He is not disgraced for his political beliefs, but because he was caught red-handed involved in government corruption and political meddling by foreign nations[1].
Well, the FPÖ was half of his cabinet. No, what brought him down specifically was his party lieutenants paying a fake researcher (Sabine Beinschab) with state money for fake survey results benefiting Kurz, then paying news media some more out of state coffers to place those surveys. With his full knowledge as proven through text messages, of course.
I think there's a bit more to it. Kurz decided to form a coalition government with the politicians involved – i.e. the far-right party in Austria.
Keep in mind, in Germany, none of the other parties have been willing to form a coalition government with Germany's respective far-right party, the AfD. This has effectively shut out the AfD from having any actual influence in the government, despite having a sizable minority in Thuringia and Saxony.
But that in itself should not be "falling from grace", neither should be forming coalitions with the AfD - it would just be democracy. Of course it would be unforgivable in the eyes of some people, but that goes for many things. I personally find coalitions with socialists unforgivable, but the other parties in Germany have no issues with it, and no media outlets spin it into a scandal.
They are certainly not fascist by nature, and they were elected democratically. The story of how the NSDAP took power is also a bit more complicated, and the election system was amended to prevent such cases in the future.
There may be fascist members of the AfD, but there are also communist members of other parties and nobody cares, even though it is an equally murderous ideology. There is one party in Germany that is literally the party that was in power in the socialist democratic republic and actually murdered people, and all the other parties are cooperating with them. In contrast to that, the AfD is not a descendant of any fascist parties, it was split off from the CDU over differences in economic strategies. Their original founder is a convinced Christian, definitely not a nazi.
What it boils down to, and what recent years have shown (also the Trump years), is that people or especially leftists don't really care that much about democracy anyway. They are only in favor of it as long as their party of choice gets elected.
Who? DIE LINKE is constantly (rightfully) critizied for their extremist parts and members, also for their SED roots. I agree with your assessment about murderous communism but disagree that nobody cares. I was born in the GDR and hate communism with a fiery passion. Plattenbauten are traumatic for me. Anyway...
The AfD is a fundamentally anti-democratic party at least since Petry took over. It became 10x worse with Gauland and Weidel. The debate is pretty clear in Germany and you are legally (!) allowed to call some of its members fascists because that is exactly what they are and exactly how they act. Proven Neo-Nazis like Björn Höcke and Andreas Kalbitz are only dealt with to save face in front off media and later re-introduced to powerful party positions anyway.
Their only goal is disruption, they have zero constructive solutions to anything and their ideas are based on lies and fake news. On top of it all, they are directly supported by Russian money, a country whose main foreign policy has been disruption since the 1980s.
Also, I didn't talk about how the NSDAP finally seized power, that reads like a distraction. I am talking about how NSDAP was democratically elected for multiple periods although their street thugs already roamed Germany for nearly a decade before Hitler became chancellor. As in - angry people are happy to democratically vote anti-democrats. AfD is just proving it a second time.
All parties cooperate with Die Linke, at least in the counties. No party has a "never work with Die Linke" paradigm, as they have with the AfD. Even the FDP has by not cooperated with them, as far as I know - they used to be strictly against it, but who cares about what they said yesterday.
The Greens have extreme socialists in their ranks, look at their anti-capitalist youth organisations and prominent Green party members walking with them behind anti-capitalist banners.
The SPD openly calls for Socialism, and they have elected far left Kühnert as new head of the pary.
Please name any anti-democratic policies by the AfD? it is the most ridiculous claim, as one of their main policies is more direct democracy.
If you are referring to the one court case when you claim it is now legally allowed to call some of them nazis, that is fake news. It was not actually the issue that was debated at court. I am too lazy to look up the details, but I think it was about something that a newspaper wrote about Höcke, and Höcke was not even involved in the court case. Anyway if you care, you can find the details why it is fake news.
"Their only goal is disruption, they have zero constructive solutions to anything and their ideas are based on lies and fake news."
