Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I base my assertion on sentiments he has expressed, one if which was quoted in the Bloomberg article:

>The 1920s was the last time one could feel “genuinely optimistic” about American democracy, he said; since then, “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.”




some context from his response to the article. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

"I had hoped my essay on the limits of politics would provoke reactions, and I was not disappointed. But the most intense response has been aimed not at cyberspace, seasteading, or libertarian politics, but at a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap.

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.

Voting is not under siege in America, but many other rights are. In America, people are imprisoned for using even very mild drugs, tortured by our own government, and forced to bail out reckless financial companies.

I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. 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."


That's definitely an eyebrow raising quote, but I'm pretty sure he meant it the opposite way it's being taken. He's fine with the franchise being extended, he wants those groups to have more libertarians. It's the same thing as Democrats trying to make it easier to vote, people who vote less or have a harder time voting tend to vote Democrat.


Yes, he's observing a trend and comparing its results to the ideal “capitalist democracy” that Thiel wish existed. Women, in general, aren't very libertarian especially on fiscal issues. He's not saying their rights should be taken away. I'll admit, it isn't the best worded statement in the world.


He isn't saying that they ought to never have been granted?


No, he isn't saying that.


Of course not. He's just invoking all of those elements in a provocative sounding statement for no particular reason.


He's saying that women tend not to be libertarians, which is a large enough block of people to where it's very difficult to implement libertarian policies to law. There's no implication that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or women's suffrage was a mistake, it's just a really awkwardly worded statement.


Describing your “ideal society” and then depicting one group, especially one who was politically and socially disempowered at the time, as an obstacle to it is called scapegoating.

Historically, this ideology has had some very bad consequences.


Why is this being down-voted? It's the truth.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: