Peter Thiel’s Libertarian Dream – for New Zealand?

86 comments on “Peter Thiel’s Libertarian Dream – for New Zealand? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. AB 1

   2 February 2017 at 11:34 am

   Undoubtedly he will take a little time to assess the political landscape and then use his money and influence in the way he wants.
   We could make wealth a disqualification for immigration – precisely to prevent our democracy from being corrupted by the powerful.
   We could reform election campaign finance to allow donations only from individuals on the electoral roll, peg them at a maximum of 0.1% of the gross median wage and prohibit donations from non-persons such as companies, trusts, unions, etc.
   We could have a ‘values’ test for immigrants that included a commitment to democratic principles including the explicit statement that freedom is possible only through equality
2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

   2 February 2017 at 12:21 pm

   I’m sure there are lots of ways in which “Libertarians” and other neo-Nazis can be made to feel unwelcome here.
   • Brutus Iscariot 2.1

     2 February 2017 at 1:06 pm

     Oh my god, it’s another NAZI!! NAZI’s everywhere!!

     Wait, he’s a rich gay libertarian.

     I think you need to repair your record, it’s a little scratched…
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1

       2 February 2017 at 3:18 pm

       Oh you can nitpick at the details. He works for Nazis, he says democracy is incompatible with (his) freedom (to do what exactly?). Appease them all you like: Turnbull just learned the contempt in which you’re held.
       • Richard McGrath 2.1.1.1

         2 February 2017 at 7:51 pm

         Democracy IS incompatible with freedom – taken to its extreme it becomes majoritarian (mob) rule, where individual freedom is subject to the will of the majority, and inalienable rights vanish.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1

           3 February 2017 at 7:38 am

           Fool, “inalienable rights” only exist because of strength in numbers. Learn some history.

           Then study Somalia for a practical example of your “system” at work.
     • Richard McGrath 2.1.2

       2 February 2017 at 7:49 pm

       OAB’s Naziphobic.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1

         3 February 2017 at 7:41 am

         Richard’s Naziphilic.
         • Richard McGrath 2.1.2.1.1

           3 February 2017 at 6:46 pm

           Response to OAB’s comments on rights and that hoary old chestnut, Somalia:

           Utter rubbish – inalienable rights exist because of our status as rational beings with free will, nothing to do with “strength in numbers”.

           As for Somalia, the relatively peaceful northern states of Somaliland and Puntland have broken away from the south, which is dominated by Islamists imposing Shariah law but which with intervention via a foreign backed government is slowly improving. The “system” which better approaches a model of respect for individual rights and rule of law seems to be working well in the northern parts of Somalia. The southern part is infested with al-Quaeda and other Islamist terrorist organisations who have little respect for human life.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.1.1

             3 February 2017 at 6:54 pm

             Rights (inalienable or otherwise) exist where the rule of law persists.

             The Magna Carta didn’t happen because Physics, it arose from power dynamics. Likewise the UDoHR.

             When your drivel asserts that you want to live in peace without harming anyone, I have two words: Carbon Dioxide.
         • Richard McGrath 2.1.2.1.2

           3 February 2017 at 6:50 pm

           “Richard’s Naziphilic.”

           Sorry OAB, libertarians dislike collectivists of all stripes – race-based, class-based, whatever
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.2.1

             3 February 2017 at 7:02 pm

             😆

             Apart from your membership of the Dunning-Kruger collective, that is. To be blunt, confirmation bias and the self-attribution fallacy explain everything you assert. 100% of your beliefs.

             Get over it.
             • McFlock …

               3 February 2017 at 7:25 pm

               But they are all individuals, they all do what they want!
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 3 February 2017 at 7:30 pm

                 Damn. I thought that was six-year-old boys. No, wait…
   • Brutus Iscariot 2.2

     2 February 2017 at 1:09 pm

     This should help you educate yourself:

     http://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umberto_Eco_-_Eternal_Fascism.html
   • HDCAFriendlyTroll 2.3

     2 February 2017 at 1:43 pm

     Wow, I never knew Kelly Clarkson, Drew Carey, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Penn Jillette and Bruce Willis are all neo-Nazis. You learn something new everyday.

     http://libertyupward.com/famous-people-you-probably-didnt-know-were-libertarian/
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.3.1

       2 February 2017 at 3:21 pm

       Do any of them work as enablers for the White House?
   • HDCAFriendlyTroll 2.4

     2 February 2017 at 1:45 pm

     Well if you can punch a Nazi I’m sure you can hit a Libertarian.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1

       2 February 2017 at 3:22 pm

       I suggest you go and read my comment on that thread.
       • HDCAFriendlyTroll 2.4.1.1

         2 February 2017 at 4:09 pm

         I saw it before. You don’t agree with hitting Nazis but a few other people do. So just in case anyone got the wrong idea you personally wouldn’t have “punching a Libertarian” in the list of ways to make someone feel unwelcome. Got it.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1.1.1

           2 February 2017 at 4:35 pm

           Not quite: I don’t agree with punching random blockleiters because it’s ineffective. As events in the USA unfold, we’ll find out whether the law and other democratic institutions are sufficiently powerful weapons. They’ve certainly failed against the depredations of common-or-garden Libertarian drivel, cf: Flint Michigan, Alan Greenspan.

           On the one hand it’s fascinating to see you “centre-right” followers tying yourself in knots in the pretence that your support for the POTUS is compatible with your self-regard. Or anything approaching humanity.

           On the other, there is real hurt being done to your victims. A five year old boy in handcuffs. No, punching is entirely inadequate.
           • Jerko 2.4.1.1.1.1

             4 February 2017 at 5:17 am

             Good observation OAB, we will find out whether the “law and other Democratic institutions are sufficiently powerful weapons” as things are pretty much moving in a direction that will prove this point – that they are not. The GOP lead Government of The USA are quickly changing the rules as we write. That, and the way they used and are still using their propaganda machine to convince their voter that what they are doing is in their best interest is frightening. Lets be clear the USA is no longer a Democracy.The recent election was a Coup by stealth and wealth.It is not a democracy when the majority of voters voted against the regime. The only hope is an increasing opposition of GOP supporters to their elected officials. But I’m not holding my breath. Thankfully I live in a State that has started to collect signatures for the inclusion of a ballot proposal for the Secession of the State. http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-california-secession-calexit-htmlstory.html
   • rocco siffred 2.5

     2 February 2017 at 7:27 pm

     What about those Illinois Nazis? I hate Illinois Nazis.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU
3. Goodshepherd 3

   2 February 2017 at 12:30 pm

   Genuine question.

   What are the pros and cons of dual citizenship?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

     2 February 2017 at 4:38 pm

     Genuine answer: if both countries are tax havens, you can avoid tax everywhere.
4. joe90 4

   2 February 2017 at 12:41 pm

   “you always have to look at the end game.”

   Burn the house down?.

   Blossoming on the Internet like a fetid rose, a mysterious new political movement has generated a serious and not un-terrifying critique of modern society. Its members are loud and growing in number, and they demand nothing less than the elimination of the democratic system. Mostly white, male and angry, they lie in wait for the imminent collapse of civilization.

   Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Dark Enlightenment. The Empire is striking back.

   http://www.vocativ.com/culture/uncategorized/dark-enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/

   http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/
5. Guerilla Surgeon 5

   2 February 2017 at 1:33 pm

   “Libertarian: a conservative who wants to smoke pot and get laid.” Can’t remember who said it – possibly PJ O’Rourke all Bill Maher. Personally I think it’s just someone who hasn’t grown up yet.
6. Guerilla Surgeon 6

   2 February 2017 at 1:34 pm

   “Libertarian: a conservative who wants to smoke pot and get laid.” Can’t remember who said it – possibly PJ O’Rourke or Bill Maher. Personally I think it’s just someone who hasn’t grown up yet.
   • Richard McGrath 6.1

     2 February 2017 at 7:53 pm

     Heard you the first time.
   • greywarshark 6.2

     3 February 2017 at 10:12 am

     Guerilla Surgeon
     As you have a lot of deep thoughts about our political processes would you have time to pass those on after taking part in a reading group thinking about a good old but relevant political book and being in a hopefully, great discussion about it? Good to read your thoughts, if you have time to do this. I’ll put my spiel below explaining it and could you reply to this comment, today Friday if you can, like soon. Thanks from
     greywarbler @ Bowalley.

     You always bring good political ideas and a breadth of vision to the problems facing us.
     We need new approaches to get through this maze we wander in. I had the idea that new ideas and thoughts could spring from studying books on the important subjects relating to our politics. Could you find the time to be in this – over a month first reading and noting about E F Schumaker and his Small is Beautiful and then having a great discussion on a Sunday post at end of month? It would be great if you could be in. Could you reply to this comment today if poss. Thanks.

     I am writing similarly to other regular commenters who I feel would be interested, but of course it is a matter of time available. Regards.
7. UncookedSelachimorpha 7

   2 February 2017 at 2:49 pm

   Who cares what one rich guy thinks? Unlikely his ideas are spectacularly better than anyone else’s. The only thing you know for sure about him is that he has amassed wealth for himself.

   Remember – the rich don’t care about what is good for others, or good for nations.

   https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/super-rich-dont-care-about-us-taxes

   http://www.upworthy.com/science-explains-why-rich-people-dont-care-about-you
   • McFlock 7.1

     2 February 2017 at 4:20 pm

     Koch Brothers.

     Being obscenely wealthy makes it easy to use one’s wealth to disrupt democracy.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1

       2 February 2017 at 4:40 pm

       …and the behaviour isn’t confined to “family” businesses; cf: Exxon.
     • Richard McGrath 7.1.2

       2 February 2017 at 7:53 pm

       Yep, that’s called free speech. You forgot mention George Soros there too.
       • McFlock 7.1.2.1

         2 February 2017 at 10:57 pm

         It’s not free if you pay people to say it.
         • Richard McGrath 7.1.2.1.1

           3 February 2017 at 12:13 am

           Of course it is. Free refers to freedom of action. You are free to pay people to broadcast your ideas if you want to.
           • McFlock 7.1.2.1.1.1

             3 February 2017 at 10:11 am

             I’m also free to flap my wings and fly, all I lack are wings.

             And prisoners are always free to leave, they just lack bolt cutters.

             And the starving are always free to eat, they just lack food.
             • Richard McGrath …

               3 February 2017 at 6:56 pm

               Ridiculous comments – humans are creative enough to overcome barriers such as a lack of wings and shortages of food; we can now fly in jet-powered aeroplanes despite our bodies lacking wings, and there is an abundance of food thanks to technology including the genetic engineering of crops.
               • McFlock …

                 3 February 2017 at 7:19 pm

                 And yet we still have people falling to their deaths, we still have people living in prisons, and we still have people dying of starvation.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.2.2

         3 February 2017 at 7:44 pm

         George Soros did it too? (I doubt that, because you said it, but hey, let’s suspend disbelief for a moment). How your much-vaunted ethics melt away at the first straw.

         Your argument is piss-weak, and you don’t have a better one.
8. RedLogix 8

   2 February 2017 at 2:59 pm

   John Key’s replacement?
   • Muttonbird 8.1

     2 February 2017 at 7:54 pm

     This! He’ll need to spend a bit more time in the country however.
9. greywarshark 9

   2 February 2017 at 3:46 pm

   Interesting thought Redlogix. NZ becomes the emerald gem for the wealthy to put in their collection?

   Interesting that we fought in WW2 against fascism in Germany and Italy and now we have a different sort of fascism from the USA. Ralph Nader announced in 2013 that there is American fascism. American (and Australian business) wants to take over our world.
   https://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/4/american_fascism_ralph_nader_decries_how
   This is also called Corporatocracy.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
   Here’s how it works and why government is such a fascinating, heady place to work in.
   http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24465-a-300-billion-example-of-how-corporations-control-our-government

   And Rod Drury is for it. Peter Thiel s like the young man he used to be, lean and hungry only more astute, not full-faced from too much dining and wining and self-satisfaction. Xero has done well out of Thiel’s input, its worked for me he thinks, that’s what’s important.

   Has anyone noticed the incipient jowls on Thiel. The little pouches beside his mouth. Perhaps that is where he keeps gold coins for super-special tips for good service. Or that’s where he keeps the implanted miniboards with slots to fit in the memory sticks that contain codes to his secret financial stash. Or recording devices so he can sue the shirt off anyone who impugns him, or enable voice recognition of anyone who attacks him. Perhaps Xero is working on a program for these right now.

   Just a few outrageous and improbable ideas to add to those already occurring across the globe.

   The usual dictionary meaning of fascism doesn’t measure up to today’s reality.
   google – an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
   This doesn’t say anything about business. Yet while men and women were fighting against the enemy in WW2, business was doing very well out of the war, and chemical and machinery companies got big contracts in Germany. In Italy top companies like Fiat were doing very well.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     2 February 2017 at 5:26 pm

     The usual dictionary meaning of fascism doesn’t measure up to today’s reality.
     google – an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
     This doesn’t say anything about business.

     Yeah, pointing out that the whole fascist movement was driven by businessmen would probably start people questioning the morality of business in general.

     Fascism and Big Business (1938)

     A few supplementary explanations are necessary here. The fact is undeniable that the industrialists who subsidized and put fascism in power are not entirely satisfied with their own creation. In the first place the regime is terribly expensive. The maintenance of the excessive bureaucracy of the state, the party and the numerous semi-governmental bodies costs unheard-of sums and adds to the financial difficulties of the government. In their memorandum of June, 1937, to Hitler, the industrialists wrote:

     “It used to be estimated that there was one functionary for every twelve persons in productive occupations. Today, if the official party organizations and the semi-official and corporative services with their functionaries and employes are included, it is estimated that there is one person on the state payroll for every eight persons in productive occupations.”

     Abandoning any attempt to “estimate the amount of personal and material expenses required by the administrative machine,” the authors of the memorandum complained of the “incalculable losses arising from a lack of contact between the old and the new authorities, and the overlapping of functions between the old and new state services and the party.” [2] They wished the day would come when “in accordance with a definite principle, a final organization of the internal political apparatus of the state will be possible …”

     While the state must carry huge incidental expenses, the big capitalists themselves have to stand a certain number: “voluntary contributions” extorted by the party and its “welfare” undertakings; various subscriptions; “graft” and seats on the boards of directors of big companies for the “upper crust” of the fascist leaders, etc. But these incidental expenses, the importance of which must not be exaggerated, are less annoying to big business than the demagogic agitation indulged in by the fascist plebeians – agitation which, despite purges and repressions, periodically reappears, though within constantly narrower limits.
     • greywarshark 9.1.1

       2 February 2017 at 6:08 pm

       DracoTBastard
       Oh thanks for that little pearl DTB. Damn it it doesn’t matter what wonderful idea there is for dealing with the masses the efficiency thing comes in.

       The Conchords singing about the robots getting rid of the humans I don’t think dealt with what happened after they used their poisonous gases and got rid of our asses. Victor Klemperer who survived the Nazis when the Communists got in and he got his university job back, found they had much the same administration as the previous regime, neither being satisfactory.
10. Ad 10

    2 February 2017 at 4:57 pm

    The .01% of the world got there through spectacular greed and utter life focus.
    Not a single one is a socialist. The occasional few will get there, then give much of it away. They are interesting largely because they are so rare.

    “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”

    There’s a phrase ‘necessary evil’, and this class of people may or may not be necessary to New Zealand, but I do think they are evil.
    • Richard McGrath 10.1

      2 February 2017 at 7:55 pm

      Are they evil because they’re rich?
      • Don't worry. Be happy 10.1.1

        3 February 2017 at 11:04 am

        Behind every great fortune is a great crime as the Wise Man once said.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2

      3 February 2017 at 12:28 pm

      The .01% of the world got there through spectacular greed and utter life focus

      They got there by chance, period.
      • Richard McGrath 10.2.1

        3 February 2017 at 6:58 pm

        No hard work, innovation or dedication involved – yeah right
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.1.1

          3 February 2017 at 7:20 pm

          Of course there was, but the overwhelming majority do those things.

          If hard work is all it takes, nurses (who have enough to deal with putting up with assholes doctors, never mind patients) would all be millionaires. Ditto coal miners, fruitpickers, and slaves.

          Can you give me some examples of influential, world-shaking innovations that weren’t the result of collective endeavour?

          Everything you believe can be destroyed with feathers. Get over it.
11. rhinocrates 11

    2 February 2017 at 6:57 pm

    The Economist comments on Silicon Valley tech companies’ tensions with Trump. On one hand they oppose his immigration ban because they depend on immigrants, and are instinctive far more Liberally-aligned than most American companies, but it concludes lambasting their naïveté, servility to other dictatorial regimes and hypocritically cynical practice of capitalism (eg. tax avoidance).

    http://www.economist.com/news/business/21716020-tech-firms-are-last-departing-their-see-no-evil-stance-society-and-politics
12. Craig H 12

    2 February 2017 at 7:05 pm

    Peter Thiel is not a chess grandmaster (or any of the lower titles) according to FIDE and ICCF, although he is a strong player.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1

      2 February 2017 at 7:12 pm

      Chess is for accountants. What’s his Go rank?
    • Nic the NZer 12.2

      2 February 2017 at 7:13 pm

      http://www.chessgames.com/player/peter_thiel.html

      He appears to hold a National Master title awarded by the USCF.
      • Craig H 12.2.1

        3 February 2017 at 6:53 am

        National titles are generally well below the top-flight international titles in terms of playing strength required to attain them.
13. One Two 13

    2 February 2017 at 11:47 pm

    The ‘libertarian dream’ which Theil and ilk may partake in, could be very different from what the ‘common folk’ might describe, or imagine

    Following ‘libertarian’ to its extremity……anything goes!

    Anything!
    • Richard McGrath 13.1

      3 February 2017 at 12:11 am

      Anything… except violating the rights of others; by living in peaceful co-existence. The libertarian ideal.
      • One Two 13.1.1

        3 February 2017 at 4:33 am

        That’s not the ideal of every individual claiming to be a libertarian

        Regardless the level of the triangle they operate at
        • HDCAFriendlyTroll 13.1.1.1

          3 February 2017 at 7:15 am

          Um, it kind of is. 🙂
    • HDCAFriendlyTroll 13.2

      3 February 2017 at 7:15 am

      “Libertarianism” taken to extreme is anarchy. Fact is we need laws and Libertarianism provides a kind of framework for those laws. So you can think of Libertarianism as pragmatic anarchy! 🙂
      • Richard McGrath 13.2.1

        3 February 2017 at 7:01 pm

        Libertarianism means small government, NOT no government, as laws are needed to protect people’s right to live peacefully. That’s small government devoted to upholding law and order and providing national defence and justice systems. Everything else can be supplied by markets, charities and non profit organisations.
        • greywarshark 13.2.1.1

          3 February 2017 at 7:05 pm

          We must be about up to saturation point of Richard McGrath over the past days. On the 2nd Feb I counted 11 mostly one liners between 7.49 and 8.16 pm. I don’t think he can afford to spend his few synapses so improvidently.
        • McFlock 13.2.1.2

          3 February 2017 at 7:25 pm

          And any democracy that chooses libertarianaism leaves the people helped by those charities and NPOs dependant the famously soft hearts of libertarians.

          There’s one flaw in your proposition right there.
          • Richard McGrath 13.2.1.2.1

            3 February 2017 at 10:36 pm

            Why would one person helping another lead to “dependence” of the latter on the former? You’re assuming people can’t be incentivised and encouraged into developing better life management and coping skills.
            • McFlock 13.2.1.2.1.1

              3 February 2017 at 11:14 pm

              Glad to know the libertarian utopia has such a comprehensive safety net. It might be as helpful as Dickensian England.
              • Richard McGrath …

                4 February 2017 at 3:20 am

                Safety nets don’t have to come from the state.
                • adam …

                  4 February 2017 at 3:37 am

                  Of course, but when you accept a state like you do Richard, why not go the extra step.
                  • HDCAFriendlyTroll …

                    4 February 2017 at 7:54 am

                    Because that would be Anarchy and as explained above, Libertarianism is not Anarchy.
                    • Rae …

                      4 February 2017 at 10:30 am

                      Tell that to Rodney Hide, a self professed anarchist. Libertarian is exactly what anarchy is, no government, that is it. It is just that the word “libertarian” has been hi-jacked by the right, and the word “anarchy” probably demonized by the same.
                      There is a form of libertarianism that could work, it is called left-libertarian. It would require no government because everyone would voluntarily live by this one thing “do unto others as you would have done to you”. It was from that I realized the person who is referred to as Jesus Christ was probably one of the original libertarian-lefties. It gives me no end of entertainment thinking how his strongest worshipers are right wing conservatives – diametrically opposed. (Note – I am an atheist, but accept that a someone existed back then with those views, otherwise, there’d be no Christianity).
                      The problem with libertarianism, is human nature I am afraid. As long as we keep trying to do each other in, or accumulating much for ourselves while depriving others, we can never, ever have a libertarian society.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      4 February 2017 at 3:26 pm

                      …everyone would voluntarily live by this one thing “do unto others as you would have done to you”. It was from that I realized the person who is referred to as Jesus Christ…

                      No, they “wouldn’t”. This never happens anywhere government breaks down.

                      The Golden Rule predates Jesus™ by several centuries.

                      “”Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” — Confucius 500 BCE

                      PS: Confucious was no-one’s idea of a “Lefty”, let alone a Libertarian..
                    • Rae …

                      4 February 2017 at 4:59 pm

                      OAB I don’t think you read what I wrote all the way through
                • McFlock …

                  5 February 2017 at 12:40 am

                  If all the private sector offers to people who need food and shelter is “incentivising” and “encouragement”, then yes, yes they do.
              • HDCAFriendlyTroll …

                4 February 2017 at 7:52 am

                The anti-Libertarian argument in a nutshell:

                “What about the poor?”

                In other words, the security of the people. Having the State look after you is a form of security, right?

                Well, as they say, those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

                More security, less freedom. Less freedom, more security.

                The Libertarian ideal is to have just enough security so that people can live in peace. The anti-Libertarian ideal is big government which ensures everyone is looked after but in exchange the people give up their freedom.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  4 February 2017 at 3:36 pm

                  The anti-Libertarian ideal is paying attention to evidence and reality, as opposed to self-serving drivel.
                • McFlock …

                  5 February 2017 at 1:07 am

                  “The libertarian ideal” recognises that the state should protect one’s right to property, but not one’s right to life.

                  BTW, when Franklin wrote the comment about liberty that you tortured, it was pretty much about the time he owned slaves. Oh, and he was asking for a tax to help kill native americans when he wrote it. But rock on, anyway.
                  • Richard McGrath …

                    17 February 2017 at 4:44 pm

                    ‘ “The libertarian ideal” recognises that the state should protect one’s right to property, but not one’s right to life.’

                    Not so – the state should protect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
                    • McFlock …

                      17 February 2017 at 4:51 pm

                      So police funded by the government save your life and liberty by catching/stopping the bad guys.

                      Who saves your life by giving you fod and shelter?

                      Who saves your life by treating your cancer?
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      17 February 2017 at 4:52 pm

                      Affirmative action then.

                      How is the government of Randistan going to facilitate the pursuit of happiness without it?

                      Not to mention that personally, I think contentment is a far more attractive goal than happiness, so at the moment it’s my vote against yours.
                • Carolyn_nth …

                  17 February 2017 at 4:57 pm

                  The right wing libertarian ideal, puts property front and centre. It privileges property owners – so freedom for the well off, FOff for the non-property owners.

                  And the right wing libertarian ideal assumes a level playing field with everyone having access to owning property – except for slaves, and/or colonisation of indigenous lands, and/or monarchist inequality was actually the starting point historically.
            • Chris 13.2.1.2.1.2

              3 February 2017 at 11:43 pm

              There’s no such assumption. You’re the one making the unfounded assumption here, which is that everyone can be “incentivised” (what ever that means – it’s a problematic term in itself) but which rests on a further assumption which is that everybody’s the same. And that is the falsehood that’s at heart of probably most right-wing thinking when it comes to capitalism and how certain groups get by. How Shipley used to frame things is a pretty good example, and Key’s backstory was used in the same way. The shit that comes out of Bennett’s mouth is probably the most blatant of recent examples. The basic point is that not everyone’s the same, and that’s where your mistake is.
        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1.3

          3 February 2017 at 7:29 pm

          It “can” be. Oh really? In some future vision of yours, eh.

          Shilling for wealthy vested interests is obviously some sort of cunning strategy I can’t quite grasp.
        • Pat 13.2.1.4

          3 February 2017 at 8:17 pm

          lmao…good luck with your government small enough to drown in a bath….if libertarians achieved their goal the size of “government” required to maintain their nirvana would grow at an exponential rate ….bloody difficult to maintain property rights when so few own property.
14. Incognito 14

    3 February 2017 at 7:35 am

    Admittedly, I don’t know much about Thiel but I do feel some sympathy for him; he comes across as a ‘seeker’ and also as a deeply lonely human.
15. ian 15

    4 February 2017 at 2:14 pm

    If, as Thiel contends, democracy and freedom are no longer compatible, it is because finance capitalism ruined them.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1

      4 February 2017 at 3:32 pm

      The kind of “freedom” Thiel wants has never been compatible with humanity, let alone democracy.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS