This page may be out of date. Submit any pending changes before refreshing this page.
Hide this message.
Quora uses cookies to improve your experience. Read more

What did Peter Thiel mean when he said "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"?

5 Answers
Derek Balling

They aren't compatible. What's more - they never have been.

Here, let me show you true democracy:

Democracy is the tool of a majority to enforce their will upon a minority. It gives an illusion of "say in the decision", but ultimately those who control the votes control the outcome.

Freedom is about a lack of encroachment of others into one's own affairs. This means that - for example - freedom is about a majority not being able to tell you "you can't marry this person", or "you can't smoke this plant", or "you can't own this gun". It also limits your ability to encroach on others, which is why you have no freedom to, say, walk up to someone and punch them in the side of the head.

Democracy on the other hand is the opposite of that, it is a majority of folks saying, "We don't care if you have made a decision for yourself, you're not allowed to poison yourself with that plant," or "We don't care if both of you are in love and happy, we say you can't be joined together in marriage," or "We don't care if you're not actually harming someone with that gun, we say you aren't allowed to have it."

So I can't pretend to know what Peter Thiel was thinking about with that quote, but that's the sense that it evokes in me. I can't, in fact, understand how anyone ever consider them compatible.

Laeeth Isharc

When markets turn after a long trend then shortly before and after the extreme funny things happen. Gordon Brown sells our gold reserves at the low, because what's the point of owning gold. UBS fire Tony Dye, notorious tech bear, just as the bubble begins to burst. Central bankers in 2007 have an outbreak of self congratulation on having single handedly achieved the reduction in economic volatility termed the great moderation just before volatility explodes. And what's true of markets applies to other social phenomena too.

It's inescapable if you are involved in such domains. It's okay to succumb temporarily, provided you don't stubbornly fight it and quickly realize your mistake.

I don't know, but I think that's what happened to Thiel - a moment of despair before the dawn.

Randall Burns
Theil like a variety of other Libertarians is disparing of ever winning elections and advancing a Libertarian agenda that way.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009...

He specifically mentions women and welfare recipients as difficult voters to reach out to.

There have been other libertarians voicing nostalgia for the good old days of Monarchy. Voicing support for franchise limitations has become fairly common among libertarians.
Andrew Sheldon
He is a libertarian who like me believes that democracy is a legalised extortion racket. Popular sanctions tend to empower an unruly mob in the name of justice.