When Will Libertarians Grapple With The Fact That Women’s Suffrage Increased The Size And Scope Of Government?

« Cheap Chalupas On Loser Men

Testosterone: The Genius Drug »

When Will Libertarians Grapple With The Fact That Women’s Suffrage Increased The Size And Scope Of Government?

May 12, 2011 by CH

I mean, the evidence is staring them right in the face. And yet, not a peep from them. How utterly surprising.

ps 50 million mexicans will do the same. heh heh.

Posted in Goodbye America, Self-aggrandizement, Ugly Truths | 141 Comments

141 Responses

on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 pm Bounder

This was originally observed by Mark Steyn, I believe.

America Alone is a great book on this subject if you’d like to wallow in despair.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:32 pm Kingbeef

America needs to collapse.

LikeLiked by 1 person
on May 12, 2011 at 10:35 pm Tmason

That will never be reversed. Ever.

Try convincing anyone these days to take away the right to vote from women.

I would like to here arguments that will convince WOMEN that they should give up that right.

Takers?

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 pm twinrenegade

Vox Day is one of the few libertarians to speak against Woman’s suffrage.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 pm Anonymous

Gov’t intervention makes gov’t bigger. The only thing it does.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:40 pm Rothbard

Libertarians don’t believe anyone should be able to vote. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner2.html

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm MattW

I think libertarians would emphasize liberty overall being the most important value (meaning women’s right to vote). After that I think they’d say that the expansion of the govt is not actually constitutional; the problem isn’t women voting, it’s that the things on the table for voting should not be there.

I’m a soft libertarian though, so my answer may not be the most accurate.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm YR

Libertarians are basically progressives who happen to like austrian economics, they’ll never get it

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:44 pm Gorbachev

Women’s liberation would have been fine. Speaking as a semi-Libertarian, I have to say: It would have been fine if women thought the same way as men.

Men thought they might. Projection.

Turns out, they’re fascist and cautious by nature and like grotesque insurance policies.

They also don’t generally know how to create wealth: But they’re damned good, as a sex, at redistributing it.

Men just thought they’d be male politicos with pussies.

Turns out the pussies have teeth.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:45 pm Mike M.

I don’t know if you can repeal women’s sufferage. But a strong case can be made for restricting the franchise to those paying more than a certain amount in income tax. There’s a lot of resentment out there….and taking the Deadweights out of the voting pool will go a long way toward restoring responsible government.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm NYCBachelor

Libertarian philosophy is compromised by a number of flaws in the philosophical foundations of their philosophy; these errors are entirely due to their refusual to look at human nature as it actually is instead of what they want it to be.

A partial list of errors:

-The majority of people can understand the benefits of limited government and free trade (most people are stupid and/or ignorant)
-That their is no underlying biological wiring between the sexes or races that will cause them to favor tyranny over freedom
-That people will handicap themselves by principles of “justice” instead of amorally grabbing what they can in life (most people will rationalize any advantage they can attain for themselves)
-That Human nature is fundamentally “good”
-That Humans are a “blank slate” and are basically interchangable
-Based on the preceeding two premises- that the threat of force and fear of resiproisty is not necessary to keep the untermensch in line (it is).
-That other groups of people (governments) will play by the same nice rules that they want our government to play by

Ultimately, Libertarians take their native high intelligence and combine it with their do-gooder/moralist brainwashing and mirrorimage the the combination onto the rest of soceity while not realizing that they are the exception and not the rule.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:50 pm Mucius Scaevola

“I don’t know if you can repeal women’s sufferage.”

it will happen on its own. if women still insist on take back the night, one in four and slut walk, the social consequences of their self-responsibility denial will bring back paterfamilias style laws giving her child-like social status before 2175. negative externality permits no sanitized choice.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:51 pm Mucius Scaevola

or at least thats what i dreamt last nite…

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm Reality Check

“Libertarians” = LIEberTURDians

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm RVT

Tmason, women will agree to give up their vote if and only if the media/society says they should. If the talk shows and news channels say women’s suffrage is bad, women will agree in order to conform. By trying to argue it logically, you’re projecting your thoughts onto them.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:54 pm Tmason

or at least thats what i dreamt last nite…

Keep dreaming. Woman’s suffrage is here to stay.

Best to bend a woman from her liberal/libertarian ways and work from there using the tools you have.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:56 pm honeyoak

Chateau,
as sympathetic I am to your argument, this paper is the wrong one to back it from. there are quite a few problems with this paper besides the crummy econometrics. it really should not have been published. The rise in government over the period coincided with world war 1 military spending. the increase in spending was not on pro-female policies like education and healthcare but rather infrastructure and armaments. Moreover the control group had higher government spending than the treatment group, exacerbating the growth rates. I try to avoid accepting papers that confirm my bias.

for instance, I am sure that you would disagree with this one:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 10:56 pm Reality Check

NYCBachelor:

Libertarian philosophy is compromised by a number of flaws in the philosophical foundations of their philosophy; these errors are entirely due to their refusual to look at human nature as it actually is instead of what they want it to be.
___

Yes, and this is what makes the LIEberTURDians worse than Liberals, nay, even Socialists.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:00 pm Toby

Even Libertarians are not united when it comes to women suffrage.

The true problem is that Conservatives and Liberals dominate the election sphere. That means even if libertarians begin to campaign against women’s suffrage it would not mean a thing if both Conservatives and Liberals are for it.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:02 pm RVT

Libertarians look at society as nothing but a set of laws for people to follow, most don’t realize that economy and society are inextricable from one another. Most of their ideas would work quite well in a culture of anglican work ethic and individualism. Unfortunately for them(and us), America has two or three permanent underclasses worth of overgrown spoiled children.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:07 pm NYCBachelor

The only way you will ever repeal women’s right to vote is by taking away everyone’s right to vote via martial law and Executive/Imperial decree.

The current breed of men is to philosophically and psychologically soft to stand up to the psycho-sexual manipulations of women. You could give them the right of Paterfamilias- it wouldnt matter, they would be asking wifey if it was ok to put the toilet seat down ten minutes after being granted that power; or even better wifey would have him convinced that leaving the toilet seat down was a sign of his empowerment and leadership- at best he’d be a puppet being manipulated by her strings. The right for her to vote again would follow shortly after.

Fundamentally, the problem with Western men is a crisis of confidence; a completely lack of belief in their own power, competence and mastery over the females of the species.

Strong and Just soceities are the product of men and masculine values.

Decadent Unjust soceites are the product of the infliltration of women, and feminine values, into the philosophical-psychological mentality of a nation.

You can talk about changing the law all you want- but the laws are a product of the people. If you want men and masculine values to rule- you need strong masculine men; men who believe in their inherint superiorty over women. In short, you need to chauvanistic men who entirely believe that Patriarchy is not only nessary- but also good.

This will not happen.

The powerful don’t want a large pool of masculine men who are taught to think for themselves. These masses could become a threat if they ever realized how much they were getting screwed over. No- much better to keep them ignorant and to weaken their will and intelligence through feminization, slave morality, education based on rote memorization while keeping them distracted with bread and circuses.

A mass of sheep is easy to sheer.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:11 pm Leif

Women’s suffrage wouldn’t mean jack if government actually respected the chains the Constitution attaches to them.

A welfare state is not authorized under the Constitution. The problem we have today is we don’t interpret it the way the Founders intended. That is the root of the problem.

Although I completely agree that women’s suffrage provided even more impetus to disregard the Constitution entirely, that alone shouldn’t be the cause of the problem.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:29 pm Phil

Wake up white man.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:31 pm rg

Bastiat grappled with it a long time ago. Thanks for playing.

“The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought — who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times — will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage — using the word in its strictest sense — is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody. The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree. If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?”

