I mean, I could have told you that. But not because I think that women are what ruined the country, specifically women's right to vote. Peter Thiel a very rich silicon valley libertarian who used to be the CEO of Paypal and is currently one of the main investors at Facebook. He has put forth an essay that suggests that women are in fact who ruined our country. Or at least women's right to speak for themselves and not vote like their husbands tell them to.
In his essay at the Cato Institute blog he writes (excerpted by Valleywag),
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.
I guess he didn't get the memo. Women and gays are supposed to be friends!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women and Libertarians are Strange Bedfellows according to Peter Thiel. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13354
That's how it pretty much is with libertarians, especially rich white male ones. Liberty is mostly for rich white males like themselves.
I think that is an unfair stereotype about libertarians (most political ideologies are dominated by white rich males last time I checked, no reason to single out libertarians). Reinforcing said stereotype is just going to convince people like Thiel that woman are some how biologically set to have some form of ‘collectivist’ political beliefs and marginalize female libertarians.
Um, it sounds like people like Thiel already think that about women.
Not to mention, the dumbest reason I have ever heard to avoid being who you are is to avoid playing into other people's stereotypes of you. I'm not going to stop believing in "some form of ‘collectivist’ political beliefs" just because some douchebag thinks I only believe that because I'm a woman. It's not my job to set them right.
I didn't say "change your political beliefs to prevent from being a stereotype". I would like to know which part of my comment implied that.
I am just pointing out how generalizing statements like "All people of gender J support political belief R" serve to reinforce stereotypes
Then you might want to read Chickensh*tEagle's comment again because she never said that.
I looked over Chickensh*tEagle's comment
I see generalizing statements about not only what libertarians believe (anti-feminism), but who they are (rich and white).
She seems to be speaking specifically of rich, white, male libertarians, not saying that libertarians are all rich, white, and male.
The beliefs are a separate matter, but disagreeing with someone because of an unrelated matter is a derailing technique. If you want to defend libertarianism, why not point out the cases where they are feminist, and prove this bigot to be an outlier rather than an example?
Alright I will bite. I will drop this line of argument and focus on positive examples of libertarianism and feminism. A great example is Roderick Long who is a professor of Philosophy at Auburn, he sees libertarianism in cultural terms that allow him to equate the tyranny of the patriarchy with the tyranny of the state.
http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/libertarian-feminism/
This is an essay he co-authored about the links between the two movements.
I was going to post a link to that article myself. Another of my favorites: http://www.alf.org/alfnews/alf70.html
Actually, I'm a guy, and a cis-guy at that. Perhaps you were thinking of John Ashcroft's female Mighty Eagle? ;-)
What does being cis have to do with anything?
I dunno. Maybe someday some issue might come up to which it's relevant. So you'll have been saved the trouble of asking, if and when. No biggie otherwise.
Libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz has been spouting the theory that women have helped ruin this country for years. He argues that women vote for security and safety, while men vote for freedom. And he has supposedly been considered for the libertarian presidential ticket a couple of times.
So what's this about it not being a representative libertarian idea?
I think Ann Coulter has gone with that idea as well.
There is a difference between libertarianism (the political ideology) and the Libertarian party. Rush Limbaugh may have authority over the Republican party, but that doesn't make his own sometimes batshit crazy ideas representative of conservatism in general.
Is that anything like parsing the definition of the word "is?"
Boortz was a member of the libertarian party for years. He spoke at their conventions as a major party player. All the while, he was spouting off about women voting for security and how that was a danger to the country.
Kind of reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy once over the confederate flag. He was upset that I argued the flag had a historical association with racism. He said that I and people like me were trying to smear the flag and he wanted to protect it. I told him he was about 70 years too late, that his precious ancestors should have spoken up when the Klan first decided to make his precious flag their banner. In other words, libertarians didn't disavow the argument for years, it is a bit late now to get the vapors.
It's not that complicated.
In politics, libertarianism originally referred to anarchism; Dejacque criticized Proudhon's anti-feminism, calling it "liberal and not libertarian," in other words "archist" or "unanarchist." Later, a conference of anarcho-communists drafted the "organizational platform of the libertarian communists," and "libertarian" could sometimes refer to the platformists, as opposed to the rest of the anarchist movement.
