Hacker News Reader

Comment by vowelless | Hacker News Reader

The source of the claim comes from here: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

> 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.

Thiel add's an update addressing this point:

> It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.

I frankly have no idea about what he is trying to say.

View on HN

It definitely sounds like he doesn't believe in democracy and he does believe in some form of libertarianism. I could see how one might argue that once people get an entitlement like Social Security or military procurement programs that have components in forty plus states, it's hard to pare those programs back. On the other hand one might argue something like Social Security for elderly/disabled is what every country with enough development should do, unless one is a libertarian.

I understand him to mean that adding women made it worse, but like many things, you can't simply take it away again and get back to where you were.

That's how I read the original essay as well. I think the update is an attempt to recover from the negative attention the piece got.

"Doesn't believe that voting will fix (the things he's concerned about)" and "thinks voting should be done away with" are two separate things.

Would you be similarly confused by the difference between "doesn't believe that eating peanut butter cups will cure bubonic plague" and "wants to ban peanut butter cups, or take away people's right to eat them"?

While Thiel could have been more clear here, I don't see any inconsistency in his statements.

It may be more confusing if you're one of those people who thinks that government intervention is the One True Solution to every single problem that troubles the human race.

In the original essay, he seems to imply causality (emphasis mine):

> the extension of the franchise to women .... have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."

On the other hand, in the update, he seems to suggest that voting doesn't matter. I find that confusing. Why even establish causality in the original essay if there is no such causality as seemingly described in the edit?

> It may be more confusing if you're one of those people who thinks that government intervention is the One True Solution to every single problem that troubles the human race.

It might be helpful to not assume too many things from one sentence :)

> On the other hand, in the update, he seems to suggest that voting doesn't matter.

He suggests that voting doesn't matter for the issues that concern him.

Do you actually believe that every single problem can be solved by voting? I feel sure that you don't. So what's the issue here?

> Do you actually believe that every single problem can be solved by voting?

I am not sure why you keep assuming my own personal opinions about voting, democracy, etc when I have not bothered to share any. I have merely pointed out that his update to the essay seems to muddle the point made in the original essay -- and that I am having trouble parsing it.

You parse the update to his essay as "voting doesn't matter for the issues that concern him". I agree -- that is what he seems to be saying in the edit.

How do you parse his original statement: "extension of franchise to women has rendered the notion of capitalist democracy into an oxymoron". Assuming he cares about capitalist democracy (based on the content of the essay), that statement certainly seems to imply that voting did matter -- so much so, that extending franchise to new demographics harmed capitalist democracy (the thing he cared about).

With that context, his update seems more like an attempt to recover from bad PR than anything else.

> I am not sure why you keep assuming my own personal opinions about voting, democracy, etc when I have not bothered to share any.

Because your (mis)interpretation of Thiel's words isn't consistent with any other interpretation. So what are you saying, then? Anything?

> How do you parse his original statement: "extension of franchise to women has rendered the notion of capitalist democracy into an oxymoron".

That he does not think that his goals can be best served by resorting to democratic governmental means.

Which is not the same thing as him being opposed to democracy.

> so much so, that extending franchise to new demographics harmed capitalist democracy

No, he's not saying that at all. When you say something is an "oxymoron" you're saying that it's a contradiction, not that it's "been harmed".

Also, I don't think Peter Thiel gives two shits about "bad PR".

It sounds like he's saying American voters have become increasingly less capitalistic.

Is this an outlook on women constituents affecting American libertarianism?

Reread the passage several times and have to conclude it sounds like lawyer-speak: words generally make sense but are broad enough to encompass anything and open to judicial interpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com