5 ms·

> In the article, your libertarian non-fascist, is actively calling for the implementation of the 'light fascism' of FDR It is literally impossible to interpre

> In the article, your libertarian non-fascist, is actively calling for the implementation of the 'light fascism' of FDR It is literally impossible to interpret the article in that way. Are you lying, or do you not read good? > he bought a portrait of his friend Curtis Yarvin, an explicitly antidemocratic writer who calls for a strong-armed leader to govern the United States as a monarch. Thiel gave the painting to Yarvin as a gift... When I asked what he thinks of Yarvin’s autocratic agenda, Thiel offered objections [innuendo removed]...“I don’t think it’s going to work. I think it will look like Xi in China or Putin in Russia,” Thiel said, meaning a malign dictatorship. “It ultimately I don’t think will even be accelerationist on the science and technology side, to say nothing of what it will do for individual rights, civil liberties, things of that sort.” Still, Thiel considers Yarvin an “interesting and powerful” historian. “One of the big things that he always talks about is the New Deal and FDR in the 1930s and 1940s,” Thiel said. “And the heterodox take is that it was sort of a light form of fascism in the United States." Franklin D. Roosevelt, in this reading of history, used a domineering view of executive authority, a compliant Congress, and an intimidated Supreme Court to force what Thiel called “very, very drastic change in the nature of our society.” Yarvin, Thiel said, argues that “you should embrace this sort of light form of fascism, and we should have a president who’s like FDR again. It would be hard to find an academic historian to endorse the view that fascism, light or otherwise, accounted for Roosevelt’s presidential power. But I was interested in something else: Did Thiel agree with Yarvin’s vision of fascism as a desirable governing model? Again, he dodged the question. "That’s not a realistic political program,” he said, refusing to be drawn any further. How is this endorsement of Yarvin's ideas, let alone actively calling for them to put into practice? If you remove the hack author's fumbling attempts at innuendo, all you have a Theil engaging in a good faith conversation about controversial ideas (which the author brought up, not Theil), while a hack journalist attempts conjure controversy out of thin air.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
So to summarise: Q: Do you advocate fascism (like your friend does)? A: "That's not a realistic political program". We're kind of looking for a straight "No" here from our politically involved Billionaires. Doubly so if they've just claimed "America isn't a democracy". Triply so if we think any of their Libertarian stylings are seriously what they believe. Libertarianism is something you can respond to with "that's not a realistic political program". For actual fascism a "No, that's entirely incompatible with every Libertarian principle I've ever publicly espoused" would be more comforting.
- marcusverus 3y ago
  > We're kind of looking for a straight "No" here from our politically involved Billionaires. It’s a bad faith question that’s not worth asking, except as a setup for bad faith innuendo-mongering. Which is why one of the longest Theil quotes in the article is Theil describing some nobody’s theory of light fascism—-the only purpose it serves is a setup for a smear. There is nothing that Theil has ever said that would indicate that his politics are in line with FDR’s. Theil’s answer reflects that. > Doubly so if they've just claimed "America isn't a democracy". Yikes. He is observing an objective fact. America is and always has been constitutional republic, which is distinct from a democracy. Isn’t it amazing how Theil’s statement of a fact can be dressed up with innuendo and presented as though it was evidence of something sinister? > Triply so if we think any of their Libertarian stylings are seriously what they believe. I’m not sure what you mean. > For actual fascism a "No, that's entirely incompatible with every Libertarian principle I've ever publicly espoused" would be more comforting. As your comments have illuminated, there is no good-faith reason to be concerned about Theil being a fascist, so why would he feel the need to breathlessly disavow it? He says it’s bad policy. He’s right. Pretending that there is anything to be learned from the manner of his reply—-especially that it amounts to a revelation that all of his espoused beliefs are a lie—-is deceitful and unserious.
  - __loam 3y ago
    > He is observing an objective fact. America is and always has been constitutional republic, which is distinct from a democracy. A constitutional republic is a small d democratic system. The political power in that system comes from the will of the people. We can play word games all day but the United States is a representative democracy. That people like you parrot these ideas is deeply concerning, and the idea that the United States is not a democracy is often bandied about as a reason to act in bad faith against the will of the people. Most recently, the electorate in Ohio voted to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. One of the arguments people were making against that vote was that the United States is not a democracy. I've only ever seen people make this argument in bad faith as reasoning for sticking with unpopular policies like abortion bans.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

So to summarise: Q: Do you advocate fascism (like your friend does)? A: "That's not a realistic political program". We're kind of looking for a straight "No" here from our politically involved Billionaires. Doubly so if they've just claimed "America isn't a democracy". Triply so if we think any of their Libertarian stylings are seriously what they believe. Libertarianism is something you can respond to with "that's not a realistic political program". For actual fascism a "No, that's entirely incompatible with every Libertarian principle I've ever publicly espoused" would be more comforting.

marcusverus 3y ago
> We're kind of looking for a straight "No" here from our politically involved Billionaires. It’s a bad faith question that’s not worth asking, except as a setup for bad faith innuendo-mongering. Which is why one of the longest Theil quotes in the article is Theil describing some nobody’s theory of light fascism—-the only purpose it serves is a setup for a smear. There is nothing that Theil has ever said that would indicate that his politics are in line with FDR’s. Theil’s answer reflects that. > Doubly so if they've just claimed "America isn't a democracy". Yikes. He is observing an objective fact. America is and always has been constitutional republic, which is distinct from a democracy. Isn’t it amazing how Theil’s statement of a fact can be dressed up with innuendo and presented as though it was evidence of something sinister? > Triply so if we think any of their Libertarian stylings are seriously what they believe. I’m not sure what you mean. > For actual fascism a "No, that's entirely incompatible with every Libertarian principle I've ever publicly espoused" would be more comforting. As your comments have illuminated, there is no good-faith reason to be concerned about Theil being a fascist, so why would he feel the need to breathlessly disavow it? He says it’s bad policy. He’s right. Pretending that there is anything to be learned from the manner of his reply—-especially that it amounts to a revelation that all of his espoused beliefs are a lie—-is deceitful and unserious.
- __loam 3y ago
  > He is observing an objective fact. America is and always has been constitutional republic, which is distinct from a democracy. A constitutional republic is a small d democratic system. The political power in that system comes from the will of the people. We can play word games all day but the United States is a representative democracy. That people like you parrot these ideas is deeply concerning, and the idea that the United States is not a democracy is often bandied about as a reason to act in bad faith against the will of the people. Most recently, the electorate in Ohio voted to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution. One of the arguments people were making against that vote was that the United States is not a democracy. I've only ever seen people make this argument in bad faith as reasoning for sticking with unpopular policies like abortion bans.