4 ms·

You're likely reading the quote wrong, since it reads completely differently out of context. He was referring specifically to how beneficiaries of the governme

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.
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      No, of course I wouldn't argue that, and I not only did not, but it also has nothing to do with what I mentioned Thiel was referring to. I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century. The modern beneficiary system is what is being referred to by Thiel.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        > I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century I posit that the distinction is arbitrary. There is no qualitative difference between civil war pensions of 1862 vs the G.I. bill of 1944. If there was a change in government doctrine, I'd love to see concrete contrasts rather than hand-waving. Or perhaps Thiel's gripe is quantitative rather than qualitative?
drawkward 2y ago
I'm dying to know how I'm incorrectly reading the part where he calls giving women the right to vote has rendered "capitalist democracy" an oxymoron. He seems pretty clear on it to me.

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.
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    No, of course I wouldn't argue that, and I not only did not, but it also has nothing to do with what I mentioned Thiel was referring to. I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century. The modern beneficiary system is what is being referred to by Thiel.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      > I think you also know that your example is tangential and hardly comparable. The Homestead Act, and all other related land grant acts, have no relation to the modern beneficiary system that only came into existence in the US in the early 20th century I posit that the distinction is arbitrary. There is no qualitative difference between civil war pensions of 1862 vs the G.I. bill of 1944. If there was a change in government doctrine, I'd love to see concrete contrasts rather than hand-waving. Or perhaps Thiel's gripe is quantitative rather than qualitative?

drawkward 2y ago

I'm dying to know how I'm incorrectly reading the part where he calls giving women the right to vote has rendered "capitalist democracy" an oxymoron. He seems pretty clear on it to me.