4 ms·

No he didn't. He suggested, correctly, that women getting the vote was bad for libertarians, because women vote against it. If you read the quote in context, th

by darawk 10y ago

No he didn't. He suggested, correctly, that women getting the vote was bad for libertarians, because women vote against it. If you read the quote in context, that is very clearly what he's saying.

ubernostrum 10y ago
In context his suggestion is that women being allowed to vote is incompatible with enacting his ideal philosophy of government. Which in turn implies that the only way to implement his ideal philosophy of government would be to deny women the right to vote.
- vinay427 10y ago
  You've stated the contrapositive, which is fine, except that he didn't imply that denying women the right to vote would be a positive strategy regardless of the effects it had on his ideology of choice.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    If he could get his Libertopia at the cost of women's suffrage, do you think he'd balk at that? Or do you believe he's not a means-justify-the-ends type?
    - vinay427 10y ago
      You're asking me to guess how he would respond to a hypothetical situation, so I will respectfully decline to do so as I am certainly not qualified.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > Which in turn implies that the only way to implement his ideal philosophy of government would be to deny women the right to vote. And that Thiel would prefer his ideal system to a world where women can vote and prevent his ideal.
  - darawk 10y ago
    You could just as easily infer from his statement that he thinks libertarians need to market themselves better to women than that he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
- flukus 10y ago
  He didn't suggest they were incompatible, he suggested that they haven't gone hand in hand, which they haven't. You could just as easily imply that he thinks libertarianism has marketed itself poorly to women.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  His ideal form of government is minimal enough that voting is superfluous. That you infer nefarious motive speaks not at all to what was actually implied.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    His ideal form of government is minimal enough that voting is superfluous. What about the vote to set it up in the first place?
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      Who do you think voted to start the US government?
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        Well, it was started via the initiation of force. Which is one of only two sins in libertarianism, so if someone is a consistent libertarian they can't advocate for that as the way to get going.
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        The revolution came about first, but the United States government was enacted by a vote of the second continental congress, formed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. What I'm getting at is that the rulers of the new government voted to start it. That's pretty much what I'd expect from any government.
        ubernostrum 10y ago
        The rulers voted to start it. That's convenient. I vote myself ruler! Now do you plan to obey the laws I make? (and no, "the people were the rulers" doesn't count, given how many of the people weren't considered "the people" at the time)
untog 10y ago
Edit: conversation was flagged, so I'm out.
- flukus 10y ago
  Well sure, if you add all your own words and biases in it sounds like that's exactly what he's saying.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Your jump in logic is "It's bad that over 60 million people died during WWII." => "It's bad that the the Allies fought Hitler." --- He said that he doubts democracy and freedom are incompatible. Did he say either one was bad? Lots of ideals are incompatible. 100% democracy and 100% freedom are are not fully compatible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule For example, the minority must be protected from the majority.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Bad for your cause and bad for society aren't the same thing. The thoughts on freedom and democracy are at least as old as Alexis de Tocqueville. Maybe try actually reading some political theory. 1. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-tyranny-and-despotism-in-democracy-remembering-alexis-de-tocqueville.html http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-t... 2. http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332...
- smsm42 10y ago
  > how could it be anything other than a "bad thing" in this context? "X lead to Y which is bad" is not the same as "X is bad". For example, relative abundance of high-calorie food led to obesity epidemics in the US. Is pointing out this fact means one wants Americans to starve to death? Or just pointing out some things have consequences, some of which are not good, even if things themselves are good? There's no law of nature that says consequences of something we consider good all must be good, and it's often not so. > Why would you want him in government? Because he knows how dangerous is raw democracy to freedom, just as folks who made the Constitution knew and thus made specific restrictions on the democratic powers of the Congress? You know, all that "Congress shall make no law"?
revelation 10y ago
The quote explicitly names "women getting the vote" as one of the factors that has turned ".. democracy" into an "oxymoron". Picking and choosing in or out groups is not "democracy".
- Klockan 10y ago
  You left out "capitalist democracy", his point is that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts when women are allowed to vote since they tend to vote for socialism.
  - revelation 10y ago
    So why say "women" instead of "socialists"? You can choose to be a socialist or not, but a women? But it's great you have realized the principal mistake here.