It only later came to refer to non-anarchist movements, such as the Libertarian party, which isn't libertarian in the classic sense of the word.
Tragdor, most schools of political thought are dominated by rich white men--but only some ideologies posit that rich white men ought to dominate society at large. Thiel is setting forth a version of libertarianism that posits precisely that, and he's doing so in a major libertarian journal. His version of libertarianism isn't the only formulation. There are non-sexist libertarianisms out there, but let's not pretend that he's purely an outlier.
At least not too many people openly agree with him, right? I'd be more angry or worried if this was the rising consensus.
I think being able to piss on a tree and make it grow money kind of skews your perception of what's up sometimes. With folks like him anyway.
Oh heavens! Oh, the existential angst! What's a feminist libertarian to do when faced with blinding truth like the fact that her existence is self-contradictory?
*snerk*
To be fair, he at least saves us the trouble of having to point out he's a little off his rocker, given that he finishes his article talking about how he'd like to live in an underwater village someday. (Gee, I wonder if he's invested in the companies trying to develop underwater-living technology).
I can't decide whether it's more entertaining to think of him winding up in Sealab or Rapture.
Snark aside, I think he's mischaracterized the problems he's trying to discuss. It's not a "deadly race" between politics and technology. It's a political battle OVER technology. Technology, as long as it is controlled by humans, will NEVER exist as an a-political force, and it's a bit conceited and deluded of him to presume otherwise.
I'm glad someone else thought Rapture... Otherwise I would've felt like a total nerd bringing that up.
P.S: You're a NEEEEEEEERD! :p
Is man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
STOP IT YOU GUYS. I am having a hard enough time waiting for Bioshock 2 already!!
Undune -- back atcha, NERD!
nightingale -- plus: you seriously just made my day; minus: I'm going to hear strange noises in the dark all night now thanks to you ;-P
I laughed so hard at the seasteading. The song La mer happened to be playing when I saw the Rapture comment. Immediate flashback to "A man chooses, a slave obeys!!!"
I say we just put them on an island somewhere! Not our problem anymore.
The irony of someone who makes ungodly amounts of money because of the internet, which owes it's existence to government funding, is not lost on me. I'm not going to generalize all libertarians, but there is definitely a certain type of libertarianism that is composed entirely of relatively young, white, wealthy, pompous males who think they've just got it all figured out.
Err, didn't complete the thought in that first sentence. The irony is that he's allowed to live his wealthy lifestyle and whine about taxation while making millions off of companies that utilize a government-funded infrastructure.
yes! they read "atlas shrugged", like every angsty teenage boy, and then stopped there! well, when one's social analysis ended when you were 17, it's easy to see how we end up with morons like this i positions of power making asinine statements.
can i say something that is a broad observation, not a universal one? libertarians are often douchebags.
He is asking for a punch in the face, then down there in the dick.
(my apologies in advance to any male feminists who might be offended, yes, I know violence isn't okay, but this guy is really asking for it)
really asking for it
Uhhhm... I don't think that phrase is taken very kindly 'round these parts.
Sorry, messed up the HTML. Pretend that the italics end after the quote.
Another self-important misogynist prick from the financial industry convinced of his own genius. Yawn.
Yes women are never libertarians and have done nothing for the libertarian movement. Being a woman means you support all number of government interventions. (As a regular reader of this blog I can testify to that!)
That is why female libertarian pioneers such Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Ayn Rand don't actually exist.
No one said "never." Ayn Rand in particular made enormous contributions, not least of which was to construct an entire elaborate ideology to sanctify their conceits.
And let's not forget the cigarette as "fire tamed at man's fingertips." :-)
I thought the "never" was implied in Thiel's article. Or at least it was asserted that women have had a net negtive impact on the libertarian movement
Oh, how I wish I could live in a world where Ayn Rand didn't exist.
This too is my fondest dream.
The way I see it, libertarianisn is a political ideology born of ignorant privilege. Women's lib is a radical movement built on challenging privilege. The two are incompatible. Holding Rand up as an example of feminism strikes me as hollow.
Libertarianism is a political belief founded upon emphasizing freedom, economically and socially, over control.
Feminism is a political belief founded on emphasizing the freedom of all people to live independently, economically and socially, from gender constraints.
