about your Individual Freedom, they're talking about theirs and no one else's.
  - yucky 4y ago
    It sounds like you're struggling with the definition of freedom. It encompasses the NAP. Therefore by definition, harming someone else is incompatible with the concept of freedom.
    - lowbloodsugar 4y ago
      I understand that your definition of freedom encompasses the NAP. So by your definition, harming someone blah blah blah. I don't know if you're trolling or genuinely ignorant. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The issue with the Individual Freedom schtick is that everybody has a different definition for what shouldn't be allowed while still saying their definition is "Individual Freedom". Rich Libertarian's have property, so they say that Individual Freedom should include property ownership, and there should be a government who enforces these recognized deeds of ownership and evicts poor communists. Poor communists don't have property, and so they say that property is theft, and that Individual Freedom should include the right to shelter, and there should be a government that takes property from Rich Libertarians. Individual Freedom can have only one indisputable definition, and it's in the name: Individual Freedom means I can do anything I want. Unfortunately, that is paradoxical unless there is exactly one person. As soon as we hedge, and say "well, individual freedoms means you can do anything that doesn't harm other people", then we open the floodgates to any and all rationalizations for anything. You can't drive a truck to work because it is causing climate change. You can't own this 50 acres in this scenic area because thats enough room for 250 houses. You can't be here at all because all this land is owned by Native Americans and you stole it. You can't preach that I'm going to hell because that harms me. You can't stop me from preaching that you're going to hell because that harms me. etc. Meaningless.

buttercraft 4y ago

Have you considered your neighbors' freedom at all?

yucky 4y ago
Absolutely! I also don't think that I should be able to band together with others to prevent my neighbors freedoms. As long as his actions don't cause me physical harm or deprive me of my property, why would I?
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > As long as his actions don't cause me physical harm or deprive me of my property So.. you're saying you want to limit his individual freedoms with like laws and rules and red tape and shit? You freedom hating bastard. I'd really recommend you learn your history. Your efforts at reinventing the legal system and government are not new ideas. People have thought about this before.
  - yucky 4y ago
    The Non-aggression principle answered the questions many years ago, it's worth a study. You may find yourself not being as authoritarian afterwards.
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      It isn't. Your utopia is utterly disconnected from practical realities and is unworkable.
      - yucky 4y ago
        It's not Utopian, of course many things would be more difficult without the constant threat of force. But the question was "is democracy compatible with freedom", and by definition it is not. How much you value democracy (and the constant threat of force) vs freedom is up to you, but we can't pretend they work well together. And we're seeing democracies being destabilized around the world now, even in the US.

specialist 4y ago

Thiel's political philosophy of freedom is minoritarian, meaning the few rule over the many. To better establish greater freedoms for those few, at the expense of the majority. This is related to laissez faire and right-wing libertarianism.