41–50 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term was invented by anarcho-communists and co-opted by the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
I imagine the downvotes are out of disbelief, but this is not really disputed (it's worth clicking the link).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain how his politics are "far-right"? I don't really consider Libertarianism an element of what's become the emergence of right wing authoritarianism.
- He believes that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. - He is strongly opposed to multiculturalism, and attributes many evils to it. Though when put under pressure to justify some of the views he published in his book on the subject (such as that women reporting rape is an organized leftist conspiracy to undermine white men), he simply said he never thought them. Genius! - He promotes political figures on the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most US libertarians are just proponents of classical liberalism. "Left libertarianism" is very niche and sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me. I don't know much about Peter Thiel but it's hard for me to reconcile his outspoken support for Trump with the "libertarian" label.
The term was invented by anarcho-communists and co-opted by the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
> The term libertarianism was first used in the U.S. as a synonym for classic liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself.
What precedes that paragraph is mainly about the French word "libertaire" which is not the French translation for "libertarian" but does shares a root with it (liberty).
Interestingly, the French Wikipedia article[0] claims that the word "libertarian" was coined specifically to distinguish classical liberals from modern liberals in the US.
In the US at least, libertarians very rarely identify with the "left" label.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain how his politics are "far-right"? I don't really consider Libertarianism an element of what's become the emergence of right wing authoritarianism.
- He believes that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. - He is strongly opposed to multiculturalism, and attributes many evils to it. Though when put under pressure to justify some of the views he published in his book on the subject (such as that women reporting rape is an organized leftist conspiracy to undermine white men), he simply said he never thought them. Genius! - He promotes political figures on the…
[2] "Enforcement of Multi culturalism" is opposed by most libertarians.
[3] This shows he is supporting conservatives, not really far right.
Perhaps your definition of far right is not what I understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell are you talking about? It reads like you are accusing Thiel of being a white supremacist. If so, please provide citations.
I refer you Thiel's multiple published articles on multiculturalism during his time at Stanford for the journal 'Academic Questions', such as 'Multiculturalism and the decline of Stanford', followed by the book he co-authored called "the Diversity Myth", about how multiculturalism is horrific and how multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, are where you should look if you wish to get a good idea of what is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on the rich, Theil is effectively a feudalist. Both men were billionaires who invested in computing and were involved in the 'military industrial complex'. But the word 'libertarian' has been dragged so far to the right in the US in recent years that it's not a me…
Thiel is hardly alone in this view. Many libertarians are in favour of a constitutional republic over a democracy where 51% of the people have absolute power.
http://dalependell.com/essays/remembering-the-regulation-cal...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perot was in favor of direct democracy, Theil believes that democracy is making things too difficult for capitalism. Perot was in favor of increasing taxes on the rich, Theil is effectively a feudalist. Both men were billionaires who invested in computing and were involved in the 'military industrial complex'. But the word 'libertarian' has been dragged so far to the right in the US in recent years that it's not a me…
Would it be fair to say that US libertarians are anarcho-capitalists while the leftist libertarians are anarcho-syndicalists?
Anarchists believe in no laws. Libertarians believe in increased liberty for the individual. This can be manifest as a reduction of laws, it may be as extreme as a desire for anarchy.
Libertarian really is (was?) about increasing and protecting the individual liberties, maximizing one's ability to make use of their freedoms.
To put those words into a descriptive use, I prefer this; You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself.
So, libertarians are concerned with increasing personal liberties and typically for everyone. So, no, to use the above example, a libertarian would not suggest they have the right to kill people because that's reducing the right of the other person to live. Typically, a libertarian would have wanted to ensure one can most appreciate their freedoms while protecting the commons.
I use the past tense because the usual perception of libertarian is the current incarnation which is mostly made up of ashamed republicans who can no longer feel comfortable being associated with the republican party.
Really, Ayn Rand was an idiot and adoption of her book was absolutely not libertarian in nature. Liberties are for everyone, not just those who can afford them. The goal is to maximize the ability to enjoy your freedoms, and that isn't just reserved for the wealthy. Furthermore, wealth isn't an indicator of productivity or value to society. Wealth is an absolutely horrible metric for determining liberties or rights.
Way back when, libertarians were considered the kooky left. Now, they are seen as the crazy right. Really, it's a very broad spectrum that isn't easy to pin down and put onto a bumper sticker.
I identify as a libertarian, I'd probably be considered close to a Scandinavian Social-Democrat but with a touch of greater rights and expecting a bit more personal responsibility. I believe in things like a strong social safety net, inexpensive health care, inexpensive education, and a right to individual autonomy.
On the political compass, I'm fairly far to the left (very far by US standards) and down in the lower quadrant, as a libertarian.
Sorry for the novella, but hopefully this makes sense. For the most part, the leftist leaning libertarians are extinct in the US. The party has been usurped. Even before that, there weren't many calls for anarchy.
I kinda wish this could be more succinct. Again, sorry about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- He believes that capitalism and democracy are incompatible. - He is strongly opposed to multiculturalism, and attributes many evils to it. Though when put under pressure to justify some of the views he published in his book on the subject (such as that women reporting rape is an organized leftist conspiracy to undermine white men), he simply said he never thought them. Genius! - He promotes political figures on the…
The left used to opposed multiculturalism in favor of promoting cultural globalisation. Its only in recent 40-50 years that majority of the left has swung on that issue, now being in favor of multiculturalism and against cultural globalisation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refer you Thiel's multiple published articles on multiculturalism during his time at Stanford for the journal 'Academic Questions', such as 'Multiculturalism and the decline of Stanford', followed by the book he co-authored called "the Diversity Myth", about how multiculturalism is horrific and how multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, are where you should look if you wish to get a good idea of what is…
Is anyone who prefer cultural globalisation over multiculturalism a white supremacist?
NB: that correlation is less obvious for those who have the "right" culture.
> Thiel reportedly doubled-down and immediately donated $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign Can someone describe corruption and help me understand how it differs from this situation?
Personally, I find an explicit campaign contribution to be considerably less sleazy than paying a politician hundreds of thousands of dollars for "making a speech" (a very popular ruse with the Clintons, and now Obama). Less sleazy in that campaign funds have to be accounted for (i.e., actually spent on the campaign, or retained for a future campaign) while "speaking fees" can be spent any way you want.
It might feel unsavory that those speeches are indeed personal income for the long list of politicians, from both left and right, who have engaged in that practice. But those events aren't about buying influence, they're about rich wankers feeling special because they get to hear some bullshit commencement address from important people behind closed doors.
Those private speeches don't buy any more influence than campaign contributions... which is to say rather little for the presidency. The higher the office, the more visibility and intervening forces there are to keep you from making arbitrary policy in favor of donors.
To be clear, I agree these things are bad. And we should strive to remove them entirely from our democracy. But the magnitude of both campaign contributions and private event income is routinely overstated these days.