While I am not a big or little 'l' libertarian, I don't see how the two are necessarily incompatible. Rather, I'd say any "Libertarian" that opposes enfranchising women is directly refuting the principles of libertarianism.
Um, thank you!!
They are not incompatible in theory. In practice, however, it's another story.
All the libertarians I've met, read, or heard, seem to discount the existance of "society." Patriarchy, white supremacy, and other oppressive systems don't exist; we are all islands.
Most were born on third base and think they hit a triple.
I don't doubt that you've met some privilege-happy libertarians--I've met some too. But I've also met plenty that are solidly feminist, equally wary of the state and the patriarchy. I would say I know as many underprivileged libertarians as white, male upperclass libertarians.
While I still vehemently disagree with libertarian principles (I like my government trying to solve problems thank you very much), I don't think it is incompatible with feminism in theory OR practice. I think some libertarians hide their patriarchal (very un-individualistic!) bias behind their ideology and in doing so, do a terrible disservice to other libertarians.
I think it's in the definitions of "freedom" and "control" where the two philosophies go their own way. Because I can't think of anything more anti-freedom than not having a community to support me, and that cannot exist without interdependence.
Libertarianism is a feeble and intellectually dishonest attempt to consider the individual outside the context of society. Rand wrote, effectively, in The Virtue of Selfishness, that a person should not accept compensation that is not earned. Well guess what, kids, you don't earn the fact that you are born in a wealthy country with effective laws which allow for reasonable expectations within business transactions. You don't earn the parents to whom you are born. You don't earn their wealth. You don't earn the lessons that they teach you whether by effort or by example. You don't earn those random chance encounters with people who change your life by example or by providing an opportunity. And you most certainly don't earn the fact that other people are born and grow up without those advantages. Therefore, the libertarian attitude that "I earned all of my money, I shouldn't have to share or pay back into the system" sounds a hell of a lot to me like the fat kid complaining that one of the other kids got a full sized piece of the birthday cake.
I'm sorry, but this is utterly ridiculous.
So, because I happen to be white and female and my grandfather decided to leave the farm in Norway and move to the US, anything I do or earn or put into society is invalid because I have privilege? Should I just stop going to pharmacy school because I didn't *really* earn my place there, I just got handed it because I'm white and hey, didn't really have to work that hard to get it?
Privilege exists, that claim is absolutely undeniable. But to say that uncontrollable factors such as race, social class of birth, or the lessons parents choose to teach should remove the consideration of and accountability for the actions of the individual is ridiculous.
I happen to think that, with proper adjustment for uncontrollable factors (like insuring fair pay regardless of race/gender/whatever, like affirmative action when necessary, like properly regulated welfare programs), we *can* and *should* consider the actions of the individual outside of society.
Do I think that *everyone* should be able to keep most of their income, regardless of size? Absolutely. Do I think the size of government is too large? Absolutely. Do I want my money going into a health care system that will turn to rationing, and will lessen the ability of the poor to get specialized treatment and procedures even more than it is now? Not in the slightest.
I'm fine with putting a chunk of my money in a system that actually benefits society and the individuals that need extra support from outside sources. I'm *not* fine with redistribution of wealth - because, yes, by going to school for 6 years, getting into debt to pay for said school, and getting specialized training in a field, I damn well earn the salary I'll be getting.
But I guess thinking that no one should have to give most of their salaries to an unregulated system makes me the angry fat kid.
"Do I want my money going into a health care system that will turn to rationing, and will lessen the ability of the poor to get specialized treatment and procedures even more than it is now? Not in the slightest."
Ah, you must come from the US. You should get out more and compare and contrast the underclass and working class's access to healthcare in different countries. I hear even Thailand has some sort of a universal healthcare system now.
The question is - do you think that you have a social responsibility to those less privileged than you (and I'm not talking a few cents in the charity tin)? Do you think that the wealth of those like you is ever / often / usually gained at the expense of those less wealthy? Do you think that we live in a society largely based on merit, and those at the bottom are the least deserving? Do you think that if you're "doing okay" that it is all due to your own merit? Just guessing that that is what Anon5646 is talking about in regards to libertarians.
Anarchism can so often mesh with the right-wing when it comes to privileged people talking about how they don't want anyone else to "tell them what to do", and certainly don't "need" anyone to help them.
