Quote of the day by PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel: 'I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible' a foundational thesis of the new tech elite

Date:
Sat, 27 Jun 2026 22:00:00 +0000

Technology has marched forward over the last couple of decades at the same time as basic freedoms and rights have been eroded: Peter Thiel is among the most prominent figures in the technology industry, having co-founded PayPal in the 90s and Palantir a few years later. Although he's since stepped back from running technology companies, he plays an active role in business, finance and indeed in politics. "I remain committed to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." -- Peter Thiel, April 2009

Minimum government, maximum freedom

Writing an essay for the Cato Unbound journal nearly 20 years ago, Thiel outlined his political thinking as one that prioritizes the individual and individual freedoms above the needs or demands of the majority.
In this essay, he explained how he was disillusioned with democratic politics and that it had become an antagonist to "freedom" in the form of free markets and, specifically, the new generation of tech moguls who were in the process of expansion.

The piece, which ran in excess of 2,000 words, courted plenty of attention,
as well as controversy, especially given its timing with society still reeling from the 2008 banking crisis, and concerns over the widening wealth divide heightening. Democracy dies in darkness Many incidents and actions in the technology world can be traced back to the ideas at the heart of this essay, for example, the breakdown of press freedoms, specifically in the big tech takeover of the creative industries and journalism (see the Washington Post example).

Modern tech companies are also increasingly involved in politics, with Elon Musk, for example, increasingly (whether deliberately or inadvertently) using Starlink to wield influence during geopolitical conflicts .

Despite Thiel's proclamation to transcend democratic politics via media such as cyberspace or cryptocurrencies, many tech moguls including the Palantir co-founder have also made concerted efforts to involve themselves in this process. Musk's direct involvement in the second Trump administration is the most prominent example, but Thiel himself has handpicked candidates to stand in elections, including JD Vance .

Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/pro/quote-of-the-day-by-paypal-co-founder-peter-thie l-i-no-longer-believe-that-freedom-and-democracy-are-compatible-a-foundational -thesis-of-the-new-tech-elite

$$
--- MultiMail/DOS
* Origin: Capitol City Hub (1:2320/105)

This is an interesting question, and something I bring up time and time again when discussiong SOUTH Korea. People think "Freedom" and "Democracy" are one and the same and they clearely are not.

South Korea is a perfect example of this. They are a democracy because the citizenry vote people into government leadership positions. However their freedom of speech and expression are heavily controlled and restricted, even when those rights seem to exist on paper. In their case they are becomming more and more restricted.

Juxtiposing the US positions.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. For example taking someone photo (Video) in public while it may be unwelcomed, or uncomfortable is completely legal. South Korea considers someone face/likeness as PII, and there are harsh criminal penalities for taking someones photo without their express permission. It gets even more restrictive if the subject is a female and FEELS anytype of "sexual shame." The legal trigger gere is "FEELS" (Something that is purely subjective" vs. any type of actual definition. There have been cases where people have been prosecuted simply for taking a picture of a woman in a bikini at a popular beach. The penalies for this can be harsh, such as being charged with a sex crime, which could carry the punishment of being chemicaly castrated.

Korea has always had a strange defamation law, where the statement being true is not a mitagation for the statement, and again comes down to a subjective test of did it cause someone shame or embarrasmeent. Coupled with it being criminal vs. civil ups the stakes.

They just enacted a sweeping civil "fake news" law, where the courts get to decide what qualifies for fake.

They also passed a law covering the narrative about the Korean "Comfort women". Where anything outside the government defined narrative is punishable by steep fines or jail time. Completely ignoring Korea's own past with imported / forced prostitution.

One of the issues with Korean jurisprudence is their system of "Personal appology settlements" for criminal chargers. Which allows the accused to pay an agreed uppon settlement price and a formal written appology and the police and prosecutors will drop the chrages. On one side this stremlines the process, and keeps a lot of lower level crimes out of the criminal justice system. On the other side it opens the door for the wide abuse of the criminal side of the justice system. As it relieves the cost of a civil suit on the plaintif (The state takes the entire burden). As a Koreans entire life depends on their public image, great lengths are taken to stop the process in their tracks.

