4 ms·
Of course it is.
by SamReidHughes 7y ago
Of course it is.
- monocasa 7y agoHe's not saying removing everyone's vote, he's saying removing the vote for half of the adult population on the basis of gender, because he doesn't like how they vote. That's a libertarian position?
- lazyasciiart 7y agoLibertarians don't think voting should exist, so it seems compatible that one of them might think extending the franchise at all is bad. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-perspectives-voting https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-perspecti...
- monocasa 7y agoBut Thiel in this essay argues that "capitalist democracy" as seen in 1920s should exist, just that women shouldn't be allowed to participate.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoNo, it's compatible with libertarianism. I'd also remove unmarried men and Rolex owners from the eligibility list, myself.
- monocasa 7y agoI fail to see how giving some the vote but not others based on whether you think they'll agree with you or not is a libertarian position.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago"Compatible with X" != "Is (or isn't) an X position"
- monocasa 7y agoFor ideologies attempting to be totally internally consistent, it is.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoSo then, what's the internally consistent libertarian position on the Eagles vs. Seahawks game?
- monocasa 7y agoAre you truly making the argument that disenfranchisement of groups based on demographics has as little to do with libertarianism as the results of a sports game?
- SamReidHughes 7y agoThe idea behind the NFL game example was to highlight the distinction between the notion of completeness with that of consistency. The connection (or lack thereof) between Libertarianism and the NFL game, or with enfranchisement, is a matter of logic, not some distance metric based on whether it's in the realm of politics.