Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubernostrum | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

He didn't suggest they were incompatible, he suggested that they haven't gone hand in hand, which they haven't. You could just as easily imply that he thinks libertarianism has marketed itself poorly to women.

You've stated the contrapositive, which is fine, except that he didn't imply that denying women the right to vote would be a positive strategy regardless of the effects it had on his ideology of choice.

If he could get his Libertopia at the cost of women's suffrage, do you think he'd balk at that? Or do you believe he's not a means-justify-the-ends type?

You're asking me to guess how he would respond to a hypothetical situation, so I will respectfully decline to do so as I am certainly not qualified.

> Which in turn implies that the only way to implement his ideal philosophy of government would be to deny women the right to vote.

And that Thiel would prefer his ideal system to a world where women can vote and prevent his ideal.

You could just as easily infer from his statement that he thinks libertarians need to market themselves better to women than that he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

His ideal form of government is minimal enough that voting is superfluous. That you infer nefarious motive speaks not at all to what was actually implied.

His ideal form of government is minimal enough that voting is superfluous.

What about the vote to set it up in the first place?

Who do you think voted to start the US government?

Well, it was started via the initiation of force. Which is one of only two sins in libertarianism, so if someone is a consistent libertarian they can't advocate for that as the way to get going.

The revolution came about first, but the United States government was enacted by a vote of the second continental congress, formed of delegates from the thirteen colonies.

What I'm getting at is that the rulers of the new government voted to start it. That's pretty much what I'd expect from any government.

The rulers voted to start it. That's convenient. I vote myself ruler! Now do you plan to obey the laws I make?

(and no, "the people were the rulers" doesn't count, given how many of the people weren't considered "the people" at the time)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com