[spacebanana7]

The essay doesn't express opposition to women's suffrage. He just says that women are electorally tough for libertarians.

E.g Without expressing opposition to the suffrage of the elderly, I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like.

[somedude895]

> I could state that elderly people vote against many of the policies I like.

Which is actually a common narrative at Huffington Post. Old people's voting patterns are holding us back. So yeah, you're spot on.

[oblio]

> 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.

[agileAlligator]

Yes, that is what he said. Welfare beneficiaries and women are two groups libertarians find are tough constituencies to appeal to, and both of these groups have increased in size since 1920.

[fmbb]

The quote says “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron. If Thiel is pro-capitalism he thinks democracy is a problem. If he is pro-democracy he thinks capitalism is a problem.

[somedude895]

He doesn't say either of those things. Considering the context of a pro-libertarian text, what it means is that the capitalism part of "capitalist democracy" is losing significance as the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy.

But we all choose to believe what we want to believe. He certainly never said he opposed women's suffrage, as the original commenter claimed.

[oblio]

> the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy.

The US is doing no such thing :-)

[dukeyukey]

The US pays more as a percentage of GDP into social spending than Canada or Australia, and only a few percentage points behind the UK and the Netherlands - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...

Hell, American unemployment is already quite a lot more (as a percentage of previous income) than I'd get in the UK.

[lupusreal]

That position is Peter Thiel's apparent perspective as judged by somedude895, not a claim being made by somedude895 himself.

Since Peter Thiel is a libertarian, it's quite reasonable to surmise that he believes America is moving in the direction of social democracy. And if he has in mind the shifting political preferences of younger generations of Americans, I personally think it's a reasonable position to take. Public polling shows that more funding and reform for social programs is increasingly popular with younger Americans.

[master-lincoln]

> the US is moving more towards a EU-style social democracy

What indicative changes have there been that make you believe this?

[ETH_start]

Social welfare spending as a percentage of GDP:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...

It seems endemic to democratic states.

[lupusreal]

There is a leap between "X is bad for me" and "X should be banned". Some people make that leap automatically without even realizing it and assume that everybody else makes that leap too. So for instance, if I say "Soda rots teeth" some people will become indignant, "So you want soda banned?? People have a right to drink what they want you tyrant!"

The trouble is that generally people don't make this leap automatically, and simply noting a problem doesn't come with an implied "therefore ban it." Generally the people who do automatically make this leap have authoritarian mindsets, for whom personal preferences and public policy are nigh inseparable. Watch out for these kind of people, they would likely impose their preferences on you if they ever gain power over you, without even thinking about it. The emperor doesn't care for pre-tattered jeans, therefore he bans them for everybody else too; not a good sort of man to have in charge.

Now, the pertinent question is which of these sorts is Peter Thiel? When this self-espoused libertarian says "X is bad for me" does that necessarily imply that it should be banned for everybody else as well? Is there evidence for him behaving in a way that betrays this kind of authoritarian mindset?

[jmopp]

Peter Thiel might have been a libertarian in 2009, but he's not a libertarian anymore. He's jumped fully onto the nationalist conservative train. https://reason.com/2020/08/02/wait-wasnt-peter-thiel-a-liber...

[DeathArrow]

He thinks democracy and freedom are not compatible.

>Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

[jfengel]

Which is, I suppose, literally true. Any government exists to mediate conflicting rights, and that means limiting freedom.

For many self described libertarians, that conflict is to be decided entirely in favor of their liberties and everyone else's liberties don't matter. Democracy is inherently about everyone trying to have some freedom, which comes at a cost to Peter Thiel's, and apparently that's the only one that counts.

[kazen44]

which is true in the sense that capitalism (so far in history) has disenfranchised those who do the actual labor which generated the capital.

How can society be democratic if the workplace is not?

[gmadsen]

in what way? I think we collectively figured out democracy doesn't work a few thousand years ago. That's why we have a democratic republic.

[master-lincoln]

Is your democratic republic not a democracy? I don't understand your point

[zilti]

Direct democracy works perfectly fine, thanks for asking. Greetings, a Swiss

[dukeyukey]

In any reasonable person's mind, a democratic republic (as seen by internet libertarians and conservatives) is a subset of democracy. Same with the democratic monarchies of Northern Europe, and the (more) direct democracy of Switzerland. Splitting them up just confuses people, and makes your point harder to communicate and understand.

[poulpy123]

never understood why conservative and libertarians americans want to make a difference between republic and democracy, it is literally in the definition of "republic" that it should be a democracy

[jfengel]

Because it lets them make the implication that the Democratic party is un-American. And also that somehow the language is unfairly biased against them.

It's absurd, just like the bizarre fetish for using the term "Democrat party" as some kind of slur. But that's the essence of American politics now: a constant culture war, where the primary thing people want out of elections is to hurt the other side rather than pursue actual political goals.

[NilMostChill]

i care little for whatever is going on here but you seem to be purposely ignoring the last part of the sentence.

extra welfare + women voting, (both difficult for libertarians blah blah), have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

edit:

downvote all you like, it doesn't magically make a quarter of a sentence not exist.

[agileAlligator]

He means that welfare beneficiaries and women vote in way that is against his image of what a capitalist democracy should be.

[NilMostChill]

That's an interpretation, sure, i'm not even arguing against it, i truly do not care either way.

All i was pointing out is that leaving out a section of a sentence you are trying to explain your interpretation of is not a good way to convey that you are arguing in good faith.

Especially when that section could be thought of as not neatly fitting in to the narrative you are trying to explain.

[zilti]

You really need to train your reading comprehension

[NilMostChill]

Always up for some training.

What part of my reply stood out to you as the part that shows i didn't understand what i was reading ?

[poulpy123]

not that he manifestly want to remove the right to vote equally to men and women who vote wrong