4 ms·

> he earnestly believes in what Putin does According to what? I've never heard him say anything positive about Putin. He also reportedly tipped off the FBI wh

> he earnestly believes in what Putin does According to what? I've never heard him say anything positive about Putin. He also reportedly tipped off the FBI when the Kremlin invited him to meet with Putin.

sangnoir 2y ago
Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. Both quotes by Peter Thiel in a Cato Unbound[1] blog post, 2009. The second quote is - let's call it "interesting" - considering Thiel is the patron of a VP candidate who may be a heartbeat away from the presidency. 1. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
- drawkward 2y ago
  I presume that "franchise" here is meant as voting enfranchisement, i.e., women having the right to vote?
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    Your presumption is correct - the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, amd its passing allowed women to vote in the US
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  You're likely reading the quote wrong, since it reads completely differently out of context. He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves, thereby continually maintaining or increasing the size of the government. His implication is that as the government grows bigger, as it does with continually increasing beneficiaries, who vote in order to increase their benefit as the system allows, the freedom of those who are not advantaged by a growing and naturally increasingly regulatory government will decrease, due to a higher tax and regulatory burden.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves I can believe that, but one has to be willfully ignorant to believe that such voter self-interest started in 1920, and that previous cohorts voted in an objective manner, always devoid of self-interest and for everyone's benefit. The underlying question is "Whose interests does (or should) the government concern itself with"
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      A government beneficiary doesn't typically refer to anyone who is advantaged by a governments laws, but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist in the US till the early 20th century.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        Right, those "government beneficiaries" colloquially known as "women" and their damn burdensome voting rights.
        TeaBrain 2y ago
        The line referencing the franchise is a separate quote and I'm not even going to pretend to understand sdwhat he was thinking when he wrote that. I assume that he regrets that quote, since he hasn't said anything similar since.
        drawkward 2y ago
        I too am assuming he regrets saying his true beliefs out loud. Further, I assume he still believes it.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        > but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist in the US till the early 20th century Are you seriously suggesting the voter pool received no monetary benefits from the government before 1920? President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act in 1862 - does getting 160 acres from uncle Sam for a token fee count as "monetary benefit" in your books? The act grant was for "heads of households" 21 years and older. I bet there were similar land grants in the original colonies predate the declaration of independence.

sangnoir 2y ago

Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. Both quotes by Peter Thiel in a Cato Unbound[1] blog post, 2009. The second quote is - let's call it "interesting" - considering Thiel is the patron of a VP candidate who may be a heartbeat away from the presidency. 1. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

drawkward 2y ago
I presume that "franchise" here is meant as voting enfranchisement, i.e., women having the right to vote?
- sangnoir 2y ago
  Your presumption is correct - the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, amd its passing allowed women to vote in the US
TeaBrain 2y ago
You're likely reading the quote wrong, since it reads completely differently out of context. He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves, thereby continually maintaining or increasing the size of the government. His implication is that as the government grows bigger, as it does with continually increasing beneficiaries, who vote in order to increase their benefit as the system allows, the freedom of those who are not advantaged by a growing and naturally increasingly regulatory government will decrease, due to a higher tax and regulatory burden.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the government are incentivized to vote for policies which provide government benefits to themselves I can believe that, but one has to be willfully ignorant to believe that such voter self-interest started in 1920, and that previous cohorts voted in an objective manner, always devoid of self-interest and for everyone's benefit. The underlying question is "Whose interests does (or should) the government concern itself with"
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    A government beneficiary doesn't typically refer to anyone who is advantaged by a governments laws, but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist in the US till the early 20th century.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Right, those "government beneficiaries" colloquially known as "women" and their damn burdensome voting rights.
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
        The line referencing the franchise is a separate quote and I'm not even going to pretend to understand sdwhat he was thinking when he wrote that. I assume that he regrets that quote, since he hasn't said anything similar since.
        drawkward 2y ago
        I too am assuming he regrets saying his true beliefs out loud. Further, I assume he still believes it.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      > but essentially a person or entity who receives a monetary benefit from the government, which is likely what is being referred to. This is what did not exist in the US till the early 20th century Are you seriously suggesting the voter pool received no monetary benefits from the government before 1920? President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act in 1862 - does getting 160 acres from uncle Sam for a token fee count as "monetary benefit" in your books? The act grant was for "heads of households" 21 years and older. I bet there were similar land grants in the original colonies predate the declaration of independence.