I disagree, also, it is not as if the other parties have good solutions. Things have been going downhill in Germany for a while, on many fronts.
"On top of it all, they are directly supported by Russian money, a country whose main foreign policy has been disruption since the 1980s."
Oh please... Really? Even if it were true, so what. Other countries should be allowed to pursue their interest and support parties in other countries. Russia gave a job to the Ex SPD chancellor, too.
"I am talking about how NSDAP was democratically elected for multiple periods although their street thugs already roamed Germany for nearly a decade before Hitler became chancellor. As in - angry people are happy to democratically vote anti-democrats."
I don't know what point you are trying to make. You think other voters don't vote based on their anger? Leftists are mostly driven by hate and anger against "evil capitalism, neocons, exploiters, nazis..." - most media dwells on anger and it is the main thing that drives people to the voting booths.
As for violence, there were more violent attacks against AfD politicians than against all other parties combined (iirc). Antifa is essentially a terrorist organisation fighting any non-socialist politics with violence. And many politicians endorse them, for example Künast from the Greens even called for them to receive government funding.
Fascist parties are illegal in Germany, so if AfD were fascist they wouldn't be allowed to run.
Your link, and its supporting sources does not make it so clear cut that he was 'caught red-handed'. In fact, it seems to be that he was setup and news papers that reported on the issue were not perfectly honest brokers of the information.
Wasn’t the current President involved in some pretty shady stuff involving him, his son, and jobs from foreign countries which the media pretty much swept under the rug?
Van der Bellen is doing a great job and has great approval ratings. Also the role of President in Austria is vastly different than the role of President in the U.S.
Usually the Austrian president appoints a new cabinet and dissolves it after the regular period (or this year several times, thanks to our corrupt chancellor)
I'm going to try and engage in good faith, can you do the same?
Disclaimer: I voted for Biden but only because I felt like he was the least-worst option. I am no fan of political parties but affiliate with one of them because they ostensibly represent a decent cross-section of my values. I'd be more than happy to point out their flaws another time.
Hunter Biden clearly had no qualifications for the BOD role other than his last name. That part would be a challenge to disprove and and I'm not going to make such a claim.
But what that apparently purchased is not clear to me, and I'm not willing to go through Infowars level of "intelligence" to try and decipher. The politics in that sector were dirty AF and I've not seen anything to date that shows the corruption went to his father.
But since we're using the word "corruption" and discussing the office of the President, it would be fair to ask the same probing questions of his predecessor. So do you have any qualms about that man? The one who has volumes of questionable legal behavior documented well before he took office?
If the answer is no, then we're done here -- I have to save energy to "debate" with my anti-vaxxer uncle. If yes, then please demonstrate you care about corruption regardless of party line.
Hunter Biden is a Yale Law grad and was nominated to the Amtrak board by George Bush. He's a lobbyist and investor. He's exactly the kind of person you'd expect on this sort of board.
Thanks, this is good input. Still wasn't the cleanest optics and I think his real qualification in the specific case was being Joe Biden's son.
I've yet to see anybody who makes a deal out of the Biden story display any concerns about corruption in the Trump organization/administration. It's pure tribal "your team bad" bullshit and is manufactured outrage.
There's plenty to be unhappy about with Biden and his presidency but compared to the previous administration it's glorious.
You're sharing the wrong story. This is about the corruption scandal of H.C. Strache. Of course Kurz was in the government with the extreme right party back then, but this was not the cause for his downfall. (Though it was reason for one of several times the government was dissolved recently)
OP is almost certainly talking about Thiel, not Kurz.
Thiel is a libertarian, and is ostracized by many in tech for rejecting the tenets of Bay Area progressivism. Kurz is not, as far as I can tell, a libertarian.
How can one be a libertarian and support Trump? Meanwhile someone being Republican [or Democrat to a lesser extent] and supporting Trump makes sense in terms of the core principles of each party.
