Peter Thiel only believes democracy is instrumentally valuable. I.e., it is valuable only insofar as people vote for more freedom, and harmful when they don't [1]. He believes women vote against freedom. Thus, he believes women voting is harmful.
[1] The belief that democracy is valuable only when people vote for your preferred policies is not that uncommon. Witness, e.g., hostility by gay marriage proponents towards voters who oppose gay marriage.
It's important to note that a lot of libertarians' ideas about freedom and pretty much everything else is comically out of step with how most people think. They think it is because they have stumbled on the magical answer to everything (the response to any problem facing society is a trivial "no government") and that everyone else is a blind idiot, when in fact they are an odd fringe that is unlike most other people.
Of course Peter Thiel's opinion of politics will be informed of Peter Thiel's definition of freedom. The fact that it is out of step with how most people think (in particular, women and welfare beneficiaries) is precisely why Peter Thiel is pessimistic about democracy. This is explained in the short essay of his that I linked to.
Apart from attempts to lower Thiel's status, what value do you believe your comment adds?
This guy is pushing an idea that, on the surface, I disagree with. Confronted with it, I then wonder if it is worth taking more time to understand the guy's arguments, to see if there is something of worth there.
Evidence that this guy has other ideas that are more clearly bullshit keys me in that, no, I don't.
It's important to note that a lot of libertarians' ideas about freedom and pretty much everything else is comically out of step with how most people think.
This is equally true for the stereotypical west coast HN liberal.
Tribalism/racism, cash for votes or "everyone gets a pony" are all pretty easy to sell. Does that make them right? Maybe, if you define "success" as "inflicted on the greatest number of people". In that case, contemporary Chinese fascism is the most successful ideology in the world, and yes, Thiel's brand of libertarianism fails.
That's not really context, just another assertion that allowing women to vote is a "bad thing", just restated in different phrasing, which obviously provides nothing in the way of an argument.
Comments
Peter Thiel also wishes women couldn't vote.
http://gawker.com/#!5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-cou...
Some context is extremely helpful.
Peter Thiel only believes democracy is instrumentally valuable. I.e., it is valuable only insofar as people vote for more freedom, and harmful when they don't [1]. He believes women vote against freedom. Thus, he believes women voting is harmful.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/the-educa...
[1] The belief that democracy is valuable only when people vote for your preferred policies is not that uncommon. Witness, e.g., hostility by gay marriage proponents towards voters who oppose gay marriage.
*Peter Thiel's definition of freedom.
It's important to note that a lot of libertarians' ideas about freedom and pretty much everything else is comically out of step with how most people think. They think it is because they have stumbled on the magical answer to everything (the response to any problem facing society is a trivial "no government") and that everyone else is a blind idiot, when in fact they are an odd fringe that is unlike most other people.
Of course Peter Thiel's opinion of politics will be informed of Peter Thiel's definition of freedom. The fact that it is out of step with how most people think (in particular, women and welfare beneficiaries) is precisely why Peter Thiel is pessimistic about democracy. This is explained in the short essay of his that I linked to.
Apart from attempts to lower Thiel's status, what value do you believe your comment adds?
This guy is pushing an idea that, on the surface, I disagree with. Confronted with it, I then wonder if it is worth taking more time to understand the guy's arguments, to see if there is something of worth there.
Evidence that this guy has other ideas that are more clearly bullshit keys me in that, no, I don't.
It's important to note that a lot of libertarians' ideas about freedom and pretty much everything else is comically out of step with how most people think.
This is equally true for the stereotypical west coast HN liberal.
If that was jab at my direction, you got wrong coast :p
You know the "Mom Test" for software? Is your software easy enough to use for you mom? If not, then you probably have work to do.
Try the same with your ideology, whatever it is. I know libertarianism (especially Thiel's brand) fails pretty spectacularly.
Ideology != consumer software.
Tribalism/racism, cash for votes or "everyone gets a pony" are all pretty easy to sell. Does that make them right? Maybe, if you define "success" as "inflicted on the greatest number of people". In that case, contemporary Chinese fascism is the most successful ideology in the world, and yes, Thiel's brand of libertarianism fails.
> they are an odd fringe that is unlike most other people.
Not to mention that if government actually did evaporate they likely wouldn't be so happy with the end result.
That's not really context, just another assertion that allowing women to vote is a "bad thing", just restated in different phrasing, which obviously provides nothing in the way of an argument.