Assuming that I'm unaware of the functioning of the health care systems of other countries is, at best, rude. I'm talking about policies strictly relating to the US, yes, and I happen to have a decent chunk of primary information relating to pharmacoeconomic policies of various countries and methods of portioning health care. You want to compare Thailand to the US because they have a small enough population to where socialized healthcare is economically feasible (we have rougly 5x the number of people)? Fine. Look at survival ratings of childhood diseases, look at maternal health statistics. Look at all of the statistics, and tell me that the average Thai has better health care than the average American.
If you look at the pharmacoeconomics of the countries with universal healthcare, they spend less money on individuals, and are less willing to spend over set amounts of money on specific procedures. I'm not saying our health care system currently is functioning. It's clearly not, but at this time, the government cannot afford switching to a completely socialized system, especially with the huge increase in deficit from the last administration. Rationing would be inevitable, and is unacceptable.
Of course we don't live in a society completely based on merit - hence my addressing the fact that we do need to have mechanisms in place to compensate for those who start out disadvantaged for whatever reason. My point is, though, that completely removing individual responsibility for actions is ridiculous. I chose to put myself in debt by attending college and taking out loans, instead of joining the workforce after high school. I chose to further the debt by applying to a professional school. Should I then complain about being in debt? Of course not - I'm in this situation as a direct consequence of my choices.
Bad, uncontrollable things happen to everyone, and not everyone starts at the same level. If someone needs help from an outside source (be it paying for education, paying for food, whatever), the government should be there to help, yes. I am more than willing to put money in for that. That shouldn't absolve anyone of the consequences to actions or situations they *have* been able to choose.
Do I personally need financial help at this point in my life? No. So I shouldn't be taking it or asking for it. Does the fact that I'm relatively stable right now (minus the frakkin' school loans) mean I'm somehow better or smarter than those who aren't? Of course not. Does it mean that help shouldn't be available because I don't need it right now? Absolutely not.
Where did I spout that I didn't want to be told what to do? I mentioned what I would rather be paying taxes into - namely, a functioning system that actually benefits society and the individuals that need extra support from outside sources. Our current system allows for too much slipping through the cracks and too much abuse from people who really don't need the help. Not that everyone on welfare or foodstamps or what have you is lazy, using the system, or undeserving, far from it. But I see a lot of abuse of Medicaid in my line of work and I know it's not regulated properly. I don't want to pay for an ineffective system.
Addressing this question out of order: Do you think that the wealth of those like you is ever / often / usually gained at the expense of those less wealthy?
It can be argued that any wealth is gained at the expense of those less wealthy. I do think that because of the extensive training I am receiving and the fact that I will be responsible for the lives of my fellow human beings means I should have a higher salary than, say, a waiter. I will have higher liability than most other occupations.
"Assuming that I'm unaware of the functioning of the health care systems of other countries is, at best, rude."
Oh, rude at best? Oh dear. You wanna talk about the huge military spending of the US, and why it can't afford to provide for its poorest citizens with welfare and health? And I reeaaaallllly wouldn't say that it's the smaller population of Thailand that's making universal healthcare possible where the US is failing. *laughs* Oh deary me no. I do assume you don't know how health care systems in other countries work if you think the population size has *anything* to do with it.
I can't be bothered arguing the rest of what you're saying - I see where you're coming from, and we are having disagreements about things like affirmative action versus radical changes to the structure of society.
I disagree entirely with the portion of money the US spends on military budgets. It's inappropriate, and you're right, we shouldn't be funneling money into it. Maybe if we didn't, a socialized healthcare system would become economically feasible. The way things stand, it's not the case.
Also, you can't seriously believe that it takes less money to pay for the healthcare of 320,000,000 people than 62,000,000? Not even a little to do with it? Huh, guess my concept of population and basic math is just clear off the mark. It's not like having more people means having more problems proportionally, or anything.
Not to mention I gave it as one factor constituting the reason it was easier for Thailand to adopt, not the sole determining one.
If you want the WHO numbers comparing healthcare values and expenditures per person between the US and Thailand, I've got them.
