[flagged]
Again, maybe you find Monocasa's language combative and unbecoming and it gives you the vapors. But Thiel is specifically arguing that democracy is bad because it can get in the way of capitalism, and it is not wild and crazy to describe that as a fundamentally fascist viewpoint.
Kind of. He is saying democracy is bad because it inherently leads to limits on 'freedom' imposed by the state. The state being the key point here. I read his views as much more in line with a trend towards anarcho-capitialism than with fascism.
[citation needed]
Also I love how all the people here arguibg that Thiel isn't a fascist, are simultaneously agreeeing that democracy was a mistake.
Failure is the right word for indirect democracy, which is also known as representative democracy.
Every terrible President in the past fifty years hasn't been elected by popular vote, representative democracies enable gerrymandering, and direct democracy has been shown repeatedly to have none of these problems. See: Switzerland.
B) Switzerland is very much a representative democracy still.
He's stating that that was compatible with what he wanted. He's not claiming in that essay that we should go back to it. He doesn't want democracy, that much is apparent, because he thinks it's incompatible with freedom on a long time scale.
I'm not sure that I'm capable of the mental gymnastics to get there.
Reading the piece makes this much apparent.
The latter led to the former in his mind, so bringing the latter back would get him back to where he started.
> "In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”"
The piece is arguing that ANY government system of politics: democracy, theocracy, communism, or whatever is not compatible in the long term with true 'freedom' as he envisions it, and he is looking towards technology to remedy this problem.
You may not agree with him that a world without a government is a good idea, but make that argument instead of trying to twist what he wrote into some sexist fascist diatribe.
Like, he specifically brings up the 20s as a positive example.
Stop right there. He does not want to take away votes. He wants to take away the government entirely. Neither males or females would have anything to vote for because there is no longer a government.
FDR admired fascists, specifically because he saw commonalities between their policies and the policies he pursued in the New Deal. "Fascist" does not mean "pro-capitalism", and strictly speaking it doesn't even mean "authoritarian". All fascists are authoritarian, but not all authoritarians are fascists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roose...
That's a libertarian position?
The U.S. is not even a democracy anyway, regardless of women's suffrage. We're a constitutional republic, with plenty of checks and balances to ensure freedom in addition to the popular vote. Democracy was never the be-all and end-all of policy making, and serious political scientists understand this.
> Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.
It's pretty clear what he's saying.
> 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. ... Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian.
His latter points about politics and the political process look quite prescient in hindsight!
What other actionable items do you take from his essay?
Freedom and democracy aren't compatible because in a democracy there is nothing that protects the rights of those who lose the election. As another commenter pointed out in the US it's a little less bad - but getting worse by the year - because it's a constitutional republic. Going down the toilet fast, though, thanks to democracy.
How that means that Thiel is a Fascist, I cannot explain.
Here is what he actually said:
> 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.
To add to it, the thesis, so you can see the context.
> I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.
He's obviously pro freedom in his essay; his whole essay is on why the reduction of democracy is important, specifically calling out women's suffrage.
> 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 don't expect what he actually said will change anyone's mind about what they think he's said though...
¹ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
> Saying 'oh but that would be absurd' while also immediately walkibg it back by suggesting that not doing so won't lead to anything better ("While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. ") and not offering any other solutions is a typical early stage fascist argument tactic to increase the acceptance of fascist ideas over time.
> What other actionable items do you take from his essay?
Denying a crime is exactly what a criminal would do. Thus the denial proves guilt!