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:37 pm J-style

Re: the mexies:

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/05/ethnic-diversity-and-size-of-government.html

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:56 pm Constant

Democracy inherently trends anti-libertarian, and enormous states like the US also inherently trend anti-libertarian, in both cases for well-understood economic reasons. Liberty is doubly incompatible with large democracies.

LikeLike
on May 12, 2011 at 11:57 pm beta_plus

This is old news. The big argument between us Libertarians and places like here is should women be kept down by the force of government and, if so, what measures should be taken to do so. We argue that we can non-violently fight back and the (admittedly very high) price of letting women get out of control is worth it for the sake of all humans deserving the right of life, liberty, PROPERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not.

In criticism of the Chateau, I am not convinced that it can stomach the levels of direct and brutal physical violence against women, lazy alphas who want to maintain their status, and beta white knights it would take to impose its idealized regime. I’m not talking a slap and maybe pointing a gun here. I’m talking Stalinistic (Hitler could only dream of what he was able to do in terms of numbers) measures of targeted mass imprisonment and murder.

As a Libertarian, I will say that this is the first place that has provided arguments that have given me pause about my beliefs. Other sides I can quickly defeat and dismiss. This one makes me wonder if my beliefs are possibly misplaced.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:01 am Rusty Shackleford

What libertarians are saying otherwise? I never understand the claims this blog makes about libertarians while also promoting mostly libertarian ideas. The Chateau usually does such a good job with sources, but never comes through with the same effort for libertarians.

The rest of what I want to say is already covered by Leif.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:03 am Dan in Euroland

Roissy getting sonned. What else is new?

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:51 am Tim

this is an old post recycled.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:57 am Atown

I thought many libertarians DO oppose women’s sufferage. Voting isn’t a right. Its just a methods that can be used to check the arbitrary power of a government, and it certainly isn’t the only one.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:12 am ADS

http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:26 am Rum

In many places in the early history of the US, state laws regard the franchise specified property ownership requirements and/or head of household status but not gender per se.
In other words, women who paid taxes on titled land and were without a husband could vote the same as any other tax paying, land owning head of household.. This was common on the frontier.
It is just possible that a new consensus might form around such a limited notion of shareholder/stakeholder status if the mal-alignment of interests between Roman Citizens – and slaves, peasants, gypsies, etc. becomes too stark and unavoidable.
Ooops, I meant American…
Personally, I think we should vote according to the tax we pay just like shareholders vote their shares in corporate elections.
If either of these forward thinking, progressive policies could survive the inevitably difficult process of being born alive, it might be not so bad that certain, women, so qualified, could vote.
After all, taxation without representation is tyranny. (A good argument until you meet an unapologetic tyrannt.)
I know that I am a little bit of a dreamer on this point. I mean, even with these filters to women would probably still vote for the same things. But they might not, and that would be redemptive.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:35 am The Specimen

Libertarianism is a lot like communism. That shit works in some fantasy world where people all sit around a fire. stroke each other’s cocks, and sing kumbaya all night, but in the real world that shit doesn’t work because people are basically scumbags. Other than that, libertarianism is just a chic and intellectually dishonest way for people to argue against policies/regulations/laws they don’t like, while arguing for ones they do, just like the rest of the scumbags. Talk about pretty lies…

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:43 am The Specimen

Btw. For the tea party idiots out there, the constitution is a negative rights document. It doesn’t grant rights so much as it takes them away from the govt. So yeah please stfu about “there’s no right to blah blah blah in the constitution.” There’s no right for you to act like a bitch either, but it’s still legal, and you still do it.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:08 am Anonymous

Many libertarians recognize that women’s suffrage harms the libertarian cause. Peter Thiel pointed it out a few years ago (see: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/the-education-of-a-libertarian/ and http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/your-suffrage-isnt-in-danger-your-other-rights-are/ ). Murray Rothbard (probably the leading libertarian theorist) was critical of the women’s suffrage movement in his historical writings, pointing out its links to the Prohibition movement and other pro-government movements (see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html ).

Although women’s suffrage has probably contributed greatly to the growth of government, running against it isn’t a good idea for any political movement. Women vote and most women (including libertarian women) are too irrational to understand how taking away their suffrage can actually increase their rights. Women’s suffrage is very popular among men as well.

What the libertarian movement needs is a candidate (within a major political party) who is an good-looking, charismatic alpha male. There is nothing inherent in libertarianism that requires the belief in false conceptions of human nature (the libertarians at the Property and Freedom Society definitely don’t hold any PC views of human nature).

If a libertarian society is ever realized, it would resemble something out of a feminist’s nightmares. It would be perfectly legal to “objectify” women all you want. Alpha males could take as many wives as they want (and have marriage contracts that protect his interests). Business owners could order their secretary to sleep this them if she wants to keep her job. The rules of the sexual marketplace in the libertarian society would be solidly in the man’s favor. Most libertarians don’t recognize this and would probably be horrified by such a society, but such is the world they are advocating.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:14 am Anonymous2

“Libertarianism is a lot like communism. That shit works in some fantasy world where people all sit around a fire.”

It worked for a long time in the US, at least the Northern states that didn’t have an artificial slave economy. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson started the big government machine.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:25 am Anna

Not going to happen, for many reasons.

Besides, upper-class and middle-class women will never stand for loosing the vote while homeless and lower-class men keep the vote.

And upper-class men are not ok with their wives and sisters loosing the vote while the working-class guy keeps the vote.

Base the vote on class/property ownership, if you want this to have a chance of passing. But I doubt it ever would. Americans are too anti-class consciousness.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:29 am Anna

“Personally, I think we should vote according to the tax we pay just like shareholders vote their shares in corporate elections.”

Nah – everybody who works pays s.s. taxes. If you don’t own property you don’t vote. You want to vote? Invest in land or property or a buisness. Stakeholders are stakeholders.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:30 am Traveller

Voting seems to me an overrated stuff.

Today it is so important because government takes any rights it wants and it removes any right from its citizens.

There should be a system where laws against private property or freedom are impossible, the taxation could not surpass a little %, gun rights are to stay etc, even if some politician tries to make laws against it. And if government passes those laws, people is automatically allowed to not respect them.

I too am against the women vote, too disaster consequences.

Vote weight should be proportional to income, or similar.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 3:06 am mack

The premise of this post is that Republicans are somehow less prone to big government than Democrats. Only fools who believe in the partisan tooth fairy buy into this crap. The Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin. They grow different parts of the government but both parties, depsite their rhetoric, are for big government.

If you want to get rid of big government you start by getting rid of both parties as well as big corporations. Big government is there to allow the two groups of parasites, wealthy rentiers, as well as poor lumpenproletariats, to continue to suck the American people dry. All that welfare money goes directly into the coffers of huge corporations such as Walmart.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 3:42 am Ben L

I mentioned that women should not be allowed to vote to my brother. He asked me who I was to think that men could take care of women’s interests better than they could.

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry (considering it was my younger brother whom I thought I had purged of The Lie as any dutiful older brother is bound to do.)

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 3:44 am namae nanka

OT:

on the subject of testosterone:

http://thegatewayonline.ca/articles/news/2011/03/21/researcher-draws-links-between-genius-and-prenatal-testosterone

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:00 am Library Desk Graffiti

blah blah blah, nobody here knows what the fuck they’re talking about. just cause some limp-wristed pussyboy claims to be a libertarian doesn’t make him one

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:18 am ASPIRANT

>>It worked for a long time in the US, at least the Northern states that didn’t have an artificial slave economy. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson started the big government machine.
In an society with a tiny population and where most everyone was a farmer, that kind of thing worked. People could grow their own food, cut their own stove fuel, and only came together to do business when they really needed to.

They weren’t utterly dependent on arbitrary systems like we are.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 am ASPIRANT

And people who single out institutions like the corporations, or big government as their enemy are ignorant. They’re part of the same dominance system. They’re just as powerful today as they were during the bronze age. It’s just that, as population increases, you become more expendable.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:38 am Wilson

The much-lauded liberation of female “choice” — choice in sexual partners, reproductive choice, career choice, “lifestyle” choice, choice of social support services from the government — over the last generation is now a fixture of Western civilization.