And I'm not sure where we disagree with affirmative action and social structure . . . I mentioned it as a way to compensate for the privilege whites generally have, but if you think that's wrong, I'm not one to stop you. No social structure change will alter the privilege associated with wealthier parents or selected methods of parenting, even if we are able to eventually remove racial bias.
So, because I happen to be white and female and my grandfather decided to leave the farm in Norway and move to the US, anything I do or earn or put into society is invalid because I have privilege? Should I just stop going to pharmacy school because I didn't *really* earn my place there, I just got handed it because I'm white and hey, didn't really have to work that hard to get it?
I don't think anyone is telling you to do any such thing, rather what some are arguing is that a recognition of one's own privilege is simple honesty. How you got from there to a command that you shun any and all opportunities is beyond me. It's a common mistake to confuse social constructionism (which, as you say, is an undeniable fact) with causal determinism (the straw man that you seem to be arguing against). Your unearned privileges don't make it a given that you'll succeed, but they do affect what the world holds out to you as possible in the first place, don't they? As the term is typically used here, "privilege" intervenes most decisively at the level of background assumptions, not final outcomes (although of course it has a powerful effect on those too).
I'm quite comfortable with the idea that I have advantages that others on this planet don't, and I'm not even white. Like most Americans, my day-to-day decisions are predicated on the assumption that my own efforts do, in fact, matter a great deal. Much of my daily behavior would be hard to explain otherwise. But the critical thinker in me (under-funded, but always on the job) knows better than to make a deity out of my own obstacle-overcoming awesomeness. And that's the thing about the most exemplary forms of libertarianism: they make a deity out of the heroic, chance-taking, entrepreneurial Ego. As an agnostic, there's no god easier for me to reject than that one.
As for your argument against health care "rationing," I never know what people mean by "rationing." It's one of those words that's favored more for its emotional impact than any sense it contains. Since no one is kind enough to articulate any alternative to a health care system that "rations" in some way (whether consciously by a central authority, or capriciously by the market), I'm not sure why we can't dispense with the term altogether. Of all the things that can be said about our for-profit system, that it leads to rational pricing of health care may be the least plausible.
Health care rationing refers to promoting treatment in one group over another. The most often used/seen example is deferring treatment in someone elderly to give that same treatment to a younger person - the justification being, the old person is going to die sooner, so why spend the money on them when a younger person has X more years left? The worry amongst health care professionals (at least the ones I've talked to on the issue) is that it will go from age to social status, involve race, etc etc etc. All of which is pretty abhorrent.
Rationing also refers to the cash-value differences governments are willing to spend on average cost treatments per person based on cost-effectiveness studies. This value is lower per person and has a lower cap in countries with socialized healthcare than in the US.
It annoys me to no end that the people in opposition to Obama's healthcare proposal can't suggest anything in its place and instead try to fearmonger without defining terms.
And, I tend to take arguments about privilege that go beyond rational factors (race, social status of parents, etc) and devolve into 'you're privileged for running into a random person and having a life determining experience' as, 'no matter what you do you're more privileged than X group of people and you should be ashamed and act accordingly'. Especially when followed up by a comment such as the cake one. I apologize for the over-reaction.
I'm contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation here, but hot damn, your prose is gorgeous. Write a book, please? So I can read it?
Please show me where, in my argument, I was taking any absolutist position other than libertarianism is a failed ideology. I did not and would not argue that the advantages that people are born into negate all of their effort. I argue that people with advantages derived from society owe more back to that society. I am arguing for progressive taxation and against the idea of the absolute individual.
Do you make your own bread? Build your own house? Do you perform all of the labors necessary to sustain your own life? No, I didn't think so. Therefore, even though you trade for the services of others - actually because you trade of others, since we live in a specialized society - you cannot be considered outside that context.
"I damn well earn the salary I'll be getting." I bet that professional athletes say the same. But do you or the athletes earn the fact that the value placed on specific professions in this county is absurdly unbalanced and skewed with reference to real value by the stupidity of the American consumer? the blind hands of capitalism have failed us to the point of bread and circuses. Did Tiger Woods earn that? Have you earned the "value" placed on your chosen profession by society? I don't begrudge people a good living. Up until deregulatory madness sank the lending system and I got laid off because I was working in development, I was earning in the top 15 or 20%. I didn't earn all of that, but I did take advantage of the opportunities. However, as a result of the fact that I benefitted more from society's structure than others, I owed more back in taxes. And I didn't cry like a spoiled child when I paid them.
