This is a good read. It's a couple years old but it gives a nice overview of Thiel's work. I suspect that Lbertarianism will gain a lot more power over the years because of people like him. Elon Musk is apparently a Libertarian too.

[www.newyorker.com]

Article: Why libertarians don't win elections



One of the reasons that American libertarians as a political movement never amount to anything is that they can be incredibly intolerant people. This may seem counterintuitive, but while a great many fiscal and social conservatives are willing to seek compromise in common purpose, libertarians are forever in search of hills to die on for their noble and incorruptible principles,

No electoral majority was ever built from purists and true believers. They are built from coalitions. There's a reason Ron Paul runs as a Republican, not as a Libertarian. Libertarians have real prospects for influencing the Republican Party, no hope of controlling it.

You seem to counter a lot of points that were never made, unless of course you're talking to yourself. I mentioned that I "suspect" that Libertarianism will gain more power as a result of backing from billionaires. Never said anything about how they'll get it done. Your negation is quite vague. See your second comment. Care to give examples?

Elon Musk's electric Tesla S out sold comparably priced gas-guzzlers from BMW, Audi, and Mercedes last quarter. Consumer reports called it the best car that they've ever reviewed. He could be the next Henry Ford. Of course, he could also be the next DeLorean, but most indicators are pointing toward the former. Technology shapes the world in 2013, not politics.

IMO, the world's thirst for technological advancement and America's need to compete will possibly fuel a small government era like we saw after the Civil War and prior to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. We'll never see pure Libertarianism any more than we'll see any -ism full-on, but it will and does hold increasing influence.

"Compromise", "reaching across the aisle", "go along to get along" "caving in", "working together", "we've got to do SOMETHING", "get Something done", RINO's and "DINO's" are the reason we're in the mess we're in. The best situation we can ever have in Government is GRIDLOCK, where both sides have their own beliefs on issues and they stick to them, and nothing "gets done" - no Growing Government, no Raising Taxes, no Spending, no Passing Laws and Bills and Regulations and Rules and More Bureaucracy.

I read about half of the Peter Thiel article - I'll read the rest this weekend.

I was surprised to learn from these articles that the much-hated Koch Brothers are also Libertarians.

Why Can’t the Kochs Buy the Los Angeles Times?

[www.thedailybeast.com]

"Politico, for instance, “revealed” last year that David Koch supports same-sex marriage, wants military spending cut, and wouldn’t rule out tax increases to balance the budget. Only one of those positions (the last one) is surprising, considering Koch ran as the Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate in 1980. It was a scoop freely available in a 2010 New York magazine profile of Koch, which pointed out that “he thought the Iraq War was folly, and supports stem-cell research and gay marriage.”

When BuzzFeed announced that it was hosting an immigration debate “sponsored” by the Charles Koch Foundation, the outraged Twitter brigades (“@#$%& you @BuzzFeed you broke my heart taking money from the Koch brothers. You lost a reader”) failed to note that the panel included three immigration reformers and one restrictionist and, as Slate’s David Weigel put it, was “intended to nudge along immigration reform.”

[www.thedailybeast.com]

"David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who fund a number of Libertarian causes, are rumored to be interested in buying the Tribune Group, which includes the LA Times."

The quote below from the Infowars article is also worth underlining, at the very least because it directly echoes my belief that Libertarians are using their economic power to make Libertarianism a real force. People are starting to recognize this because it's working. Thiel and Musk will possibly wield the same level of influence over this century as people like Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller had over the last. The good news of course is that Musk and Thiel are Libertarians. These guys are really starting to shake things up.

"While the source did not mention the names of specific individuals who expressed this view (the need for Bilderberg transparency), it’s reasonable to speculate that it is coming from the so-called ‘Libertarian camp’ within the group, headed up by Paypal founder and hedge fund manager Peter Thiel, who is again in attendance this year."

I was looking up Capitalism and Competition and I ran across these articles about Peter Thiel --

Capitalism and Competition [emerging.uschamber.com]

"Is capitalism all about competition? Not really, according to a lecture by Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal. Innovation is also a key component, and competition all too often starves it of creativity. It encourages us to play in the sandbox along with everybody else, which is good right up until the point when you need a new sandbox. Someone has to turn away from scrapping over sandcastles to build a new domain. Leaving the fight is hard, but creating a new space to play is an ultimate end of the enterprising way. More competition then, in Thiel's eye, does not automatically lead to the greater value."

Peter Thiel: Competition and Capitalism Are Antonyms

[pandodaily.com]

"PayPal founder, Facebook uberinvestor, and Libertarian du jour Peter Thiel told our audience that competition and capitalism are not the same thing.

Businesses can waste energy and resources competing like crazy instead of focusing on creating unique products that can change the world, Thiel said.

“People get addicted to competition,” he said. “They end up believing that things that are hard are valuable.” He conceded that at some point competition might make people and businesses stronger, but it often comes at the cost of “going through the open door that no-one is even looking at”."

Peter Thiel’s CS183: Startup - Class 4 Notes Essay

[blakemasters.com]

I see what he's saying, but it does seem a bit convaluted. It's like he's on to this really great idea that's either incomplete or that he doesn't know how to adequately express. Maybe that's because he's not too sure of it himself. Of course, the class notes taken by the student may be imperfect. It strikes me as a slippery platform either way.

One thing I know is that when I extol the virtues of competition, I'm not extolling the virtues of defeating other people or stepping on their necks. I'm certainly not reaching for any sort of monopoly either. I think I see it more like that passage from the Bible about people sharpening themselves on each other as iron sharpens itself on iron. That sounds very melodramatic, but that's all I really mean. It's more a matter of inspiration and progress than it is victory and defeat. If I compete with someone in running, whether or not I come out on top I'm going to be a better runner and so is the other person. It's impossible to lose. If I compete with someone to cure cancer, same thing, except if one of us actually creates the cure, the whole world will be better off as a result of that competition. I see competition as one basis for human progress. The important thing is to know when to work together for the greater good. Psychopaths can't make that distinction.