In his compelling essay, internet entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel articulates a profound shift in his perspective on achieving libertarian ideals. “I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good,” Peter Thiel begins, reaffirming his core libertarian principles. He firmly states his opposition to “confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual.” Despite these enduring beliefs, Peter Thiel confesses a significant evolution in his thinking over two decades, particularly regarding the compatibility of freedom and democracy. This essay explores Peter Thiel’s journey from political engagement to technological solutionism, examining his rationale for seeking freedom beyond the realm of traditional politics.
Peter Thiel’s initial foray into political activism began during his undergraduate years at Stanford in the late 1980s. Immersed in philosophy, he was drawn to the dynamism of debate and the potential for political action to advance freedom. He co-founded a student newspaper to challenge prevailing campus norms, achieving some success in dismantling university speech codes. However, Peter Thiel reflects that these efforts, while valuable in reinforcing the convictions of like-minded individuals, ultimately failed to instigate broader change. He likens the experience to the static and devastating trench warfare of World War I – much effort expended for minimal progress. This early experience began to sow seeds of doubt in Peter Thiel’s mind regarding the efficacy of political means for achieving libertarian goals.
The disillusionment deepened for Peter Thiel as he transitioned into the professional world of Manhattan in the 1990s, working as a lawyer and trader. He observed a common trajectory of post-college disenchantment as individuals confronted the seemingly insurmountable scale of the world’s problems. Many of his peers, recognizing the apparent futility of large-scale political battles, opted instead to focus on personal pursuits and local concerns. Peter Thiel notes a correlation between intellectual acuity and pessimism regarding free-market politics, observing a widespread public skepticism towards capitalism. Among highly intelligent conservatives, this pessimism sometimes manifested in excessive drinking, while libertarian intellectuals, according to Peter Thiel, sought escape not only in alcohol but also in a detachment from conventional legal and political frameworks.
Alt Text: Peter Thiel, a prominent libertarian thinker and technology investor, speaking at a conference, discussing his views on politics and technology.
By 2009, Peter Thiel’s outlook on libertarian politics had become decidedly bleak. The 2008 financial crisis, triggered by excessive debt and leverage exacerbated by government-backed moral hazards, served as a stark illustration of the limitations of free-market advocacy in the political arena. Peter Thiel points out that the government’s response to the crisis – further increasing debt and government intervention – underscored the widening gap between libertarian ideals and political reality. He argues that these events effectively extinguished any lingering hopes for politically oriented libertarians. For Peter Thiel and others sharing his libertarian perspective in 2009, this period marked the culmination of an education in the futility of attempting to broadly educate the body politic on libertarian principles.
Peter Thiel further emphasizes the long-term trend away from libertarianism, citing historical economic events. He contrasts the government intervention following the Great Depression with the markedly different response to the 1920-21 recession. The earlier downturn, though severe, was short-lived and facilitated “creative destruction,” paving the way for the prosperous “Roaring Twenties.” Peter Thiel argues that the 1920s represent the last decade in American history where genuine political optimism for libertarians was justifiable. He contends that the subsequent expansion of the welfare state and the enfranchisement of women – demographics statistically less inclined to libertarianism – have rendered the concept of “capitalist democracy” inherently contradictory in practice.
Faced with these political realities, Peter Thiel acknowledges that despair would be a natural response if one’s focus remained solely within the political sphere. However, Peter Thiel’s perspective transcends traditional politics. “I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world,” he states. He posits that the paramount task for contemporary libertarians lies in seeking avenues of escape from politics in all its manifestations, ranging from totalitarian regimes and fundamentalist ideologies to the perceived irrationality of the “unthinking demos” in social democracies.
This leads Peter Thiel to the crucial question of means: how to achieve this escape from, rather than through, politics. Given the absence of truly free territories in the contemporary world, Peter Thiel suggests that the path to freedom necessitates novel and unprecedented approaches, leading to “some undiscovered country.” This conviction has driven Peter Thiel’s focus towards emerging technologies as potential catalysts for creating new spaces for freedom. He identifies three technological frontiers as particularly promising:
-
Cyberspace: As an entrepreneur and investor, Peter Thiel has heavily invested in the internet. He recalls that the initial vision of PayPal was rooted in creating a decentralized digital currency, immune to government control and manipulation – effectively “the end of monetary sovereignty.” Similarly, companies like Facebook, in Peter Thiel’s view, foster new forms of dissent and community formation that transcend traditional national boundaries. Peter Thiel argues that by establishing innovative internet businesses, entrepreneurs can effectively create new digital worlds. The aspiration is that these virtual realms will exert influence on and ultimately transform the existing social and political order. However, Peter Thiel acknowledges the limitation that these new worlds are virtual, and the escape they offer might be more conceptual than tangible. The ultimate impact and reality of this digital escape remain open questions.
-
Outer Space: Peter Thiel views the vastness of outer space as an unlimited frontier, representing boundless opportunities for escaping terrestrial political constraints. However, he recognizes the significant technological hurdles to space colonization. Rocket technology advancements have been incremental since the 1960s, rendering space travel prohibitively challenging. Peter Thiel advocates for intensified efforts to commercialize space exploration but emphasizes a realistic long-term perspective. He believes that the libertarian vision of space colonization, reminiscent of classic science fiction, is unlikely to materialize before the latter half of the 21st century.
-
Seasteading: Positioned between cyberspace and outer space, Peter Thiel proposes ocean colonization as another potential frontier. He believes the feasibility of seasteading technology is a more pressing question than whether people will choose to live in seaborne settlements (he believes they will). Peter Thiel assesses seasteading technology as more nascent than internet technology but more achievable in the near term than space travel. He suggests that seasteading may be economically viable now or in the near future, presenting a realistic, albeit risky, avenue for creating autonomous spaces. Therefore, Peter Thiel expresses strong support for seasteading initiatives.
Alt Text: Conceptual artwork depicting seasteading, Peter Thiel’s vision for floating autonomous cities on the ocean as a means of escaping political constraints and fostering innovation.
Peter Thiel cautions against technological utopianism, the idea that technology inherently guarantees a freer future through its own momentum. He emphasizes that technology is not a predetermined force and that political realities cannot be ignored. Instead, Peter Thiel presents a more nuanced perspective: “A better metaphor is that we are in a deadly race between politics and technology.” He argues that the future will be dramatically better or worse, and its trajectory remains uncertain. While the outcome of this race is unknown, Peter Thiel believes it is likely to be closely contested. He emphasizes that, unlike the political sphere, individual actions can still have a paramount impact in the realm of technology. Peter Thiel concludes that the fate of the world may hinge on the endeavors of individuals who develop and disseminate technologies that promote freedom and safeguard capitalism. He expresses his support for Patri Friedman’s seasteading project, viewing it as a crucial experiment in this pursuit of technological freedom.
Editor’s Note: Mr. Thiel has further elaborated on the question of suffrage here. We copy these remarks below as well:
I had hoped my essay on the limits of politics would provoke reactions, and I was not disappointed. But the most intense response has been aimed not at cyberspace, seasteading, or libertarian politics, but at a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap.
It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.
Voting is not under siege in America, but many other rights are. In America, people are imprisoned for using even very mild drugs, tortured by our own government, and forced to bail out reckless financial companies.
I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian.