The moral force behind this female empowerment is the extent to which it represents returning to individual females their sovereignty.

What about male individual sovereignty?

Under natural law the ultimate power — the power that shapes the future — of female individual sovereignty is the choice of which genes make it into the next generation and that power is exercised through birth.

Under natural law the ultimate power of male individual sovereignty is the choice of that which is to be killed in single combat.

Civilization is founded on a meta-stable “deal” in which females give up their individual sovereignty to their mates and their mates give up their individual sovereignty to the State. If, in this scenario, you liberate only one sex, not only does civilization collapse, but until it does, the circumstances are unbearable to the sex not liberated.

In Western civilization there is no going back to the age of females giving up their individual sovereignty to their mates, so Western civilization is ending and we are left with two choices:

Figure out how to legitimize formal individual combat to the death between males, or adopt Islam.

That’s a true dilemma.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:41 am Bang Brussels

Chateau,

When you are looking for libertarian inputs on a specific subject, go to http://www.liberty-finder.com, the libertarian search engine (500+ libertarian websites in its database). If you have done that before posting, you would have found the following papers/articles:

“Lott and Kenny (1999) found that women’s suffrage had some role in promoting greater government expenditures.”
http://mercatus.org/publication/why-does-freedom-wax-and-wane

See also:
http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2009/05/01/on-fallacies-and-libertarianism
and
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GovernmentGrowth.html

By the way, it’s château, not chateau.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 am ASPIRANT

I don’t think the ills of the world can be laid upon women’s suffrage. All that’s done is change the kind of politician we elect, a mutant fatherly alpha-male…. and we have to wrap all our discourse sensitivity to perpetuate the lie to ourselves that we’re all free and fair and good.

But things have sucked long before women got the vote.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 5:06 am Ron

K.I.S.S.

On a federal level:
Right to vote tied to land ownership only
No suffrage
Perjury on a Federal level costs you your voting rights on a federal level
Marriage contracts not recognized On federal level (states can pass laws between each other to recognize those contracts if they wish)

State level (optional):
Wife’s property becomes husbands, returns to her in event of divorce

In other words: LIMIT the fucking Federal government and who has a say in it. I don’t give a shit what individual states do to themselves

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 5:25 am Ron

How to get there:

1. Keep only a few principles. A principle is something you are willing to die for. So be thorough when you think about it.

2. You get at most one friend in this life. If you have 3 or 4 “friends” then it means you don’t understand the word.

3. Think tragic vision. Tragic does not mean cheap.

4. Asset protection. See “sovreignman.com” it’s a start. Otherwise you are a punk, punks need luck and the occult. Men think it through, pray for guidance and strength and then throw down with what they are given.

5. Speak only truth

6. And give it time.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 6:55 am Jerry

This links bears repeating: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html

Women’s suffrage was seized upon as a means of increasing Anglo-Saxon Protestant voting power, and immigration restriction as well as eugenics was a method of reducing the growing demographic challenge of Catholic voters.

Rothbard makes it very clear that it was the Republican Christian Evangelicals who gave women the right to vote (and the KKK + WKKK were with them) while single men and married guys who acted like Berlusconi, from countries that are STILL anti-feminist (Italians, Poles, Spaniards), vehemently opposed suffrage.

The evangelist statist betas knew their wives and daughters were aggressive and would out politic the more submissive women of the alpha Catholic immigrants who hung out in taverns or otherwise disregarded any orders their women might give (The evangelical Women’s Christian Temperance Union outlawed liquor and prostitution the first chance they got).

The switch that would have brought alpha males to the Republican Party in large numbers would have been the Cold War.

But the original White Knighter element is still in the GOP and still needs to be marginalized.

That’s why the Chateau is confusing when it condemns both large and small L libertarianism when there is presumably only neoconservatism (Rupert Murdoch’s POV) and the above evangelical remnant (that was directly responsible for giving women the right to vote) as an alternative at the present moment in politics.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 7:35 am MV

Yes and don’t forget that woman elected Adolph Hitler.

Women’s suffrage in Germany happened in 1919 and they voted disproportionally for Hitler in the crucial July 1932 that swept his National Socialist Workers Party [the Nazis] into power.

http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm

“A further difference resides in the gender of support. The NSDAP [Nazi Party], at least in the Depression of the early 1930s, was much more [emphasis added] attractive to female voters than the German Left in general, and the KPD in particular. ”
…
“Indeed, in some of these by July 1932 the NSDAP was winning a higher percentage of the female to male vote. In that month some 6.5 million women voted Nazi [of 11.3 million votes total]”

Indeed, here are some historical clipping showing how Hitler’s “compassion” resonated with female voters:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,847349,00.html
Noble indeed is the owner of Neunkirchen’s vast ironworks, Countess Sierstorpü. Said she on a visit to London fortnight ago: “The women of the Saar adore Hitler; he is so sweet, so gentle, so kind! All true German women adore him. I once took 60 women to meet him and they wept unashamedly in their emotion. Three things make the Realmleader adorable to the German woman. First, his sublime kindness. Second, his intense patriotism. Third, his standard of truthfulness and sincerity. Ach, you should see his eyes! You should look into them. Truth and sincerity shine in those eyes!”

Asked if Realmleader Hitler is more attractive to German women today than Kaiser Wilhelm was at the zenith of his youth and power. Countess Sierstorpü observed reflectively: ‘Tf the answer is yes, and possibly it is, the reason may be that Hitler is one of the people. How the German woman loves him ! ”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,749071,00.html
“I Exalt Women!” Fifty thousand German women and girls marshaled by hard-bosomed Gertrude Scholtzklink, No. 1 female Nazi, hailed Herr Hitler with bursts of wild, ecstatic cheering which kept up for the whole 45 minutes that he addressed them in his happiest mood.
…
Many of the 50,000 women wept as they cheered, and Herr Hitler himself seemed on the point of tears as he concluded: “When my day comes I will die happy that I can say my life has not been in vain. It was beautiful because it was based on struggle.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,740453,00.html
“Hitler Kommt!” cried 2,000 excited Saxons massed inside and outside the supreme courthouse. Many were women—for thrifty German housewives particularly dislike paying reparations, have swallowed eagerly the brash Fascist promises to repudiate the Young Plan. As Herr Hitler’s motorcar swirled up the women pelted him with flowers. As this medium sized man with a small blond mustache but hard, blue, twinkling eyes stepped out, soprano voices cried “Ach, der schöne Adolf!” (Ah, handsome Adolf!).

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 7:45 am Cagefighter

“I would like to here arguments that will convince WOMEN that they should give up that right.

Takers?”

Convince? As if they are our equals? Bahaha! That’s a very modern based value stand point. I am one at war with modern values of equality, feminism, tolerance and the rest of that garbage.

Simply put. Woman and men are not equal, thus they should not be given equal rights (politically speaking here, which is about power) nor should they be treated the same. From that premise, everything starts to make more sense.
To realize this men need a revolution in the mind first and foremost. Afterwards it’ll be a cake walk in dealing with the marching whores of feminism.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 7:47 am Lara

I like Anna’s idea that only landowners vote. That worked fine in the past.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 8:03 am Ovid

Jerry,

I’ve always suspected something similar myself. Now I have a respected source to persue on this topic. Thanks for the link.

[ Roissy, I’ll look for that citation you asked for on the previous thread this weekend]

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 8:26 am Anonymous

Male landowners

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 8:27 am Jerry

Another money quote from Rothbard:

Utah had adopted women’s suffrage as a conscious policy by the pietistic Mormons to weight political control in favor of their polygamous members, who contrasted to the Gentiles, largely miners and settlers who were either single men or who had left their wives back East.

Wyoming had adopted women’s suffrage in an effort to increase the political power of its settled householders, in contrast to the transient, mobile, and often lawless single men who peopled that frontier region.