"But I guess thinking that no one should have to give most of their salaries to an unregulated system makes me the angry fat kid." A) Do you whine and cry about paying a higher percentage in income taxes? (Even though payroll taxes are skewed to screw the poor and middle class) If you do, then yes, you are the whiny fat kid. If not, then no. B) The system is regulated very much, thank you. Every two years there's a regulation of it.
"the fat kid complaining that one of the other kids got a full sized piece of the birthday cake."
Was that at all necessary? I was with you until then, but that is a hateful and ignorant. A fat kid isn't privileged, gaining weight doesn't happen because of greed or overindulgence. Denying a child equivalent treatment because of their weight isn't trying to make things more fair, it's privileging a skinny child because of something they didn't earn and bullying a fat child for something they have no control over.
It was perhaps a bit over the top, but two things: first, libertarians annoy the hell out of me. I have argued with them for years and it gets frustrating fast; two, the best representation of the libertarian attitude that I have ever seen, and to which I was making a reference for my own entertainment, is the character Eric Cartman on South Park.
So I may well have let my anger get the best of me, and I shouldn't have. I apologize.
I can't really say the same. Everyone has gotten to where they are by the way they came. It's just some people's dharma to go from one ideology to the next, until they finally get it about ideologies.
There was actually a lot to admire about Rand, and a lot not to admire. It just took me a while to sort those things out.
I was given Atlas Shrugged when I was sixteen and told by the giver it was a feminist book because it argued that women can be just as money-oriented and as powerful as men.
Yup. I'm just here to back up the anti-Rand sentiment
I personally can't stand Ayn Rand's writing or her apologies for actually-existing capitalism. Big business is not an oppressed minority! If anything it is the ruling class.
But there has been and will be another libertarianism - one which has counted Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman, and Voltairine de Cleyre, among others. Each can claim its feminist heritage.
"The events of recent months shatter any remaining hopes of politically minded libertarians."
Yeah, I can see how it would be hard to be hopeful when it's shown that the policies you support don't only fail, but fail so terribly that they threaten to unhinge the world economy. I can't see why you angst about them instead of abandoning them for something that works, though. Somebody call the waaambulance.
Is it any wonder that women are a hard demographic for libertarians when they go around implying that the world be better if we couldn't vote?
Your argument that the current events discredits libertarianism only holds if you assume that the current crisis is linked solely to economic deregulation. This is not the case governmental interventions into the economy such as setting the interest rate at an artificially low level and the quasi-privatized model of Fannie May and Freddie Mac contributed to the current crisis just as much as private speculation has.
I didn't mean to be anti-libertarian, just that that essay points to the fact that the author was for deregulation, and is clearly not accepting that deregulation is one of the largest contributors to, if not the cause of, this depression. Libertarians, as far as I know, are fairly pro-deregulation, and as such should reconsider their disproven positions, rather than complain about their hopelessness.
hm. i used to be a libertarian. i never knew there was this anti-woman rhetoric. then again, i wasn't paying much attention to feminism at the time, either.
What a dick Thiel is.
I would say that overall, women tend to be more inclined to the left/ collectivist.
This is probably due to the way women are socialied, nothing innate.
I am also only talking about averages, not *all* women or all men.
Libertarians are all in favour of individualism and freedom...just not the kinds they don't approve of. Like, er, women voting, apparently.
The left side also benefits us more. To avoid being overly partisan, the Republican and other conservative and right parties have really abandoned women's issues, so a woman even if she disagrees with the other politics of the left is most benefited by a leftist political structure. After all, who is going to vote for the party that doesn't want to control wages when statistically your wages are 25% less than men's?