There’s a big difference between choosing and publicly loudly and financially supporting said parties specific politicians like Trump who do not align at all except in one aspect (taxing the wealthy and corporations less). In this specific case it isn’t “don’t align very well”.
The best equivalent would be socialists strongly, publicly, and financially advocating for Hillary like Thiel to Trump in 2016. That didn’t happen.
A preemptive note: Bernie is a democratic socialist. That’s what he himself says he is. Not a socialist.
Does "The Squad" refer to the actual politicians or their bases? Because those groups are playing two different games. The only people I've ever met who were enthusiastic about Biden were hardcore Democratic Party mega-volunteers or staffers.
Biden has grown on me. Exiting Afghanistan helped. Were it not for Manchin and Sinema, his BBB package had a lot of progressive goals stitched in its fabric. He is, like Carter before him, an utterly decent man.
Biden as a symbol is everything I dislike. However you just made me realize he has grown on me too. In practical terms, people are being incredibly hard on him. Even I’m thinking whoa now. Exactly as you stated. He did leave however flawed. And he can’t do much with the two senators there.
I draw the line on him being an utterly decent man. He wasn’t chosen as Obama’s running mate for being someone who could stitch a few progressive goals together. He was chosen because of how conservative he was. Never apologizing for his rabid support of tough on crime (disproportionately affecting lower socioeconomic and minority people/men)
I think you'd be surprised that "not Hillary" wasn't on either the 2016 Republican primary ballot nor on the 2016 general election ballot. Trump was. He was also on the 2020 Republican primary and general election ballots. "not Hillary" wasn't on any of the 2020 ballots.
You should re-read the simple sentence you're replying to. At the 2016 election, if you didn't want Hillary elected, you had to vote Republican, i.e. for Trump. How is this even up for debate?
Yes this is true to an extent in a vacuum. However for context with the overall thread. Many no-Hillary Trump voting people continued to support Trump through now. At which point it isn’t as clear cut it was actually a no Hillary stance as much as a combination of things while the easiest and trendy out at the time was to say no Hillary as your principe.
Otherwise yeah you’re right some did do just that for that one time.
Republicans need to take responsibility for their decisions. First, Republicans chose Trump in the primary. They had choices. They chose Trump. Then they supported him in the general. Then they supported him for re-election. That isn't up for debate.
I'm not arguing "Thiel is a good guy", but if he didn't want Hillary elected (assumption), using his public profile to boost Trump pre-election != actual MAGA hat Trump true believer.
I’m not referring to Thiel’s morality. Only on actually being libertarian. Sure what you wrote is technically plausible.
However he continues to work with the Trumps. Recently he’s working with Trumps to oust Liz Cheney. His own PACs focuses include many non-libertarian focuses. Immigration control, strict border control, supporting the military as it is now, are some of the top issues of the PAC. These actions are of a conservative Republican, not a libertarian.
Wanting to oust Liz Cheney does not make someone not a libertarian. And military and border control are among the few things that many libertarians believe to be a valid function of a national government.
None of those things prove he's not a libertarian.
I don't know what your questions mean or how it addresses my comment so I'll just repeat.
Political maneuvering doesn't mean someone is not a libertarian, and military and border control are not incompatible with libertarianism either.
Thiel like anybody has pretty complex views that don't fit neatly in a box, you could argue where they put him in the spectrum, but the examples you used are poor. I know many libertarian purists obsess over their image and "principle" to the detriment of actually achieving anything politically, but that doesn't mean all of them act this way.
The Republican Party doesn't have to be monolithic for Peter Thiel to be a Republican, which he is.
In particular, Thiel's hawkish military views and (seeming) comfort with just about everything the police and MIC do as long as it pays him puts him thoroughly at odds with stated libertarian orthodoxy.
You missed the point, which is that Thiel is the “libertarian” OP referred to, not the Austrian which many people incorrectly assumed.
Thiel can also be a libertarian who registers and votes Republicans in our two-party system. Libertarianism, whatever you think of it, is more of a political philosophy than a political party, and Republicanism is definitely more of a political party than a political philosophy.
Voting is different from actively supporting candidates. Outside of lower taxes [for corporations and the wealthy primarily], there is no overlap or rational link between libertarianism and actively supporting Trump.
If libertarians are actively and strongly supporting specific Republican figures like Thiel is. Politicians who have little to no objections and in fact at times expand the huge spending that is defense, general pork spending, social security, and Medicare. Politicians who don’t don’t even draw a hard line on government staying out of personal life and at times want to expand that (think forcing companies to not be allowed to have mask or vaccine rules or ruling on abortion). Thiel publicly supports these sorts of politicians. Not just quietly voting because of a weak two party system less evil situation. Then how are they libertarian? The definition doesn’t fit.
> Voting is different from actively supporting candidates.
Different things are different.
You vote for a candidate because you would prefer them to win. Which is possibly included among the reasons you would support them in other ways.
> Outside of lower taxes [for corporations and the wealthy primarily], there is no overlap or rational link between libertarianism and actively supporting Trump.
The thread wasn’t about voting. It was about Thiel’s active involvement. Which is the comment you directly responded to.
> Many libertarians support Republicans.
I don’t disagree some do that. However with you repeating this “many”. Any one can call themselves anything. It doesn’t make it so. OTOH I see no issue if the statement was “Many people who say they are libertarian support Republicans”
> The thread wasn’t about voting. It was about Thiel’s active involvement. Which is the comment you directly responded to.
We've moved on from that.
> I don’t disagree some do that. However with you repeating this “many”. Any one can call themselves anything. It doesn’t make it so. OTOH I see no issue if the statement was “Many people who say they are libertarian support Republicans”
Roughly 10-20% of people are libertarians not only how they identify but their stance on various issues. And yet votes, political donations, lobbying, party membership, etc. is far more skewed to the two big parties. Which means they are pragmatic and send their votes and support to where it might make the best difference. Like most people.
Many libertarians support Republicans. I'm really quite astounded you're having such a big problem coping with that.
I read through the links. The oversimplification of liberal by Cato and the references it has is quite a thing. To have a range of different conservative grouping and then liberals is also quite a thing.
The other link brings up Rand Paul. Do we really have to go over how Rand Paul as a senator has not been libertarian? His focus is on taxing less. Especially the wealthy and corporations. Otherwise his views frequently wildly divert from libertarianism into default conservative Republican views.
My original statement remains. Your links have at best given support for both of us. At worst it gave support to my “coping”.
> moved on from that
When? Unless this is clever satire where you shift and move the conversation as you please. Show the issue with people like Thiel and Rand Paul identifying as libertarian whilst enjoying conservative authority quite a bit. Bravo if so.
I don't think it is an oversimplification. I think you are making some over simplified libertarian purity test. Even at the most conservative estimates, the numbers clearly show there are many more libertarians than vote for libertarian parties (or donate to, which is a reasonable if not ideal proxy for donations by libertarians I would say).
Your original point doesn't stand, many libertarians support Republicans. It's truly weird logic that you (begrudgingly) accept that libertarians vote for Republicans, and yet you think any other form of "active" support would be out of the question. Doesn't make any sense. If a libertarian wanted to be active in politics it's quite reasonable to think many would support the same candidates they vote for.
Your strong bias and attitude showed in your other comment on Clinton and Bush as pathetic warmongering neoliberals. It is not incorrect. However to bring those up and exclude Trump or any other very high up politician of the two parties of not being the same thing except some are neoconservatives (which is close to neoliberals), is telling.
Your gaslighting tactics have become more pronounced now too. I never begrudgingly accepted what you stated. I believe I had an apt example. A person identifying in good faith as a socialist isn’t going to be supporting establishment Dems like Thiel and Rand Paul and similar “libertarians” do for their counterparts. I believe you or someone else brought up The Squad. Which has an easy response - the socialist supporters of theirs are not them. The Squad are also not socialists. They are progressives or democratic socialists. Affiliations with differences that are bigger than neolibs and neocons, imho.
I see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.
All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.
Reality is not "bias" and disdain for warmongers is not "attitude". Sorry you feel that way, it really shows in the rest of your comment.
And if you didn't accept that, it wasn't gaslighting it was a mistake on my behalf. I thought you did -- you still honestly don't believe many libertarians vote Republican? The data just doesn't agree with you, so either you're willfully ignorant of it or using some no true libertarian fallacy.
> see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.
That's all based on your no true libertarian beliefs that don't match reality though.
> All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.
I have no such belief.
Since you bring them up, many people in the above categories from centrists to communists vote for and support the Democratic party. That doesn't make them not-a-hard-leftist, not even though many of them actually describe the Democrats as a right wing party and claim to dislike many of their policies! I don't know why you have such a mental block about libertarians who support Republicans.
The fallacy is about something specific. Not this. Is it a fallacy to say the Workers Party of Korea lead by Kim Jung un isn’t socialist? Or the PRC isn’t socialist?
> warmonger
Trump didn’t leave Afghanistan. After spending his entire campaign and presidency talking about how amazing he was for being against Iraq and seeing mistakes made this century.
Did he do anything to help out in the Middle East? Yemen continued being pillaged by America thru Saudi. Same with Palestine.
Trump did the pointless escalation of the Iranian general murder too.
That was my point. I said Trump was excluded in my last comment too.
I also said it’s not incorrect to say they are warmongers.
> I have no such belief.
You linked to the two sites with studies/data, no? You bring up that data in other parts of your comment. They combined everything listed as liberal. I questioned that and you didn’t have an issue with it.
I’d like to see any non tiny portion of socialists or any one more to the left, support Dems. Voting for is not supporting.
Dem[s] and especially lib[eral] are used as pejoratives frequently in those circles. makes supporting the Dem party contradictory.
You said many will describe Dem party as right wing. How would they be supporting the party then?
So again it’s not the same thing. Your words like “mental block” saying I am stubborn. I understand if you believe those things about socialists and communists then you will not believe IMO more accurate critiques and accountability of a number of the people who say they are libertarians
—
Since it has been two days, a response might not happen. My tldr overall pt: many of the identifying libertarians aren’t as such. Prime example is some one brought up already - Rand Paul. The far left not wavering on their principles so much like supposed libertarians is telling.
This is just going in circles and all over the place. You seem to be upset about Trump and very upset I called his opponents what they are -- warmonger scum. Obama too, and Biden historically although if he's been forced away from wars by Trump's withdrawal plans and anti war rhetoric I'll take that as a great win and proof you don't have to hold office to effect political change.
And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests. You have failed to show why Thiel is not a libertarian: your examples (military and border control) are completely wrong.
And again, I have no such belief. How do you equate data with me believing that ridiculous thing you wrote.
Finally, you're playing semantics with the whole "voting is not supporting" thing. I know you have no argument without that, but voting is literally supporting. That said, even with your semantics, leftists certainly support Democrats. I haven't bothered to look up studies but everywhere I look I see it, on here, reddit, leftist politicians like Sanders, political donation data, and people I know. And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats and libertarians don't support republicans. Both wrong.
I’ve stated already to you. Bernie is a social Democrat. My examples were socialists and communists. You switched to leftists. And again I already brought up this Bernie point before. You say semantics then you shoehorn in leftists when I have never brought leftists up. Just sub groups of leftists.
I don’t care if voting is technically supporting. It is obvious I mean support more than vote. Like Thiel does. This is something that has been consistent on my end and other people who responded to you in this thread.
You continue to restate something I then said fine to (military, border control). I said immigration and something else. You didn’t reply to that. You repeated something I did not argue against once you stated it. Why bring it up again?
—
How oh how am I “very upset” about what you said about his opponents? I said I did not disagree. How is saying that being very upset?
At this point every single thing I wrote in this comment shows you have repeated things or said things that have already been addressed. Then you take someone saying they do not disagree with your assessment on trump’s “opponents” (How are Bill Clinton and George Bush his opponents? So this isn’t true you didn’t bring up his opponents) as being very upset with it.
Yes I am upset with Trump. I am also upset with Clinton and George Bush. Obama too. Biden too.
> Biden historically although if he's been forced away from wars by Trump's withdrawal plans and anti war rhetoric I'll take that as a great win
Key word “if”.
Everything on your end has been seemingly done in bad faith. I listed all of this throughout this comment.
> And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats
This was never said. More bad faith.
> And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests.
Reply to what I said. Is North Korea’s workers Union Les by Kim Jung Un, socialist? Is rhe PRC Govt communist as they say they are?
> going in circles
Yes because you like in this past comment keep regressing. Bringing up things as if they haven’t been brought up. Changing my words multiple times. Wild conjecture like being very upset with Trump opponents being called out when you didn’t even bring up his opponents. Regardless an incredible statement for someone who dislikes every one you have brought up.
Once of us is going in circles in bad faith. Which does not allow me to continue as nothing I say is actually properly responded to.
There is no reason to continue this as it doesn’t appear you can overcome issues like in the last comment.
No try to keep up, we moved on from the other poster's pedantic distraction about voting vs "active support" back to the original topic which is that Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one.
Bringing it back on topic yet again: if you agree Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one then we don't need to say any more here.
He supported a dude whose platform was mostly right-leaning populism. If he was just supporting Republicans because they were the closest to Libertarian ideals, why would support the dude driving the party away from Libertarian ideals?
And continue supporting the person. I checked Thiel headlines. He’s working with Don Jr now against Liz Cheney for a Trump approved replacement. This is just recent headlines too.
Why? Presumably because he preferred that to the alternatives, none of which were obviously more libertarian -- pathetic old neoliberal dinosaur warmongers Clinton and Bush!
I can't speak to whether he's been ostracized for rejecting the tenets of Bay Area progressivism but he has expressed extreme political stances that lead people of all kinds to question his character. For example Thiel has expressed his desire that the right of women to vote be revoked.
Disenfranchising adult women's right to vote on the basis of their gender is an attack on fundamental human rights.
"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."
Nevertheless it should be possible to discuss the results of giving women the right to vote. The main difference from state of affairs before that presumably being that people got to vote on things they did not have direct stakes in.
Or to give a modern example: afaik more women are opposed to abortion than men, so giving women the right the vote makes it less likely that abortion is legalized. At least some people would consider that a negative outcome.
"Entirely Wrong" - are you looking at the same chart? According to the chart, most of the time the "entirely illegal" numbers are higher for women than for men. And that is just one poll. A single Google search also produces results like this, which claims much larger differences: https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/a...
"Other polls have appeared since that article, and they show the same thing. A 2013 YouGov poll on behalf of the University of Lancaster found 26% of men supporting a reduction or ban, versus 43% of women."
According to the article I linked in a Gallup poll earlier in 2021, 81% of women support abortion (36% under all conditions, 45% under some) and 79% of men support abortion (29% under all conditions, 50% under some). 52% of women consider themselves pro-life and 5% are unsure. 45% of men consider themselves pro-life and 5% are unsure.
You linked to an article from 2014 about surveys from 2011.
The numbers from the Guardian article are drastically different from the ones by Gallup, and even Gallup has women in the "lead" for most years. Mostly the very recent years in Gallup have slightly less women than men saying it should be completely illegal. So I don't think the Gallup source settles it.
> 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.
This is not suggesting that anybody’s right to vote should be revoked. It’s pointing out that women have typically voted in opposition to libertarian/capitalist policies. And he might not like this outcome, but not liking something is not the same as saying it shouldn’t exist.
I’m not a libertarian and I’m opposed to many of Thiel’s viewpoints, but we can have an honest discussion about what he has and hasn’t said.
