[tomjen3]

Thiel is arguing, congruently with the facts, that females are more likely than males to vote for a larger government and a bigger social safety net and you believe that nobody has the right to take others stuff (through taxes) then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote.

I don't think anyone ought to have the right to vote, except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces) -- the rest is just giving groups the right to do things individuals can't.

[makomk]

Yeah, women have a really annoying habit of realising that the world doesn't quite work the way that libertarians like Thiel think it does. For example, no matter how good they'd be at jobs like CEO, they're still at a disadvantage to men because the people who do the selection are other men who naturally favour people like themselves. The market doesn't penalize them for this either - the people that invest in them and write reports for investors and make loan decisions? Almost all men who think in the same way.

[Tichy]

Do you have actual numbers about female startup founders? My hunch would be they have a huge advantage.

[potatolicious]

> "then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote."

Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please.

Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels.

It's funny that, further up the thread, someone suggested than Libertarian arguments against the seatbelt center around the notion that, once legislated, nothing potentially better than the seatbelt could ever be tried, thanks to the heavy hand of government. It's egregiously incongruent to hear that argument, and hear another that suggests the permanent muzzling of 50% of the population would lead to a better world.

[tomjen3]

When I am against given them the right to vote it is because I don't consider those areas as something that the government should take care of.

Think gay marriages -- should that really be something the government can decide? Or should the individual church be able to decide what they want to do?

[TimPC]

Thiel identifies the issue. There is a big difference between identifying an issue, and suggesting a proposed solution.

I can identify the fact that people die in car crashes, and this in no way makes it understandable that I would prefer cars not exist (for the record I don't).

[praxeologist]

>except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces)

Why? This is a huge subject and text to dump on you, so sorry about this:

http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

[lupatus]

Read the section of the book _Catch-22_ where the Syndicate's pilots bomb their own airport because the Nazis outbid the Allies.

[praxeologist]

Are you talking about playing both sides as described here in ch 24? http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/section5.rhtml

If so, I would have to say it is a misconception you have if you think that is something which libertarian law approves of, to engage in war, just because it is a private subcontractor doing it.

Also, if this part from a wikipedia entry is what you are talking about, pay attention to who it is in power who forgives MM:

>However, as M&M Enterprises proves to be incredibly profitable, he hires an expensive lawyer who is able to convince the court that it was capitalism which made America great, and is absolved only by disclosing to the congressional committee investigating what the enormous profit he made by dealing with the Germans was.

[lupatus]

Thanks for that link! It has been 15 years since I read Catch 22 and I don't happen to own a copy right now.

Yes, that is exactly the section of which I was thinking.

I didn't intend my comment to mean that libertarian law approves of mercenaries or for-hire militaries (honestly, I'm not sure what "libertarian" law's stance on the topic is). I merely meant it as illustrative of the inherent problems associated with mercenaries, privateers, and rogue for-hire military forces to the body politic - that these forces owe their loyalty not necessarily to the nation, but to the highest bidder.

And, M&M Enterprises was not exactly a private subcontractor, as I understand it, but an international cooperative of soldiers who switched loyalty from their respective national forces to the cooperative for their own mutual benefit.