“How the Wild West Was Won” indeed (these were the first states, with Colorado, to give women the vote).

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:01 am Orthodox

Ann Coulter is against women’s suffrage. Her argument is pretty solid when you boil it down and could conceivably convince women (assuming a functioning society). The reality of vote counts is that married women tend to vote the same way as their husbands, at least far more than do single women. Thus, most women are voting against their long-term interests when they are young and single.

If women can’t vote, the country would shift far to the right, the two parties would be a very conservative Republican party and a Democrat party that kept most social policies (pro-gay marriage, abortion, etc.) but ditched economic welfare policies to pull in the libertarian vote, which is significant if only men are voting. Welfare policy would fall into the Republican party which would promote something akin to the “Daddy State”, while the liberal/libertarians continued to push for social change.

Women will lose their right to vote because everyone will probably lose their right to vote in the coming collapocalypse.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:10 am tp

Jesus this blog has tanked. Bring back vintage roissy.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:12 am Jerry

With Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard as both the quintessential and original anti-feminists (anti-suffragists) AND the founding fathers of libertarianism, I can only interpret the Chateau’s post as a valid critique of what the large L Libertarian Party had become by 2006 before the anti-feminist Ron Paul demolished the structure that gays and feminists had created after they’d taken over in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Here is the only video you’ll see of a member of Congress (Paul) condemning VAWA:

Ron Paul then made the mistake of having two gay campaign managers in 2008 as he ran as a Republican. These gays, who knew nothing of the male mind, completely blew it by going after the female vote just like the other parties’ candidates (Ron also blew it by protesting the Iraq War too much when the Surge was about to work).

Bob Barr then buried the LP by pandering to females and the evangelists which kept a great mass of potential male voters from jumping over from the Democrats (he siphoned off single males from John McCain and gave NC and IN to Obama).

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:20 am A. Nonny.mous

Tmason, being Tmason:
Best to bend a woman from her liberal/libertarian ways and work from there using the tools you have.

Yes, because women are so prone to logic when it comes to giving up the gravy train.

Don’t you have an Obama rally to work at today, kiddo?

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:30 am John Norman Howard

Well, DUH!

The Nanny State is what you get when you let mommies vote.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:38 am Tmason

Yes, because women are so prone to logic when it comes to giving up the gravy train.

Don’t you have an Obama rally to work at today, kiddo?

Once again, dreaming.

Whatever changes you make to voting the Women have to vote on. And guess what? Between them and 50% of men who would support them you would lose. DUH!

You have NO way of getting this done.

Everyone here is just talking. No plan…

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:48 am Tom

Net moochers certainly should not be allowed to vote. We have reached the tipping point of the moochers voting themselves the goodies.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 9:49 am Parent to Be

If you want to present still more evidence that female suffrage increased the size of the state, I suppose that’s fine.

But why post it as if there’s some sort of controversy? As far as I know, libertarians will happily grant this. Hell, as far as I know, everyone, of all political stripes, will grant this. Women simply want more social programs and liberal government than men. Tyler Cowen won’t deny this, but neither will Paul Krugman.

Are you trying to argue that because female suffrage leads to larger government that libertarians should now move against it? That’s simply idiotic. Women constitute a majority of absolute voters and a big majority of men doubtless support their vote. It would be far easier for libertarians to shrink the size of government by convincing women that some programs are wasteful (unlikely, but possible) than it would be to convince women to disenfranchise themselves (absolutely impossible and thus a waste of time).

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:01 am Sgt. Joe Friday

Progressives are who we have to “thank” for almost everything that is wrong with our country, and that goes back to the turn of the last century.

Women’s suffrage. Prohibition. The income tax. The welfare state. Need I say more?

And no, libertarianism won’t work. I once considered myself one, but then I realized that in order for that to work, you need to have (a) a relatively homogenous population, (b) a common culture, more or less, (c) high levels of societal trust, and (d) a population of above average intelligence, (e) that also has an above average work ethic. We haven’t had that since the days of Grover Cleveland, maybe even before that.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:09 am Blessent mon coeur

Never. It would mean the Ayn Rands among them couldn’t vote. Of course, from what I’ve read of her stuff, she might have been ok with that.

rg,

Bastiat was dead long before the word ‘libertarian’ came into use. When’s the last time you’ve heard a living libertarian grapple with it? Also, get a new handle, would you? I run a search for ‘rg’ and get like 40 hits. How am I supposed to carry on a conversation with all that?

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:18 am Rumour

One of the references for this study is by conservative Chuck Colson in a (1997) article entitled, “Why Women Love Big Government.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1996/november11/6td112.html?start=1#reviews

He basically says the same thing; women vote for social programs as an insurance policy.

Of course Colson lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of men.

“The gender gap illustrates what has become a familiar pattern: a political issue that turns out to be at root a moral issue. The sexual revolution promised liberation from traditional morality, but the only folks liberated were men: They were freed from family responsibilities, while women were driven into dependency on Uncle Sam. We could even say the gender gap is a measure of the degree to which women have lost confidence that husbands and fathers will stick around.”

This blatantly ignores the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women who have the incentive of keeping the kids and the support that comes with them.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:23 am Passingby

“I would like to here arguments that will convince WOMEN that they should give up that right.”

An invader’s cutlass can make many a convincing argument.

In fact, such persuasion methods usually convince women to not only yeild rights, but bear children for the invaders.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:28 am Passingby

“Libertarian philosophy is compromised by a number of flaws …

A partial list of errors:

-The majority of people can understand the benefits of limited government and free trade (most people are stupid and/or ignorant)
-That their is no underlying biological wiring between the sexes or races that will cause them to favor tyranny over freedom
-That people will handicap themselves by principles of “justice” instead of amorally grabbing what they can in life (most people will rationalize any advantage they can attain for themselves)
-That Human nature is fundamentally “good”
-That Humans are a “blank slate” and are basically interchangable
-Based on the preceeding two premises- that the threat of force and fear of resiproisty is not necessary to keep the untermensch in line (it is).
-That other groups of people (governments) will play by the same nice rules that they want our government to play by ”

I am sorry, but pretty much all of these are the opposite of what liberatarians would state as a shibboleth. Libertarians pretty much believe people are nasty, brutish and irredeemably selfish. The only way to assure liberty, therefore, is to deny government the means and power to overly control people, because any person–man or woman–in charge of government will simply enact the nasty, brutish and selfish policies best serving that person’s interest, at the expense of the rest.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:48 am Begby

After years of research, there are many groups I think should be denied a vote, for their own long-term good. You don’t put a blind retard behind the wheel of the great big school bus. Yet, in polite society, it is absolute heresy to hint at anything less than universal suffrage. Most people forget that some felons can’t vote, so maybe that is a chip in the facade of universal rights that can be exploited in philosophical discussions.

The thing you have to tackle first is blank slatism. It is staggering to me how high a percentage of reasonably smart people fully believe that every person is 100% equal at birth. Of course with this belief comes the twin conviction that any flaw or weakness in women or minorities comes from the white man’s legacy of oppression.

To suggest that women lack the same skills of logic, the same sense of justice, or the same political intelligence, would get you nothing but slack jaws and raised eyebrows with your typical SWPL crowd. Same reaction when hinting at HBD.

These men are almost all hypocrites though. They will slyly wink and nod and halfway agree with you that women are silly and frivolous, and not as logical (but only when you are alone with them). When it comes to it, they are cowardly pussies who would rather smile along with the lies of the herd in order to avoid being chastised. The average AFC’s biggest fear is that women will not have sex with him, and the women use this to force conformity to their twisted views.