It's more of a death penalty for engaging in homosexual acts. As long as he stays out of Saudi embassies he should be fine, for whatever level of "actively courting investment from the people who would supposedly kill him that kill critics and imprison women for driving" is fine.
Where is all the concern involving the fact that Peter Thiel was investing in a regime where there is a death penalty for being gay in the first place, why does that get a pass and all the concern falls on his supposed personal safety.
This argument isn't about the fact that Saudi Arabia is ridiculously oppressive to gay people, it is about scoring points to make Peter Thiel look better.
> Where is all the concern involving the fact that Peter Thiel was investing in a regime where there is a death penalty for being gay in the first place, why does that get a pass and all the concern falls on his supposed personal safety.
I don't believe gay people should be excluded from economic opportunity based on their sexuality or concerns for their sexuality, nor do they forfeit their right to safety or privacy. I don't personally think western countries or people should invest in or have close ties with Saudi, but I don't think those who do are automatically bad or wrong.
> This argument isn't about the fact that Saudi Arabia is ridiculously oppressive to gay people, it is about scoring points to make Peter Thiel look better.
Taking down bullies who oust gay people makes him look fine to me.
Nobody is talking about excluding Thiel from investing in Saudi Arabia, or forfeiting his right to safety or privacy.
What is being questioned here is the narrative that Gawker put him in any kind of serious risk wrt Saudi Arabia, or that his actions against Gawker were taken in defense of gay people's privacy.
He obviously doesn't care much about the rights of gay people, or have many personal safety concerns if he's investing massive amounts into one of the most gay-oppressive regimes on earth, yet he gets a full pass here from you, and Gawker deserved to be destroyed as a company.
Why?
I assure you Saudi Arabia is a much bigger "bully" to gay people than Gawker ever was, yet Thiel has no problem enabling it, and you apparently have no problem with him doing so either.
> Nobody is talking about excluding Thiel from investing in Saudi Arabia, or forfeiting his right to safety or privacy.
They were. They said he was worried that his investments would be discriminated against if it was found out that he was gay.
Deplorable really. Trying to make out like the bullying journalists from that two bit gossip rag were fine to oust him as gay because he is greedy or rich or something. Doesn't make it okay.
> I assure you Saudi Arabia is a much bigger "bully" to gay people than Gawker ever was, yet Thiel has no problem enabling it, and you apparently have no problem with him doing so either.
I have no problem with gay people investing in what they choose to and not being discriminated against due to their sexuality. Sounds like you do.
I’m not a fan of Thiel at all, but the “offensive” article in Gawker actually made me empathize with him. It’s the most flattering thing written about him, and it made me briefly consider him to be human. Those feelings were short-lived.
Comments like that make Libertarianism a disgrace.
Libertarianism is an attractive framework for initial thinking, but if you think anythign through, you wind up re-inventing something like the systems we have. What's left are the people who refuse to think it through because they are too attached to the "philosophy" that justifies them acting like an entitled ass in the name of "individual liberty". The result is comments like this.
Not really, I have thought through libertarianism pretty completely, and there would be some very big differences between the system we have today (in the US) and what libertarianism would call for.
Hell I can even come up with a workable UBI using libertarian philosophy that would at the same time solve the productivity / automation gap in wages people are seemingly concerned with using georgism as a base.
The reality is people that only have a basic understanding of libertarianism, often only looking to Anarcho style libertarinaism specifically, that make the statements you have.
Other forms of Libertarianism, like Geo-Libertarianism do exist.
Noticed how rare it is too see libertarians promote some sort of "Great Reset"? That is, to make sure that people in their new "fair & meritocratic" system don't get a head start by wealth accumulated under the flawed previous system. Well...its absence pretty much shows their hand. It's just another power grab by the incumbents. Furthermore it is more accurately referred to as Propertarianism, since upholding private property is the sole purpose of that entire ideology.
You either did not read my comment, or do not understand Georgism or Geo-Libertarianism if you call it "Propertarianism", libertarianism encompasses a large range of economic models, you seem to only be familiar with the Ancap models where by homestead principle is the primary distribution of property.
