[maps]

> Thiel is, in fact, literally arguing that democracy is bad because it gives people with critiques of capitalism a say in the way their country is run.

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.

[kick]

It may be fascist, it may not be, but what he's arguing in that piece isn't strictly wrong. Representative democracy has largely failed, and, like Thiel said, is incompatible with maximum freedom. However, whether maximum freedom is desirable (I don't think it is) is up to the reader.

[monocasa]

> Representative democracy has largely failed

[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.

[kick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States

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.

[monocasa]

A) posting the United States paragraph of the republic wiki article has to be the laziest argument I've seen in a long while.

B) Switzerland is very much a representative democracy still.

[monocasa]

He's for a return to 1920s "capitalist democracy" that excludes groups that don't vote the way he'd like.

[kick]

That's not actually true.

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.

[monocasa]

So what you're saying is that even though he's that women's suffarage isn't compatible with freedom, 1920s style "capitalist democracy" that removes the vote from people is compatible with freedom, in one of the most pro freedom platforms out there (the Cato institute) somehow isn't actually pushing for those positions?

I'm not sure that I'm capable of the mental gymnastics to get there.

[kick]

He's pushing for an end to democracy. That's distinct from both the current system, and the 1920s democracy he mentions.

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.

[maps]

Did you read the entire article you cite, or did you just get stuck on one paragraph?

> "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.

[monocasa]

Then why would he bring up women's suffrage specifically other than 'groups who in aggregrate don't vote the way I think they should, should have the ability to vote taken away'?

Like, he specifically brings up the 20s as a positive example.

[maps]

> taken away

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.

[monocasa]

His whole argument is spent looking back at a time when certain folk couldn't vote with a positive light.