by darawk 10y ago

No he didn't. He suggested, correctly, that women getting the vote was bad for libertarians, because women vote against it. If you read the quote in context, that is very clearly what he's saying.

ubernostrum 10y ago

In context his suggestion is that women being allowed to vote is incompatible with enacting his ideal philosophy of government. Which in turn implies that the only way to implement his ideal philosophy of government would be to deny women the right to vote.

vinay427 10y ago
You've stated the contrapositive, which is fine, except that he didn't imply that denying women the right to vote would be a positive strategy regardless of the effects it had on his ideology of choice.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  If he could get his Libertopia at the cost of women's suffrage, do you think he'd balk at that? Or do you believe he's not a means-justify-the-ends type?
  - vinay427 10y ago
    You're asking me to guess how he would respond to a hypothetical situation, so I will respectfully decline to do so as I am certainly not qualified.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> Which in turn implies that the only way to implement his ideal philosophy of government would be to deny women the right to vote. And that Thiel would prefer his ideal system to a world where women can vote and prevent his ideal.
- darawk 10y ago
  You could just as easily infer from his statement that he thinks libertarians need to market themselves better to women than that he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
flukus 10y ago
He didn't suggest they were incompatible, he suggested that they haven't gone hand in hand, which they haven't. You could just as easily imply that he thinks libertarianism has marketed itself poorly to women.
oldmanjay 10y ago
His ideal form of government is minimal enough that voting is superfluous. That you infer nefarious motive speaks not at all to what was actually implied.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  His ideal form of government is minimal enough that voting is superfluous. What about the vote to set it up in the first place?
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Who do you think voted to start the US government?
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      Well, it was started via the initiation of force. Which is one of only two sins in libertarianism, so if someone is a consistent libertarian they can't advocate for that as the way to get going.
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        The revolution came about first, but the United States government was enacted by a vote of the second continental congress, formed of delegates from the thirteen colonies. What I'm getting at is that the rulers of the new government voted to start it. That's pretty much what I'd expect from any government.
        ubernostrum 10y ago
        The rulers voted to start it. That's convenient. I vote myself ruler! Now do you plan to obey the laws I make? (and no, "the people were the rulers" doesn't count, given how many of the people weren't considered "the people" at the time)

untog 10y ago

Edit: conversation was flagged, so I'm out.

flukus 10y ago
Well sure, if you add all your own words and biases in it sounds like that's exactly what he's saying.
paulddraper 10y ago
Your jump in logic is "It's bad that over 60 million people died during WWII." => "It's bad that the the Allies fought Hitler." --- He said that he doubts democracy and freedom are incompatible. Did he say either one was bad? Lots of ideals are incompatible. 100% democracy and 100% freedom are are not fully compatible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule For example, the minority must be protected from the majority.
rfrank 10y ago
Bad for your cause and bad for society aren't the same thing. The thoughts on freedom and democracy are at least as old as Alexis de Tocqueville. Maybe try actually reading some political theory. 1. http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-tyranny-and-despotism-in-democracy-remembering-alexis-de-tocqueville.html http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/equality-t... 2. http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/end-democracy-america-14332...
smsm42 10y ago
> how could it be anything other than a "bad thing" in this context? "X lead to Y which is bad" is not the same as "X is bad". For example, relative abundance of high-calorie food led to obesity epidemics in the US. Is pointing out this fact means one wants Americans to starve to death? Or just pointing out some things have consequences, some of which are not good, even if things themselves are good? There's no law of nature that says consequences of something we consider good all must be good, and it's often not so. > Why would you want him in government? Because he knows how dangerous is raw democracy to freedom, just as folks who made the Constitution knew and thus made specific restrictions on the democratic powers of the Congress? You know, all that "Congress shall make no law"?

revelation 10y ago

The quote explicitly names "women getting the vote" as one of the factors that has turned ".. democracy" into an "oxymoron". Picking and choosing in or out groups is not "democracy".

Klockan 10y ago
You left out "capitalist democracy", his point is that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive concepts when women are allowed to vote since they tend to vote for socialism.
- revelation 10y ago
  So why say "women" instead of "socialists"? You can choose to be a socialist or not, but a women? But it's great you have realized the principal mistake here.