Georgism / Geo-Libertarianism flows from Lockean philosophy of natural rights, concluding the premise of human equality alone implies that the benefits of natural resources be shared equally.
So you just add a tax on land ownership and do nothing about wealth concentration - and thus power concentration - and think it will magically work out? Those rich powerful folks are now just going to stop attempting to bend the rules in their favour? Those taxes would be gone within a year and all that's left is a Propertarian neo-feudalism.
You also skipped the answering the main part, a "Great Reset" that surely must be a logical first step to avoid undue advantage jumping over from the flawed past?
I actually did not skip over it. An economic reset under a Geo-Libertarian model would be very different than what you are talking about when you refer to the Authoritarian Socialist "Great Reset" proposed by the authoritarians on the US Political left.
So no as a libertarian, I would not be in favor of an Authoritarian "Great Reset", that is with out getting to unfeasible nature of the Authoritarian "Great Reset" for which you claim my libertarian model would be unworkable, but yet believe an Authoritarian "Great Reset" would be... odd
So the idea is to keep the wealth/power concentration of today and hope that they will comply with a land value tax and stop trying to use their power to bend the rules? I'm sorry but that is even more naive than an old-school authoritarian vanguardist.
> Authoritarian Socialist "Great Reset" proposed by the authoritarians on the US Political left.
This sounded interesting though, care to explain what - and who? - this is referring to?
you do understand that libertarianism has no concept of corporations in the first place right? Corporations are government fictional entity created as a liability shield, so the fact you believe libertarians will create "biggest corporations takes all" shows your lack of understanding of libertarianism. The second the government creates a legal entity of corporations that government ceases to be libertarian.
>>Fascist dictatorship is the final state of numerous, maybe most starting points.
No, most nations will devolve to fascism as a direct result of trusted the concept of democracy too much, democracy naturally lend themselves to moving more and more power into the centralized control of the majority, at which point it is short step to fascism
This is something the left in the US gets wrong very often as attempts to nationalize more and more regulation and laws at the federal level, attempts to make more and more of our system "democratic".
Federalism with a strong constitution is the way to preserve liberty, and stave off fascism, 2 things the left in the US want to tear down
If your flavor of libertarian fantasy lacks something called a "corporation", that only means the thing that takes the role of a corporation has a different name in it. That means a gang, or a duke, or a warlord, or something. In other formalisms, it is "collective". The name is irrelevant. BIG > little is the key fact. Every libertarian fantasy has BIG voluntarily yielding power to little.
So the libertarians are distinct from ancaps? If it involves capitalism in some way that means there is some kind of concentration of capital and thus inevitably corporations.
libertarianism is about social and economic freedom, it stands opposite of authoritarianism, under both there are "right" economic concepts, such as the homestead principle, libertarians that support homestead principle are ancaps.
There are also "left" economic concepts such as Georgism, libertarians that support Georgism are Geo-Libertarians
We are all libertarians in that we believe strong centralized governments are antithesis of liberty
The question was about corporations. Whether they depend on strong government. I think that is not true, they merely depend on societally enforced notion of property. Libertarians might find a way for property to work without government, but that does not automatically make corporations obsolete.
The truly free market might work as described, I am not contending that. But history repeatedly shown that free market is an unstable equilibrium prone to exploitation by organized groups.
History has more accurately shown organized groups use government to destabilize the free market in a bid to control it.
The solution to this, something the framers of the US attempted, is to deny government the authority to do this. Unfortunately we did not listen to their warnings and have since at least the end of the civil war, and more accelerated since the Great Depression have removed these limits from government, have rolled back the separation of powers. altered the very foundation of the US Government and allowed more and more power to become centralized, this as enabled the very wealth and income inequality that people now want the government that caused the issue in the first place to "fix", this of course will fail but supporters of government solutions to all problems will never admit that the government is the problem...
As the axiom goes, Government: If you think you have problems now, wait until you see our solutions.
