3 ms·

I didn’t know he was against women being given the right to vote. That’s a new one.

• dragonwriter 3y ago
  Well, he's against anyone being allowed to vote if they don't vote the way he would prefer, which is why he gave up on democracy: there were too many people who disagree with his preferences, so it was too hard for his side to win. Democracy would be fine (and women voting would be fine), if the electorate (and women in sufficient numbers) voted for Thiel's preferences.
• andsoitis 3y ago
  He isn't. After some backlash, he elaborated: 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. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage-isnt-danger-other-rights-are/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage...