But we all choose to believe what we want to believe. He certainly never said he opposed women's suffrage, as the original commenter claimed.
The US is doing no such thing :-)
Hell, American unemployment is already quite a lot more (as a percentage of previous income) than I'd get in the UK.
Since Peter Thiel is a libertarian, it's quite reasonable to surmise that he believes America is moving in the direction of social democracy. And if he has in mind the shifting political preferences of younger generations of Americans, I personally think it's a reasonable position to take. Public polling shows that more funding and reform for social programs is increasingly popular with younger Americans.
What indicative changes have there been that make you believe this?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...
It seems endemic to democratic states.
The trouble is that generally people don't make this leap automatically, and simply noting a problem doesn't come with an implied "therefore ban it." Generally the people who do automatically make this leap have authoritarian mindsets, for whom personal preferences and public policy are nigh inseparable. Watch out for these kind of people, they would likely impose their preferences on you if they ever gain power over you, without even thinking about it. The emperor doesn't care for pre-tattered jeans, therefore he bans them for everybody else too; not a good sort of man to have in charge.
Now, the pertinent question is which of these sorts is Peter Thiel? When this self-espoused libertarian says "X is bad for me" does that necessarily imply that it should be banned for everybody else as well? Is there evidence for him behaving in a way that betrays this kind of authoritarian mindset?
>Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
For many self described libertarians, that conflict is to be decided entirely in favor of their liberties and everyone else's liberties don't matter. Democracy is inherently about everyone trying to have some freedom, which comes at a cost to Peter Thiel's, and apparently that's the only one that counts.
How can society be democratic if the workplace is not?
It's absurd, just like the bizarre fetish for using the term "Democrat party" as some kind of slur. But that's the essence of American politics now: a constant culture war, where the primary thing people want out of elections is to hurt the other side rather than pursue actual political goals.
extra welfare + women voting, (both difficult for libertarians blah blah), have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
edit:
downvote all you like, it doesn't magically make a quarter of a sentence not exist.
All i was pointing out is that leaving out a section of a sentence you are trying to explain your interpretation of is not a good way to convey that you are arguing in good faith.
Especially when that section could be thought of as not neatly fitting in to the narrative you are trying to explain.
What part of my reply stood out to you as the part that shows i didn't understand what i was reading ?
