[deepsquirrelnet]

> Peter Thiel stated this as early as 2009, in a lecture for a libertarian-oriented think tank:

> “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. (…)

> The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics.

> 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.”

Is this a common stance so called libertarians take now? That personal freedom eventually entails eating everyone else’s?

I guess I get why it’s popular for wanna be oligarchs. But I don’t see why anyone else would be in favor of it. Designing political systems to benefit yourself almost exclusively is pretty shallow on the intellectual scale.

[tim333]

I think what Thiel was getting at is the libertarian idea of being able to get a bit of land, farm for food etc. without the government getting in your face doesn't work in democracies because people will vote in laws taking your stuff to give to some causes elsewhere. Which is sort of true.

I don't really agree with the “capitalist democracy” is an oxymoron bit though as capitalism is still capitalism even if you have to pay taxes and follow some regulations.