The gutlessness of the typical modern white american male is to blame for all of this shit when you really get down to it. We will never change the minds of women or anti-white NAMs but we might be able to shame these white knight bitches into reality eventually.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:51 am Passingby

“Btw. For the tea party idiots out there, the constitution is a negative rights document. It doesn’t grant rights so much as it takes them away from the govt. ”

Nah, you have it wrong, at least from the point of view of Constitutional first principles. The idea at the time of the Constitution was each person (well, not blacks and women, but you know, all the right-born types anyway…) had inalienable rights, given to them by virtue of birth. The Constitution was the act of granting to the government the power to do certain things on behalf of the people, who nonetheless retained at all times their full rights.

The Bill of Rights was a document drafted to make it clear, to those who didn’t get it the first time when the Constitution was drafted, that there were a number of things that the government could *not* do. In sum, just because the people had authorized government to take some actions on behalf of the people, the government still could not, say, lock you up for speaking your mind.

All of this worked relatively well compared to European monarchies and religious states, back in the 1800s, before the government became the grotesquely huge, black hole monstrosity that cannot be escaped in any way at any time. After all, Americans could always simply head North or West if they got sick of taking government’s shit in the East. That ability to simply “opt out” helped relieve the pressure on the people coming from our ever-growing government.

But now, with no more frontier escape valve, and people literally not able to shit without substantial government involvement, every value-adding activity is subject to monitoring and government taxing. Every aspect of life needs a permit or government okay.

In short, in some ways we live in a constrained life much like any 1800s era European. We fail to notice it much, though, because on a relative basis, we are so damn rich, who cares if government is up in our shit all the time. Get me some X-box and cheetos, dooood!

But we are now progressing towards the Troubles. The point at which there are too many dooooods playing X-Box, too many drunk fat slags on welfare, too many gangsters in prison, and too many old fuckers expecting me to send them their monthly “retirement” (second childhood, funded by non-family) check. Why the hell should I spend one-third of my working life, or more, to support all those people? That is *precisely* the sort of shit we left behind in feudal Europe all those centuries ago. Moreover, with all the PC nonsense, I am supposed to pretend this is a just world, where I work hard, they do nothing, and they live as well as I—perhaps better.

The libertarian answer to this coming Troubles is simple: no government force used to make people transaction. That means you don’t get to use government’s coercive power to take from me or make me do what I otherwise would not do by choice. Much like I don’t get to *make* a woman fuck me, I don’t get to take her paycheck.

But the women, they really, really like being able to take a man’s paycheck. And that is why they don’t like libertarian-oriented political systems. They actually like socialist ones, since they expect they will pull the paychecks, fuck whomever they like, and this will continue on for their whole lives.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:52 am Anton

Damn, Begby, you said it first…and better than I would have.

But it’s true: The problem is not that women vote–it’s the number of men that vote like women.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:02 am chi-town

The suffering will continue

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:02 am Begby

If we could establish a reasonable, widely accepted definition of “net producer”, and restrict the vote to only them, it would vastly improve our system without discriminating by gender or race. No representation without taxation.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:04 am Science

anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism… not democracy. democracy doesn’t jive with real libertarianism. haven’t you read “the myth of the rational voter”?

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:16 am Passingby

“anarcho-capitalism is the logical conclusion of libertarianism”

And God will win the war at Armaggedon and Buddha was the shizzle about that whole Enlightenment thing. /eyeroll

Saying portentous, unprovable things with certainty is always a risk. Japing often ensues, and properly so.

More to your view restated above, nothing in libertarian contemporary thought suggests that there should be no rules. Quite the opposite. Libertarians want plenty of rules. it is just that they want rules that do not permit me to make you do what you do not want. The exception being when you won’t leave others alone. Then society imprisons you, so we do not have to bear your propensity to take what is not yours.

At present, we let people take what is not theirs, and we call it “fair”, because government does it. The trend is to take more, and call the whole matter still very unfair to those getting other people’s stuff from the government.

The whole thing seems mad to me, but then, people are greedy, selfish bastards who, when it suits their wants, can rationalize sending children to Dachau in cattle cars, so what is a little thing like taking a neighbor’s bread via taxation while enjoying leisure rather than working?

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:16 am YK

I’m a libertarian.

Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:18 am YK

YR, libertarians are not progressives. Not even close.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:21 am YK

NYC Bachelor, you’re even more ignorant than YR. You know as much about libertarianism as most women know about their own motivations.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:28 am Sig

Roissy,

Before you make another attack on libertarianism, please read ‘For a New Liberty’ by Murray Rothbard- it’s available for free at http://www.mises.org.

You really do belong with us.

-Sig

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:31 am Passingby

To be fair to progressives, your sewer system and flouridated water traces to their influence. Many of the last century’s societal health initiatives trace to progressive actions. The ability of those polcies to demonstrably, undeniably benefit us at relatively little cost is there for any sane person to see; only morons and fanatics would deny them

Stepping back from even the most obvious successes of progressive activities, I would argue that our modern civil service, for all its obvious flaws (cf. pension obligations, DMV fat chick with dragon claws and no work ethic) is still better than the political spoils system that existed prior to progressive reforms.

The trouble comes because progressive think that single motherhood, poverty, drug addiction, etc. are all just like getting rid of typhus. Simply enact a few laws, allocate some money, and you can build a sewer system that, once installed and maintained, will deal with typhus. Or treat polio with a vaccine, etc.

But enacting a law and sending money to combat single motherhood or poverty, and you are grabbing at water. You fight now a bacterium, which can die, but the degeneracy of a person, whose degeneracy will only grow and worsen the more you assist it.

You don’t get a good mother by sending checks to a single mother, you only get exactly the same person you had before, except with a little more money. If she was a good mother before, she will still be one. If she was a piece of shit, another $30,000 in assistance from the government doesn’t change that one damn bit, it only makes her shitty behavior more easily pursued by her.

The progressive’s response , of course, is to deny the agency of the shitty people, and claim that, like bacteria, those people are simply responding to environment, not exercising freedom. Freedom, in their mind, is a mirage. We simply put the right mix of nutrients and chlorines into society’s pool, via public policies, and a fetid swamp becomes a beautiful fountain of life-maximizing bliss.

Later, when the latest iteration of Pol Pot has created his mountain of skulls using the power of government, progressives blame the horror on the particular evil of the person in charge, not the fact that government simply became too powerful, and simply did what governments have always done: give power over all to some.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:34 am Passingby

Oops: “You fight now *NOT* a bacterium, which …”

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:36 am Passingby

Okay, enough sophomore year bull session, can we talk about women?

I need a palate cleanser; someone discuss their latest interaction with the Hamster.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:47 am Trimegistus

There’s a depressing element of fantasy in a lot of these comments: “all we have to do is get rid of the major political parties and corporations!” And you call Libertarians unrealistic?

If you really believe that a strong male role makes for a more stable and prosperous society, then work to reality-test it. Strengthen male roles and society will improve. People will notice and change their opinions.

But if you retreat into the fantasy that all we need to do is kill off the Bad People who are keeping us down . . . we’ve heard that before and it didn’t end well.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:47 am Dat_Truth_Hurts

If you don’t want to talk about the thread topic, then don’t fucking read or post in it.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:51 am Firepower

When Will Libertarians Grapple With The Fact That Women’s Suffrage Increased The Size And Scope Of Government?

Women vote.
They vote, despite being ill-informed, manipulated, or plain stupid.

Therefore, any special interest group capable of being herded into a voting booth must not be dissuaded by focusing on political differences, such as, women increasing government’s size.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:53 am Peter A

What’s new? Libertarians ignore a lot of empirical evidence. They don’t believe in HBD either. They also believe that “government” is the problem, when the true problem is “diversity.” Governments work perfectly well in small homogenous societies with high levels of civic trust – Switzerland, Sweden, pre-war Great Britain, South Korea, Northern New England. The real key to the success of any economic/political system is accountability.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:02 pm A. Nonny.mous

Tmason the fascist:

Whatever changes you make to voting the Women have to vote on.
Ask the Taliban about that one.

And guess what? Between them and 50% of men who would support them you would lose.
They’re not men. They are vaginas with small penises attached. Like you.

Everyone here is just talking. No plan…
I love fascists and their magical centralized planning that will destroy the laws of nature and fix all the world’s probelms.

Now tell us again how Obama is an alpha.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:13 pm The LP 999

The female vote is a disastrous lie along with feminism. The two combined with the abortion aspect to form the unholy trinity of national failure and national suicide. (Yes, I say this as a female).

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm Wolfie

Wow. This comment pile has some of the dumbest, most inaccurate descriptions of libertarianism I have ever heard of. And being surrounded by government-loving idiots as I am all the time, I hear some really idiotic ones. Pathetic, boys. Just pathetic.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:28 pm Rusty Shackleford

Wolfie loses the thread.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm imarriedagayman

Are we just trying to get someone to admit they’re wrong? Vent and complain? Those things are temporarily satisfying, but starting where we are and moving forward is usually the most effective tool for progress and more lasting satisfaction. It’s possible that woman’s suffrage brought about benefits that we can’t see when our sight is clouded by our anger about all the problems that it also created. Sometimes things get messy in the process of organization. This may be one of those situations, and maybe not. But we can choose to take a step back and see the mess for the temporary situation it likely is. What’s interesting is that it’s more likely to be temporary if we treat it as such.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:39 pm Science

@Passingby

anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with “no rules”. this is a common misconception by people who don’t understand it. the system we have now is a government monopoly. anarcho-capitalism allows for start-ups in the government sector.
an example is; in the supermarket, you don’t vote for anything, they stock the shelves and treat you right because, if they don’t, you can go to another competing store. in our system, you can’t go to another police protection service, or another judicial system. in an anarcho-capitalist system, you could choose your service providers.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:40 pm Science

more simply, our system is one monopolistic government. an anarcho-capitalist system would have many competing “governments”.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm Difference Maker

And people who single out institutions like the corporations, or big government as their enemy are ignorant

Wrong. It’s code.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm Burton

It could be pointed out that the real power does not reside in voting but rather in the networking relationships. And that the dilemma for men today is that men do not organize in their own interests. But then again, this provides a solution. Stop obsessing about which gang of criminals get elected to Congress. Instead: organize, organize, organize!

You can create more power with an advocacy group with a good media arm than by all the voting you do in your life. Even small men’s rights groups, such as the NCFM:

http://ncfm.org/

Democracy is stillborn, anyway. The courts, the bureaucracy, the universities, the corporations, all circumvent the “will of the people” anyway. Look at how Arizona’s recent immigration law was brought down. It’s time to stop thinking that voting will change anything (as the anarchist slogan goes, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal). It’s time to start by playing by the realities of power.

One wonders if, as some seem to think, civilization is on the verge of collapse, the answer is perhaps in forming the modern analog of warrior bands, men organizing around strong leaders and prepared to fight for their own interests as opposed to sloganeering about abstract principles. In such a world, what females voted for would become largely irrelevant, and the male politicians in far away capitals would have no ability to enforce their diktats when the warlord bands control Britannia and Gallia and California.

Heck, it worked after the Fall of Rome, why not now!

Women’s liberation would have been fine. Speaking as a semi-Libertarian, I have to say: It would have been fine if women thought the same way as men.

And therein lies much of the dilemma.

The powerful don’t want a large pool of masculine men who are taught to think for themselves.

Which is one reason that politicians promote feminist legislation. It’s one more means by which they can hobble lower ranking men who might compete with them, as well as expand the power of the state. Thus, we have travesties such as VAWA and IMBRA and the rest of the feminazi footstamping legislation. Regardless of their stated intent, such laws give the government ever more reach over everyone’s lives. They also put more lower ranking men in prison, and remove more lower ranking men from the pool of reproducers.

Underneath all the high-falutin’ slogans about “equality,” we see a primal struggle taking place. The odd thing is that your average guy does not understand how the system is being rigged against him. It’s amazing how many men I know who buy into the system, fantasizing that when we have that fabled land of eqwality the co-ed shower room will be open to the Beta-male wannabes.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:51 pm foxywife

I don’t know if any other women have said this yet, but I would GLADLY give up my vote if that meant all other women had to as well. Gladly.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm Milton

You are correct, and I think many Libertarians understand this. Peter Theil took a lot of shit in the media for correctly stating that giving women the right to vote increased the size and scope of government.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:07 pm Passingby

Science, this outlines what you are talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

The trouble is, of course, most libertarians acknowledge the concept of “public goods” and the validity of arguments in favor of providing them. That is why libertarians do not reject government out of hand in favor of the quasi-state-of-nature you posit as the end point.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm So why did you buy it, Erica Jong? (PS: you were never much of a blonde…) | Five Feet of Fury

[…] RELATED: When Will Libertarians Grapple With The Fact That Women’s Suffrage Increased The Size And Scope Of Government? […]

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm Dorset Naga

Even worse than women’s suffrage is suffrage for seniors. All the old fucks are our big problem. End voting for people over 65. The founding fathers didn’t count on the senility vote. AARP is the reason the country is going bankrupt.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm Science

@Passingby

once again, no one is rejecting government at all. anarcho-capitalism is not anti-government or zero-government. It’s many-governments. I don’t think you’re getting a complete understanding of what an-caps are all about from reading just the wiki.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm Firepower

lmfao

Fools – bashing Libertarians, while the party is still in its infancy.

Great. Go back to Barack.
cuz THAT IS what you’ll get

I’m learning that the splintering of a society into parliamentary MICRO PARTIES is what happens after people submit to stupefaction.

Moronization Nation.

[Editor: It could be that people wrangle most over that which they have retained some feeble control over.]

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm Anonymous

@beta_plus

Here is the problem with libertarianism. Libertarians have a vision of a.) their preferred political order and b.) the kind of society they would like to live in. The problem is that “a” will never, ever, under any circumstances result in “b”. Which is why libertarianism is something of a political pushmepullyou.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:46 pm Tmason

@A. Nonny.mous

I love fascists and their magical centralized planning that will destroy the laws of nature and fix all the world’s probelms.

Riighhht, because you are most assuredly not talking out of your ass right now.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:48 pm xsplat

Dorset

AARP is the reason the country is going bankrupt.

The human mind is not setup to hold many variables at once. Some say no one can do it, some say the skill is extremely rare, and only a few people, such as Warren Buffet can do so.

We often see on this board people reducing a multi-variable cause into a single variable cause. Many people have a strong emotional preference for simple explanations. Many find multi-variable explanations over complex, where what is happening is actually over-simplification.

Always consider sets – overlapping circles of causes. In your mind search for the confluences of overlaps of many causes. If you pull out one cause, does the effect and many other causes also disappear? For how many causes is this true?

Clear thinking and lazy thinking don’t mix. Thinking that can be explained is not a short-hand “feeling”.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 1:58 pm Dorset Naga

Xplat, let me make my explanation more sophisticated:

AARP is the main reason the country is going bankrupt.

2nd after that would be the military industrial complex.

3rd might be women’s suffrage.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm Charles Sanders Pierce

Libertarians are huge nerds who wouldn’t last one day without a huge, powerful government protecting their candy asses.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:07 pm Ryan S.

As usual, you use a strawman when talking about Libertarians.

“The right to vote”, i.e. the right to exercise force over your fellow citizens, is not a Libertarian concept. Now, it’s not something they go out of their way to oppose in current society, but good luck trying to find a positive mention of “the right to vote” on a Libertarian website.

Now, on the other hand, name a modern conservative who opposes women’s suffrage. I bet you can’t find one. Double standard?

Try visiting Lewrockwell.com sometime. You’ll probably find you agree with us a lot more than you think.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:14 pm Science

@Ryan S.
well said

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm Passingby

Science, that was provided as an outline to those who care.

In the past, I read plenty about politcs and society to know that IMHO, people generally should have little interest in a “complete understanding” of extreme-fringe political viewpoints, like those held by less than 1% of the population.

Anarcho-capitalism is little different in terms of contemporary relevance from DworkingFeminism, Maoism or the United States’ prior history of spotty utopian communalism. Fine enough grist for the mill if a political philosphy PhD thesis need be written, but largely irrelevant outside academia in discussing the day’s events or the future. Such viewpoints take things to a point where people cannot recognize or imagine such a regime as a practical alternative to their contemporary lives. Thus, they are dismissed out of hand. Give it a hundred years, and then maybe, but now? /shrug So we leave the study of recondite utopianist schemes to eggheads who care.

I would also note that your logical fallacy of “Well, if you agree with more widely-accepted viewpoint X, you are really agreeing with this endpoint Y.” (i.e., libertarian = anarcho capitalist) is the logical error leading people to posit President Obama is a communist because he wants to extend health care insurance converage. (A policy I oppose; spare me the flames.) That is generally not a well-stated syllogism, despite the frequency of use. Ardence does not change that.

Finally, market-oriented libertarianism, in contrast to anarcho-capitalism, is more relevant to us because its views have, I think, demonstrably influenced the political debate over the last 30 years, and even won the day outright in some few cases. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your sense of where society ought to be going, given the alternatives. I am agnostic on that.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm Milton

Charles Sanders Pierce, you can have problems of too little government, but we are a long way from that now. Libertarians aren’t calling for anarchy, they are calling for limited government.

This country was much better before women got the right to vote and imposed collectivism on us.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:21 pm Antonio

A few choice quotes from those “human nature denying liberturdians”:

Rothbard:
“I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these people.”

Block:
“suppose unlimited immigration is made the order of the day
while minimum wages, unions, welfare and a law code soft on criminals are still in place in the host country. Then, it might well be maintained, the host country would be subjected to increased crime, welfarism, and unemployment. An open-door policy would imply not economic freedom, but forced integration with all the dregs of the world with enough money to reach our shores.”

Block again:
Hoppe is correct that open borders compounded with
large sectors of socialized society constitute a de facto “forced integration” upon all the native taxpayers and inhabitants who would not normally invite in the immigrants. Forced integration is a violation of private property rights and free association, and must be rejected on libertarian grounds.”

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:35 pm taxes and fees extra

Your conclusion is ahistorical. It is not the case that big government is primarily due to women and their votes. Big government is most accurately attributable to a certain type of white male, best exemplified by William O. Douglas, first Chairman of the SEC in the 1930’s and later, of course, inventor of the “penumbral” right to privacy that led to Roe v. Wade. These white males were primarily concerned with improving the lot of blacks, and it is that objective which most directly led to the vastly expanded scope of government after the mid-1950’s. Obviously, women saw the possibilities for that this sea change could present, but that’s very different from causative agency.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm A French guy living in CA

You ain’t seen nothing yet, folks! Beginning January 1st, 2011 every single day more than 10,000 Baby Boomers will reach the age of 65. That is going to keep happening every single day for the next 19 years. Hello, Big, Big Government!

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm J.H

This all begs the question of how you are defining “libertarian”. The problem with that term is that there are so many different types of ideologies claiming that label. So much so that the label has become meaningless. There are anarcho-socialists and anarcho-Leftists like Noam Chomskey that have used the term “libertarian”. Bill Maher has used the term “libertarian”.

But most importantly you have the big split between the anarcho-capitalists and the minarchists among principled libertarians. IMO, the Rothbardians (anarcho-capitalists) have killed whatever influence Classical Liberalism/Market Liberalism/Minarchism could have had on the culture. Speaking as a gung-ho minarchist, Anarchist is pure bullshit. Its based on garbage assumptions. But Minarchism is not based on foolish assumptions as some here have argued.

The HBD view has no bearing on a minarchist politics, largely because there is no need for it in political considerations. Under minarchism there is no welfare state, no central banks, no preventative law agencies, no “anti-discrimination” laws, no affirmative action crap, no public education, etc.. The government is only an agent of retaliatory force. NONE of the bullshit that goes on today would happen.

Regarding voting, the truth is that under minarchism there is very little to vote for except the competence of the political leaders. There is no wealth confiscation to vote for. So woman’s suffrage wouldn’t mean much under such a system. The problem is getting from here to there.

I have no doubt that a minarchist society is mankind’s future if mankind is to have a future. The question remains how many centuries and destroyed civilizations must mankind go through before it realizes that fact.

Final point: Roissey strikes me as a garden variety Paleo Conservative; just one who happens to understand the PUA arts – so at least he tells us. For all we know the guy could be an omega writing from his mother’s basement – a total keyboard jockey. That actually would be my guess anyway as his presentation of Game is still behind Mystery’s from 10 years ago.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm namae nanka

“Governments work perfectly well in small homogenous societies with high levels of civic trust – Switzerland, Sweden, pre-war Great Britain, South Korea, Northern New England.”

Sweden?
and what about female suffrage in these?

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 5:46 pm Epoetker

“Sweden? and what about female suffrage in these?”

A small, self-contained, monoracial society can accept all sorts of silly liberal ideas without falling to them completely. Or at least if they do fall, they fall VERY SLOWLY.

Consider Steve Sailer’s article on why the white working class in the USA is far more moral than the white working class in, say, England.

“Speed” is the most relevant section.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm The Real Vince

The Northern European countries are among the most successful in the history of the world, and a craw in the side of libertarians who have been spewing inevitable doom & gloom, “road to serfdom” for the past sixty years. I suppose the paleo-conservatives have a more compelling argument: of course Scandinavia’s relatively decent — it’s inhabited by Scandinavians, among the whitest people on earth (for now). It’ll be interesting to see the differences between Sweden (open to immigration) versus Denmark (closed to immigration) in several generations.

Unfortunately, most people really are clannish when it comes to race. The exceptions are highly educated, non-religious, cosmopolitan liberals and libertarians, most of whom are white. Xenophobia and a penchant for a belief in the supernatural are hard-wired into our brains because it makes groups more effective competitors.

As for libertarianism or so-called capitalist-libertarianism, it really does logically slide into anarcho-capitalism, for reasons enunciated by Murray Rothbard in ETHICS FOR A NEW LIBERTY. A minarchist state still entails positive obligations to protect individuals’ negative liberty — a serious self-contradiction. The strongest argument against this came from social democrat turned libertarian Robert Nozick who said that a minarchist state is a kind of natural monopoly. Rothbard and others have convincingly called this “the immaculate conception of the state” and said that even this state violated basic tenets of (libertarian) liberty. Nozick eventually backed off his “hard-core” libertarian views and favored modest taxes and redistribution.

So while anarchism is logically consistent, and gets the better of the academic argument against so-called “minarchists,” it’s radically inconsistent with human nature and nature of reality. They trade sanity for self-consistency. They can score points in pointless arguments because they’re never threatened with the responsibility of instituting so-called reforms. (Rothbard argues that parents own their children, and can see no reason for prohibiting the buying and selling of babies.)

I’m glad commenters on this blog are around to remind how alpha it is bitch and complain. Jesus, you don’t want to be around immigrants, then live in a nice vertically gated community on the upper east-side. Or a sprawling estate in the ~90210.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 7:14 pm Brett_McS

From the article we see that women become more conservative when they have children. Didn’t say anything about bare feet …

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 8:49 pm Anonymous

Congress considers elimination of the Diversity Visa.
Let your representatives know you support this!

Bill Text – 112th Congress (2011-2012) – THOMAS (Library of Congress)

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:34 pm Rumplestiltskin

Women want security and men want liberty. It’s that simple and that’s why we’ll never return to a constitution based Republic. Half of us don’t want it, generally speaking. In a kind of bass-ackwards positive – when the economic collapse happens women everywhere will line up behind the nearest man for security and will mind their manners.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm Observa

This is so interesting. Several years ago, a young woman with whom I worked told me point-blank that women should never be allowed to vote. Women were ruled by their emotions, she said. This was in the course of some conversation about the controversy of the day, I think. I don’t remember the specifics.