They are also a highly collective society, almost to the point of appearing narcacistic. Where even the slightiest deviation from the "group" is immediately noticed and corrected (Up to and including food choices, clothing, and manerisms). At worst the individual is shunned and ostricized, which to a Korean is worse than death, and many choose to take their own lives. Korea has the higest rate of suicide in the world!

So to wrap this up. Korea has a great system of democracy, but very tightly controlled or non existant freedom.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Rug Rat wrote to Mike Powell <=-

This is an interesting question, and something I bring up time and
time again when discussiong SOUTH Korea. People think "Freedom" and "Democracy" are one and the same and they clearely are not.

South Korea is a perfect example of this. They are a democracy
because the citizenry vote people into government leadership positions.
However their freedom of speech and expression are heavily controlled
and restricted, even when those rights seem to exist on paper. In
their case they are becomming more and more restricted.

Some people think that this is happening here in the States, too, but for
the most part it isn't there (yet).

Juxtiposing the US positions.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. For example taking someone photo (Video) in public while it may be unwelcomed, or uncomfortable is completely legal. South Korea considers someone face/likeness as PII, and there are harsh criminal penalities for
taking someones photo without their express permission. It gets even
more restrictive if the subject is a female and FEELS anytype of
"sexual shame." The legal trigger gere is "FEELS" (Something that is purely subjective" vs. any type of actual definition. There have been cases where people have been prosecuted simply for taking a picture of
a woman in a bikini at a popular beach. The penalies for this can be harsh, such as being charged with a sex crime, which could carry the punishment of being chemicaly castrated.

Some folks have tried to use "feels" here for some things but it usually doesn't hold up in court. In this era of social media, it seems like a lot
of folks take photos and video of people -- at places like the gym, the
store, etc. -- without their knowledge or permission. I actually wish we
were maybe a little more strict on things like this, but not "South Korea" strict!

Korea has always had a strange defamation law, where the statement
being true is not a mitagation for the statement, and again comes down
to a subjective test of did it cause someone shame or embarrasmeent. Coupled with it being criminal vs. civil ups the stakes.

They just enacted a sweeping civil "fake news" law, where the courts
get to decide what qualifies for fake.

With our current political situation, I could see both of those being
abused to the max if they were law here.

One of the issues with Korean jurisprudence is their system of
"Personal appology settlements" for criminal chargers. Which allows
the accused to pay an agreed uppon settlement price and a formal
written appology and the police and prosecutors will drop the chrages.
On one side this stremlines the process, and keeps a lot of lower level crimes out of the criminal justice system. On the other side it opens
the door for the wide abuse of the criminal side of the justice system.
As it relieves the cost of a civil suit on the plaintif (The state
takes the entire burden). As a Koreans entire life depends on their public image, great lengths are taken to stop the process in their
tracks.

There are some crimes that might be better settled in this manner, but I
can also see that being abused, depending especially on who the settlement money goes to.

They are also a highly collective society, almost to the point of appearing narcacistic. Where even the slightiest deviation from the "group" is immediately noticed and corrected (Up to and including food choices, clothing, and manerisms). At worst the individual is shunned
and ostricized, which to a Korean is worse than death, and many choose
to take their own lives. Korea has the higest rate of suicide in the world!

That is sad. I know back in the 1980s it seemed like some US kids would do this to others in their peer group. Most were not able to keep that kind
of shunning as adults as most adults wouldn't put up with their
shenanigans. I would hate to live somewhere that this continued into adulthood.

So to wrap this up. Korea has a great system of democracy, but very tightly controlled or non existant freedom.

Thanks for providing this good example of how one and the other don't
always go together.

Mike


... Remember the Cant!
--- MultiMail/DOS
* Origin: Capitol City Hub (1:2320/105)

On Mon 29-Jun-2026 10:09a, Mike Powell@1:2320/105.0 said to Rug Rat:

Rug Rat wrote to Mike Powell <=-

Some folks have tried to use "feels" here for some things but it usually doesn't hold up in court. In this era of social media, it seems like a
lot
of folks take photos and video of people -- at places like the gym, the store, etc. -- without their knowledge or permission. I actually wish we were maybe a little more strict on things like this, but not "South Korea" strict!

In the case of Gyms, stores, resturants, etc. They are private businesses accesible to the public. They CAN restrict activies on their premisis as long as it applied to EVERYONE. Though then can ask/tell you to not film/take photos, they can not touch you, demand you delete the footage, take, or dammage your gear. At most they can call the police and have you tresspassed.

In public almost everything is far game.. If you want "privacy" stay home or wear a bag over your head. I will not sacrifice rights for your < General / you specifically. >

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

The main problem with Korea, is that laws are written so broad that they should catch everyone, and it is left up to the police and courts to decide. So they take take real social issues.

Hidden cameras in bathrooms and changing rooms (Where privacy is protected), and people feel the law applies everywhere.

The laws are written subjectively, there is no "reasonable person" test. So If I go down to the beach and take a picture of 2 women playing with a beach ball, or a woman walking by a pier. The only requirement for me to get jacked up is for them to "feel" sexually shamed. The reasonable argument would be, "Well if you feel sexually shamed because someone took a picture of it, why would you not feel the same shame just being out in public where everyone can see you.." While in the west femminst/misandrist groups might counter with, "So you are blamming it on our apparel?". "Not at all, the only person attaching a sexual meaning to it, is the woman making the accusation, I was simply taking a picture."

The Korean courts would just check a box, "Victim says it caused her "sexual shame.", and find you guilty.

They did the same with the stalking law several years ago, but that would take a book to discribe the issues with that one.

Sorry, I have beaten a dead horse.. I shall let it rest in pieces now.. :)

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

On Tue 30-Jun-2026 2:06p, Dumas Walker@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

Rug Rat wrote to Mike Powell <=-

So you enjoy taking photos and videos of persons without their permission? Creepy.

If you are taking photos or footage of a crowd, that is one thing. IMHO, people have a right not to be singled out without their permission, and they shouldn't have to stay at home in exercise it. Your have rights, but they can end where the rights of others begin. Like, you have the right
to
free speech but not to cause a public panic or threaten people. You have the
right to own a firearm but not to point it at people and fire it. You
have
the right to assemble but not to riot. Etc.

Not creepy at all, in fact it fact street photography is a very well defined subet of photography.

Look at some famous artists work.

Henri Cartier-Bresson: Often called the father of modern street photography. His concept of the "decisive moment" focused on capturing the perfect split-second of action and geometry.

Vivian Maier: A secretive, New York-born nanny who spent decades wandering Chicago. Her massive collection of 100,000+ negatives was discovered posthumously, revealing a masterful eye for daily human emotion.

Robert Frank: Known for his seminal 1958 book The Americans, which provided a raw, gritty, and unfiltered look at post-war American society.Garry Winogrand: The man who defined the streets of 1960s New York. His highly energetic, tilted-frame shots remain a major influence on the genre.

Saul Leiter: A pioneer of color street photography. He captured painterly, moody, and abstracted scenes through windows, rain, and reflections in New York City.

Fan Ho: Famous for his dramatic, light-streaked compositions of mid-century Hong Kong, blending shadows and textures into poetic geometry.

Bruce Gilden: Known for his aggressive, up-close, flash-lit portraits of pedestrians, capturing the raw, chaotic energy of New York City.

There is a lively, visceral feeling of a candid in the moment photoraphy that you can and will not get the person knows you are taking the photo.

"Your rights end where mine behin." You have NO rights to privacy in public. This has been established by the supreme court over and over and over again. Photography is a 1st amemendment protected activity under freedom of speech and expression.. In other words.. You're rights don't begin so mine don't stop. This is NOT something I am going to argue with you or anyone.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

Rug Rat wrote to All <=-

"Your rights end where mine behin." You have NO rights to privacy in public. This has been established by the supreme court over and over
and over again. Photography is a 1st amemendment protected activity
under freedom of speech and expression.. In other words.. You're
rights don't begin so mine don't stop. This is NOT something I am
going to argue with you or anyone.

So are one of those types that doesn't respect others and
likes taking photos of people without permission. Do you ask if it is ok
to use them after you take them, or do you just go back home and have a
wank?

Here's hoping one day you take one of someone who doesn't appreciate it and
who shoves that camera right down your throat.

Creep.


--- MultiMail/DOS
* Origin: Capitol City Hub (1:2320/105)

On Wed 1-Jul-2026 6:02a, Rob Mccart@1:2320/107.0 said to Rug Rat:

"If she didn't want an audience, she shouldn't put on a show."

However nobody wants to take responsilbiity or accountability any more.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)

On Wed 1-Jul-2026 9:29a, Mike Powell@1:2320/105.0 said to Rug Rat:

Rug Rat wrote to All <=-

"Your rights end where mine behin." You have NO rights to privacy in public. This has been established by the supreme court over and over and over again. Photography is a 1st amemendment protected activity under freedom of speech and expression.. In other words.. You're rights don't begin so mine don't stop. This is NOT something I am going to argue with you or anyone.

So are one of those types that doesn't respect others and
likes taking photos of people without permission. Do you ask if it is ok to use them after you take them, or do you just go back home and have a wank?

Here's hoping one day you take one of someone who doesn't appreciate it
and
who shoves that camera right down your throat.

Creep.

So, after correctly laying out the legality and constitual protection of street/candid photography and there being no expectation of privacy you want to resort to name calling?

You can resort to that because you have precisely nothing left to argue about. This has been the law of the land since the constituion was laid down in 1787 and ratified in 1791.

You can sit there and pound your keyboard in anger as much as you what. It does not change the fact that time after time the Supreme Court has upheld that the freedom of speech and expression is protected. Both States and Federal agencies have tried to pass and enforce laws infringing on those rights, and except in very NARROW cases have they been successful.

The subjectively of being someones feelings as the outcome of someone excercising their civil rights do not stand up when the accused has pushed it far enough.

You chose to put yourself in public. If someone with a camera scares of offends you. Stay home.

Addressing your other issue of do street photographers or I ask permission if they are published? NO, we don't have have to. The only very narrow restrictions on the necessity of obtaining a release is if a persons likeness is being used to DIRECTLY promote a brand or product.

When a photo release would be necessary:
Using your likeness to advertise/promote a brand.
Using your likeness to advertise/promote a product.

When is a photo release not required:
Publishing a photo on a site that generates revenue for access.
Publishing a photo in a book (With the exception of the photo being used to actually market the book).
Selling the photo to a commercial entity or private buyer (The photo is my intellectual property to sell).

There is nothing left to argue, this is not only law, but as mentioned time and time again a CIVIL RIGHT, where neither you nor anyone else has a right to establish nor expect privacy. Feelings are subjective and not rights.

You can call me names if you would like, though at the end of the day I hold the legal high ground.

Your little performance of trying to get the moral high ground is on par with me telling you, your apparence, manner, display of religion, poltical offiliation, or having a shifty manner about you offends me. You would tell me to pound sand and rightly so.

Enjoy.

Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
Blog and Forums - www.catracing.org
IMAGE BBS! 3.0 - bbs.catracing.org 6400
C-Net Amiga BBS - bbs.catracing.org 6840
Ham's Over IP - 104196
--- CNet/5
* Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)