I’m a little puzzled by the conspicuous outrage ad ad hominems against the alleged “misogyny” of this post.
Peter Thiel, wrote an essay The Education of a Libertarian in Cato Unbound in April 2009 as part of the month’s issue title From Scratch: Libertarian Institutions and Communities. In the essay, he argued that libertarian and free market ideologies had little hope of gaining traction in current nation-states, and the best hope for libertarians was to seek to carve out a new space for themselves, as is being attempted by Patri Friedman and his colleagues with seasteading. A small part of his lengthy essay went as follows:
Indeed, even more pessimistically, the trend has been going the wrong way for a long time. To return to finance, the last economic depression in the United States that did not result in massive government intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom. The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it. 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.
If you’re interested in the extent to which Thiel’s argument about gender differences in voting patterns are correct, check out Brad Taylor’s blog post, a more indirectly relevant blog post by Bryan Caplan, and a decent discussion on Quora. See also a follow-up clarification by Thiel and a post by Jason Kuznicki, one of the editors of Cato Unbound, offering some context.
Here were some of the reactions that this engendered.
Libertarian inadvertently argues for 90% marginal tax rate by Amanda Marcotte (who is apparently famous enough to have her own Wikipedia page):
But focusing on just his hostility towards the vote of women, non-white people, and people who aren’t rich—-while fun—-means that you miss out on the many layers of fail inherent in this column. The piece works as an effective argument for a 90% marginal tax rate. Thiel comes across as a depressive who drowns his misery in alcohol, and what he needs is some good, old-fashioned, sleeve-rolling-up work. There is nothing like having something to do with yourself to keep the blues away, as well as fantasies of punishing them all by robbing most people of the vote and turning the vast majority of the nation into wage slaves and housebound sexbots. If Thiel had useful work, he also wouldn’t have a few drinks and write, as if in all seriousness, about how he is going to take his ball and escape this land of the fleshbound non-libertarians. [...] No need to quote at length—-I think we all know what a combination of watching too many sci-fi movies (plus “Waterworld”) and being completely shielded from reality by your money can do. You become either Kim Jong Il, or you become Peter Thiel. We can’t reach Kim Jong Il, but what we can do to help Thiel is to tax away most of his wealth. While that doesn’t initially seem like it’s helpful to take 90% of what someone makes over X million a year, what it would do is force Thiel to get out there and actually work for his money if he wants to be stinking rich. Right now, he’s obviously not getting out of the house much, and all that sitting around counting his money and not associating with the real world is breaking his mind. He needs something to do, and needs to associate with people. Ideally, he’d be in a situation where he had occasional exposure to people who don’t indulge his crazy fantasies. And with the amount of money shielding him from the world, that’s not going to happen. For his own good, that pile of money he’s sitting on needs a dramatic reduction.
Marcotte’s post received further discussion here.
The right floats off to Neverland. No girls allowed! by Michael Lind on Salon:
Patri’s Seastead Institute has received funding from Paypal founder Peter Thiel, who also funds the Methuselah Foundation, which seeks to end aging and make everyone immortal. In a companion essay on April 13 on Cato Unbound, Thiel endorses Friedman’s rejection of democracy: “I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual [!]. For all these reasons, I still call myself ‘libertarian.’” He goes on to say that “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Why is democracy incompatible with freedom? According to Thiel, one problem with democracy is that women have the right to vote: “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.” What could more beautifully illustrate the pubescent male nerd mentality of the libertarian than Thiel’s combination of misogyny with the denial of aging and death? We had a nice John Galt libertarian paradise in this country, until girls came along and messed it up!
Thiel continues: “In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called ‘social democracy.’” After considering the possible mass migration (if that is not a contradiction in terms) of libertarians to cyberspace and outer space, he opts for Fantasy Island: “The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism. For this reason, all of us must wish Patri Friedman the very best in his extraordinary experiment.”
Here’s an idea. Thiel could use his leverage as a donor to combine the Seasteading Institute with the Methuselah Foundation and create a make-believe island where girls aren’t allowed to vote and where nobody ever has to grow up. Call it Neverland. It would be easy for libertarian refugees from the United States and the occasional neo-Confederate to find it. Second star to the right, and straight on till morning.
Cato Institute Crashed, Burned, and Smoking Watch by Bradford De Long:
The “vast increase in welfare beneficiaries” as a reason to believe that freedom and democracy incompatible I take to be code for “granting the franchise to African-Americans.” And “the extension of the franchise to women… [has] rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron” hardly needs explanation.
By the way, here’s what Thiel says in his clarifying post:
I had hoped my essay on the limits of politics would provoke reactions, and I was not disappointed. But the most intense response has been aimed not at cyberspace, seasteading, or libertarian politics, but at a commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap.
It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.
Voting is not under siege in America, but many other rights are. In America, people are imprisoned for using even very mild drugs, tortured by our own government, and forced to bail out reckless financial companies.
I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian.