But I thought that was remarkable. Most young women these days subscribe to the “you go girl!”, “take back the night”, “a woman should be able to…” blah, blah, nonsense.

But she was absolutely honest when she made this statement — she wasn’t being snarky or sarcastic at all when she said it. By the way, she was not a Mennonite or some long-dress, homespun Christian sect member, either. She, at 20 or so, seemed to have a fairly clear-eyed view of herself. She was, if I remember, very feminine, very sweet and was shacked up with a guy 15 years older than she.

Since that conversation with her, I’ve watched women’s responses to events large and small and I’ve come to believe that she was right. Women are buffeted by a hormonal cycle that torques their emotional states from nurturing to lust to anger at the merest slight.

And yes, the hormones affect some women more than others. Some small number of women can reason past the impulse to “be nice to people” while the country’s at war, or whatever ( Margaret Thatcher comes to mind ).

Here’s a test: Can you imagine Teddy Roosevelt’s reaction if you presented him with the rules of engagement our troops are bound by in Iraq ? First laughter, then swearing.. lots of swearing.

These rules of engagement are the direct result of oh-so-sensitive women not wanting to hear about the deaths of any “civilians” in a war fought by people who wear no uniforms and who attack our troops from the cover of crowds or civilian housing.

So, which will it be ? Sensitivity training in the SEALs ? Gay Pride parades on Armed Forces Day ? Or the eventual rollback of women’s suffrage ?

I’m betting that maintaining the status quo results in the collapse of the US.. heck… the Western World. Let’s hope we come to our senses, first.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:40 pm Rumplestiltskin

Charles Sanders Pierce

“Libertarians are huge nerds who wouldn’t last one day without a huge, powerful government protecting their candy asses.”

Most libertarians I know are armed to the teeth bro

[Editor: If Will Wilkinson is armed, I’ll eat chubby pussy. But I respect the sentiment.]

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 10:54 pm Rumplestiltskin

Crisis also feeds the big government monster. With every war we pay more taxes and lose more liberties never to get them back. Rahm “never let a good crisis go to waste” Emanuel is the most recent example. Government elites conjure up crisis all the time, or attempt to – Global Warming? Hell even the impending government shutdown has been described as catastrophic by Geithner but what he really is trying to protect is the fact that if it indeed happened we’d see that there was no crisis and realize that we didn’t need him or any of his other cronies.

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:06 pm Brian

@ Anonymous.

Fantastic News. Maybe we’ll reduce some darkies coming into the country!

LikeLike
on May 13, 2011 at 11:38 pm Reality Check

This bears repeating:

“Libertarians” = LIEberTURDians

LikeLike
on May 14, 2011 at 1:18 am old guy, lower case

Women did not get the vote until voting did not matter anymore. Once you can convince people that two halves of the same party are different parties and scientifically create mass consensus for one of the other outlook nothing but the continuation of the Party of Incumbency is possible.

LikeLike
on May 14, 2011 at 1:36 am old guy, lower case

@Jerry

“Bob Barr then buried the LP by pandering to females and the evangelists which kept a great mass of potential male voters from jumping over from the Democrats (he siphoned off single males from John McCain and gave NC and IN to Obama).”

Bob Barr was just doing his job.

LikeLike
on May 14, 2011 at 1:47 am Freeman

RE: Rothbard

Yeah, idealist libertarians don’t support voting for a compulsory government. But likewise, a lot of libertarians do have faith in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Permitting women to vote was inevitable with feminism as women would gain political power even without the right to vote. It would take a nation of dominant men to hold their political power under peaceful submission.

LikeLike
on May 14, 2011 at 2:14 am The LP 999

Nice to see Rothbard and Lew Rockwell mentioned! There is hope! Now if we could only get this crowd to mises.org and zerohedge.com for a schooling in banking, the fed and higher economic theories.

LikeLike
on May 14, 2011 at 7:27 am Science

LikeLike
on May 14, 2011 at 7:28 am Science

christ, thats an awful video.

LikeLike
on May 14, 2011 at 7:43 am Science

LikeLike
on May 15, 2011 at 2:18 am mj

Women are suckers for fashion and appeals to emotion. The real criminals are the media bosses. No where in the Western world is there democratic media, and that’s the main problem.

LikeLike
on May 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm Thor

As somebody wrote, Libertarians don’t want
anybody to be able to vote.

Although there is a fair amount of variation in what
Libertarians think, my views run like:

1) 90% of the things subject to political control, should
NOT be subject to political control. Thus, the importance
of the vote is commensurately reduced.

2) There should be no representation without
taxation. Net tax eaters should not be able to vote.
(Some devils are in the details, but they can
be worked out.) This will achive much the same result
as limiting the franchise to men, with the added benefit
of washing out MEN who are freeloaders, as well as
women.

Thor

LikeLike
on May 17, 2011 at 11:10 pm meh

Most people who call themselves libertarians aren’t doctrinaire acolytes of Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard. They want minimal government but also want democracy and votes for women.

That’s who the post is directed at: people who accept modern equalitarian ideas who also believe that you can convince voters to vote for a minarchist state because it is in their best interests.

Face it: that’s the real world view of most real world libertarians, not the doctrinaire anarcho-capitalism of the small band of weirdos that you only encounter on the internet. I’ve met plenty of small l libertarians in real life; I’ve never met any anarcho-capitalists in real life.

LikeLike
on May 22, 2011 at 2:15 am The 21 Convention Is A Fraud And A Scam « Omega Virgin Revolt

[…] He has talked very little about it and certainly has not done anything to combat feminism. Like most Libertarians he is blind to the fact that women are responsible for big government. Johnson is against fighting back against women and manginas, two groups responsible for feminism, […]

LikeLike
on May 23, 2011 at 11:51 pm Why Spend Money On BS When You Can Get It For Free? « Omega Virgin Revolt

[…] I wouldn’t bother with bullshit even if it was free. I certainly wouldn’t pay for bullshit. I wouldn’t even take bullshit if you paid me to take it from you, but that’s beside the point. Anthony Mangina Johnson, Mystery, Neil Strauss, etc. are all willing to sell you game bullshit but Roissy will give it to you for free. Why bother with anyone who is trying to sell you game? (It’s the same with the fad diet and fad exercise bullshit that Johnson is selling. You can get all of that on the internet for free.) When you get game bullshit from Roissy you get it without the feminism. Unlike Strauss who is a feminist, or Johnson who tries to dodge the issue by whining about fiat currency and the War on Terror, Roissy is honest enough to admit facts like how women are responsible for the big government and soc…. […]

LikeLike

Comments are closed.

	Publius on Your Daily Ugly Truth: The Pur…
	Publius on Your Daily Ugly Truth: The Pur…
	Sentient on The Diminishing Returns Of Ant…
	Sentient on Slutty Women Are Unhappier Tha…
	Angry Gamer on Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat C…
	Sentient on Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat C…
	Captain John Charity… on ¡SCIENCE!: The NPC Leftoid Hiv…
	oink on The Great Men On Holding Marit…
	oink on The Great Men On Holding Marit…
	Greg Eliot on ¡SCIENCE!: The NPC Leftoid Hiv…

Chateau Heartiste

When Will Libertarians Grapple With The Fact That Women’s Suffrage Increased The Size And Scope Of Government?

141 Responses

Pages

Twitter Updates

Recent Comments

Top Posts

Categories

Game

MAGA MEN

Syllogism and Synthesis

Chateau Heartiste

When Will Libertarians Grapple With The Fact That Women’s Suffrage Increased The Size And Scope Of Government?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

141 Responses

Pages

Twitter Updates

Recent Comments

Top Posts

Categories

Game

MAGA MEN

Syllogism and Synthesis