A message for Peter Thiel

Another Rant By: BettyJean Kling

Now that we know that women can reproduce without the male chromosome, albeit, they can only reproduce other females – I say lets! After a few years of teaching and ingrate like this that they would become extinct while we the females would and could continue on forever without the assistance of a single one of them perhaps they would understand it is they that are dispensable! It is jackasses like him that we can do without not the women’s vote!

Facebook Backer Wishes Women Couldn’t Vote
of Form
http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-couldnt-vote

By Owen Thomas, 2:53 PM on Tue Apr 28 2009, 37,058 views


Peter Thiel, foremost among Silicon Valley’s loopy libertarians and the first outside investor in Facebook, has written an essay declaring that the country went to hell as soon as women won the right to vote.
Thiel is the former CEO of PayPal who now runs the $2 billion hedge fund Clarium Capital and a venture-capital firm called the Founders Fund. His best-returning investment to date, though, has been Facebook. His $500,000 investment is now worth north of $100 million even by the most conservative valuations of the social network.
On the side, though, his pet passion is libertarianism and the fantasy that everything would be better in the world if government just quit nagging everybody. But, now he’s given up hope on achieving his vision through political means because, as he writes in Cato Unbound, a website run by the Cato Institute, all those voting females have wrecked things:
The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women – two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians – have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
So there you have it: The problem with women is that they don’t vote like their menfolk tell them. We would have so much more freedom, Thiel suggests, if only we’d deprived women of it.
You may wonder: Is Thiel on drugs? The answer, according to Thiel, is yes:
As a young lawyer and trader in Manhattan in the 1990s, I began to understand why so many become disillusioned after college. The world appears too big a place. Rather than fight the relentless indifference of the universe, many of my saner peers retreated to tending their small gardens. The higher one’s IQ, the more pessimistic one became about free-market politics – capitalism simply is not that popular with the crowd. Among the smartest conservatives, this pessimism often manifested in heroic drinking; the smartest libertarians, by contrast, had fewer hang-ups about positive law and escaped not only to alcohol but beyond it.
“Positive law” is Libertarian-speak for laws which proscribe certain activities, such as taking drugs. Translate Thiel’s language, and you’ll see that he’s saying anyone in his generation who wasn’t taking drugs was an idiot. Which squares with rumors we’d heard about Thiel during his PayPal days, especially while he was fitfully coming out as a gay man. With a life like that, we can understand Thiel’s visceral dislike of the government. But what did women ever do to him?

About these ads

7 Responses

  1. I did my part by having 4 daughters and no sons.

  2. Gosh Betty Jean, that comment about “positive law” reminds me of the comments Obama made about the constitution ‘having essential constraints meaning that it says what it can’t do and does not say what it can do for us meaning what rights it gives us.’ This was from the audiotape interview about his support for reparations.

  3. There is a song in the Broadway musical;”anything goes..the song has a line” the world’s gone mad today…..
    Yes, you are OK..the world’s gone mad.
    Unfortuntely it’s women /NOW who are not allies.
    you are right onabout NOW…and Theil , though gay, says out loud what most men privately think. Please, take care of yourself..physixally ( I could send you some good ideas for supplemnts..exercise0 and emotionally ( affirmations about your self -esteem and the work you are doing, hang-out with like minded women).and where you can take care of your finances.
    Lovingly, in sistergood, ruthie

  4. Jezz, I had never heard of this guy. Thanks for the information and what an effing jack a$$.

    Yeah, take care of yourself, BJ. We don’t want you getting sick or too run down.

  5. Peter should loose his peter !

  6. Like I said – we can do without men like that – why don’t we just start reproducing women and fughgeddaboudit. the world would be such a better place with him and his kind. i wonder how he would feel about my comments? not that I care!

  7. You have completely misunderstood what Thiel said. Increasing suffrage, not simply to women, but to any class of citizens, has resulted in more powerful democratic states, which has generally increased taxes and government programs, which have eroded liberty. See Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy, the God that Failed for a full explanation.

    Thiel, like all libertarians, are starkly in favor of equal rights for all individuals. Governments are by and far the largest violators of individual rights. Rights are a meaningless concept if some rights infringe upon others. For example, the right to liberty doesn’t mean that someone has the liberty to kidnap and imprison another person. Similarly, if the right to vote amounts to the right to steal (tax), then voting shouldn’t be considered a right but a privilege. Thiel would likely argue that everyone should be denied the privilege of voting in that it tramples other rights. He is clearly not arguing for male suffrage but not female suffrage, but simply stating that the result of expanded suffrage has historically amounted to the dissolution of individual rights. His ideal solution would not be denying women the right to vote, but denying power to democratic institutions and rendering the right to vote meaningless.

    The idea that libertarianism boils down to the idea that society would be great if there was no government is completely fallacious. All libertarians recognize that government provides at least some beneficial services – most clearly laws, police, and courts. What they disagree with is that any single institution should be able to monopolize these services, using aggressive violence against anyone who dares to compete in their provision. For example, Lysander Spooner’s postal service was shut down, simply for providing the same service at a much cheaper rate. To this day, operating a private letter service is illegal for no good reason.

    At the same time, libertarians see many aspects of government as immoral, such as raising funds through taxation. So the libertarian position is better explained in saying no one should be able to engage in aggressive coercion, while anyone should be able to provide defensive services, roads, courts, currencies, and any other good/service that is not aggressively coercive by nature.

    Finally, the “you’re with us or against us mentatlity” is juvenile. To say if you’re against X, you must advocate positive law illegalizing it is a logical fallacy. Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, does little to reduce drug use or availability, while imposing enormous costs, such as the erosion of civil rights, the corruption of police, criminal black market provision involving turf wars, large financial costs, the militarization of police, and dead innocents caught in the crossfire or raids on the wrong home.

    Consider this proposition. Are you against stupidity? Naturally, everyone should be. Does this mean jailing below average students would be a sensible policy?! Of course not. You fight stupidity through other methods. Similarly, one can be against drug abuse and addiction without advocating drug prohibition.

    It seems like you are clearly ignorant about what libertarians actually believe. I suggest you take a more open-minded, serious inquiry into what libertarianism actually is before you advance further straw man arguments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,378 other followers

%d bloggers like this: