>If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom.

An odd choice to equate freedom with capitalism but not with democracy. You are holding the right to control private trade more free than the right of some to representative government; in other words, the freedom of few over many.

Why is it odd? Democracy, strictly meant as rule by the majority, voting, etc. by itself is not freedom. Majority can oppress minority in a very democratic manner. Of course, modern democracy implies many freedoms built in, so when we say "democracy" we should be aware which meaning we consider.

> You are holding the right to control private trade

Capitalism is the opposite of "right to control private trade" - it's the right to own and exchange property voluntarily, without forceful intervention. So it is part of the freedoms. Of course, it can exist in theory without representative government, though in practice such government very soon takes control over economics and thus capitalism can exist only within limits it prescribes.

Unless you're a utopian anarchist some form of government is essential to the operation of society. The alternative to democracy is non-representational government. In other words, democracy may not define freedom by itself, but it's absence is certainly non-free. Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society.

On the other hand there are a number of countries that restrict capitalism in some way but have free societies.

Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term.

[OT but pretty pathetic that I got downvoted for my previous comment by someone. Tempting to speculate it was (hilariously and ironically) by a Thiel supporter sore at the idea that he might have his views being suppressed.]

There is a large gap between "democracy" and "representation".

I feel this is instinctively understood by every Sanders supporter who claims "we're not in a real democracy!" or "we don't have enough democracy", but they are using the wrong word. They are living in a republic with a democracy but they aren't seriously represented.

Representation is the telos of democracy but it does not always achieve it.

And that is why everybody should become a reactionary. Only by returning to first principals will everybody get what they really want. There's too much cruft!

> Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society.

China. Singapore. Japan. Korea.

All these states have some kind of democracy. Yes, even Communist China does have some democracy. All these states have significant restrictions on it. In the most democratic ones power has been in the same hands about 90% of the time.

> Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term.

Let me help you out. It is certainly the case that the word freedom has become seriously overloaded, much like the word democracy. Most of us see freedom to mean autonomy in this context.

In a practical example if the BBC requires you to pay for a TV license because you own a visual display then your freedom is reduced because your number of choices is being narrowed. You have less autonomy because even if you don't watch TV or the BBC channels you are forced to pay for their services anyway.

Another practical example is I hear the people in Flint are paying for poisoned water and have no choice in the matter otherwise their houses and belongings may be possessed by the state sending debt collectors.

Well, Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel.

And, well, "Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy, and not exactly something with great historical precedents on its side, y'know?

> Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel.

This claim is based on what exactly?

> Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy,

True but why you mention it here? Surely neither Thiel nor anybody here advocated such point of view. So who you are arguing with?

Thiel has openly commented, for example, that he thinks "democratic capitalism" has been harmed, if not outright destroyed, by extending the franchise to women. And of course Trump's own supporters had their "repeal the 19th" trending moment on Twitter over the discovery that women voting could make the difference in their candidate winning or losing.

So... I'm arguing with the public, verifiable actions and statements of Trump and his supporters, among whom one finds Peter Thiel.

> Thiel has openly commented, for example, that he thinks "democratic capitalism" has been harmed, if not outright destroyed, by extending the franchise to women

Actual quote:

The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. 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.[1]

As we can see, especially if we read the whole article and grasp the context, Thiel is not arguing that women voting per se is bad. He is arguing that the consequences of woman suffrage and other changes since 1920s were summarily bad, because it led to increase of government intervention.

Imagine somebody saying "last redistricting led to Trump supporters now having majority in my state's Senate, this is awful" - do you think he argues against Trump voters having voting rights or against concept of electoral districts? He is unhappy with the outcome, not the process that led to it.

Thus, it is clear that what Thiel objects is removal of freedoms and not giving it to somebody who is "not like him".

[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

Thank you for this.

Part of the reason I've mostly checked out of political discussion is because it's so partisan. I flat out don't believe half the things people claim Trump said. In most cases either the quote is cherry picked or the context is flat out misconstrued.

I've lost count of how many times I've seen outrage at something Hilary or Trump said or wrote, only to conclude what was said was reasonable and the outrage was manufactured for and by stupid people.

That's some interesting goal-post moving you're doing there, from "women are problematic voters" to "this district's voting is problematic". Here, let me help you with something Trump hasn't said directly, but has implied repeatedly over the last week: "black people have the right to vote, this is awful".

So you can move the goal post both others can't. Got it.

There are great historical precedents. The first democracy, Athenian democracy, allowed only 50,000 out of 300,000 citizens to vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy