I think this is a blind spot from American civics classes. Democracy is assumed to be synonymous with/inextricably connected to liberty, whereas in reality liberty, at most, either requires democracy at some point in history to change the culture; or it's possible that they merely correlate.
My impression is that Thiel thinks (as do I - and as did, to a lesser extent possibly due to inability to envision mass media and administrative state, the Federalist Papers) that liberty is far, far more important than democracy. Given that it would be nice to have both, but then he would probably argue that the combination of constantly bribing the voters and the ratchet effect of the administrative state makes the increasingly direct democracy in the US a threat to liberty. He supports enlightenment principles, he just thinks the civic culture has degraded so far that the best bet to get them is to enforce them from above. It's not unprecedented - that is what Supreme Court was doing when it shut down things like FDR's price and wage fixing, segregated schools, and many more. Thiel wants to do the same kind of thing more, and I agree - wouldn't it be wonderful if a non-democratic, liberal (in the original sense) court could also throw away e.g. internment camps during WW2, instead of bowing to "democratic" pressure?
There's a risk here, obviously, but the tradeoff in my view is increasingly (and in Thiel's view, I assume, completely) on the side of taking a risk of having little less democracy in order to get more liberty.
Yeah, it's so against the grain of the usual sentiment on HN regarding Thiel that it immediately made me skeptical.
There is the possibility that Thiel genuinely believes in such principles but voz_ would need a lot of evidence to convince the majority of the usual commentators.
I was legitimately expecting "I believe in the United States, and the egalitarian enlightenment era principles upon which it was founded..." to end in "...but Peter Thiel..."
sershe|2 years ago
My impression is that Thiel thinks (as do I - and as did, to a lesser extent possibly due to inability to envision mass media and administrative state, the Federalist Papers) that liberty is far, far more important than democracy. Given that it would be nice to have both, but then he would probably argue that the combination of constantly bribing the voters and the ratchet effect of the administrative state makes the increasingly direct democracy in the US a threat to liberty. He supports enlightenment principles, he just thinks the civic culture has degraded so far that the best bet to get them is to enforce them from above. It's not unprecedented - that is what Supreme Court was doing when it shut down things like FDR's price and wage fixing, segregated schools, and many more. Thiel wants to do the same kind of thing more, and I agree - wouldn't it be wonderful if a non-democratic, liberal (in the original sense) court could also throw away e.g. internment camps during WW2, instead of bowing to "democratic" pressure?
There's a risk here, obviously, but the tradeoff in my view is increasingly (and in Thiel's view, I assume, completely) on the side of taking a risk of having little less democracy in order to get more liberty.
hayst4ck|2 years ago
I think he is the guiding hand behind the weaponization of social media on behalf of conservative/fascist interests.
MichaelZuo|2 years ago
There is the possibility that Thiel genuinely believes in such principles but voz_ would need a lot of evidence to convince the majority of the usual commentators.
Fomite|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]