Libertarians are all in favour of individualism and freedom...just not the kinds they don't approve of. Like, er, women voting, apparently.
exactly, butterflywings.
we could go round and round about male privilege and how that is/isnt a part of libertarian ideology. but let me interject something here.
not only does this man not speak for libertarians as a whole, he speaks for himself because true libertarians do that. libertarianism (and as people keep mentioning Rand, so will i) and objectivism kindof dictate that individuals make judgments for themselves, that we steer away from collectivism and hive mindedness (mentioning ARI is unnecessary; its like having a center for existentialism).
i will self-identify with libertarianism, especially the JS Mill-leaning sort, because I grew up *very* poor and through the power of my own intellect got the first bachelors degree in my family, and will eventually receive the first doctorate. ive put myself through school and i am a nontraditional student.
when i see marxist-leaning feminism on this site, i turn a blind eye. i dont come here for politics but for social awareness. but Samhita pretty much flat out insulted every female libertarian personally by insinuating this man was right, but for the wrong reasons. that is quite low. there are those of us who do not believe every person deserves a handout from the government, but it doesnt mean we shouldnt believe that.
this is why feminists keep alienating each other. its really fucking ridiculous. there are extraordinary amounts of space in libertarian dialogues to include women and feminism; but it may not be *your* cup of tea. frankly, i dont see that as an issue at all. we are not legion, we are individuals with individual beliefs. come on.
I was in the middle of composing a comment in my head, but here I see that you've already said it for me quite elegantly. Thank you for your insight.
Libertarians are sociopaths.
so, if someone said Feminists are misandronists because a few have attacked men, would that broad statement be true?
Not helpful. Regardless of your feelings about how libertarianism is carried out in practice, you owe it to all the rest of us feminists to respect your political opposition enough to not make hateful, insulting generalizations about them.
Every day we deal with people saying things like "feminists are communists" or "feminists are baby-murderers" or "feminists are fascists." Attacks like that are WRONG, when done to us or when done to other political groups, regardless of how you might feel about them.
It is our responsibility as participants in this blog to try to elevate the level of discourse of this blog to match the sophistication of our political beliefs.
The difference is that those statements about feminists are untrue. I mean that the ideals of libertarianism are co-extensive with the typical traits of sociopaths: a persistent focus on the individual's "rights" to the exclusion of others, lack of empathy with the pain of others, ready to exploit or capitalize on others' pain for personal gain, etc.
Libertarians usually justify these things by claiming they are for "freedom" or "liberty," but those are vague terms. Invariably, what they mean is that they wish to be free from what they see as government-based paternalism or financial control. But this also means they wish to be free of the rule of law, which always regulates behavior, largely behavior in the public sphere. Their devotion to ideals like laissez-faire capitalism (which exacerbates, if not causes, many of the oppressive ills that people on this blog routinely decry) is socially irresponsible.
I don't think libertarians are all crazy or wrong... just that they display a pervasive lack of regard for other people. Sometimes, I even agree with libertarians, mostly on civil liberties issues, because individuals do possess strong rights to things such as privacy and autonomy over their own bodies.
But the problem is that they speak this out of one side of their mouth but support on the other hand a deeply oppressive economic system that is at the root of many of the problems in society, from crime to poverty to patriarchy. They want people to exercise autonomy and freedom, but they want to perpetuate the unjust socio-economic structures and class striations that prevent people that aren't (by and large) wealthy, white and male from being autonomous and free. It's disingenuous and frankly, dangerous as a political theory.
Come on, really?
Hmm, I never knew I was a sociopath. Thanks for telling me. *eyeroll*
I'm about as anti-libertarian as they come, and even I find that incredibly low. Come on, at worst they're either incredibly selfish or incredibly naive, and certainly full of privilege, but sociopaths is just childishly biased.
I wish he would elaborate on his statement about women. It's very brief. I'm not sure if he believes that women are inherently un-libertarian or if he is just referencing the tendency of women to be more liberal. It's so weird how he doesn't explain a statement like that...like it's a given that we somehow know "oh yeah, women's suffrage is naturally bad for libertarianism. Makes perfect sense"
Question mark.
The guy is probably a pig--but there is some truth in the idea that historically women, as a group, have tended to be more liberal, progressive, left, or whatever you want to call it--in their politcs. I am not going to speculate why that is--but it is a fact.
However, Thiel should be told that modern libertarianism is largely the result of three women in the 1920's, 30's and 40's"
Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, Isabel Paterson and a woman who is also generally considered to be a feminist icon--Zora Hurston.
For Women's History month I did a profile of each of them. If interested--you can start at Ms. Hurston's at http://girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2009/03/zora-hurstonthe-fourth-libertarian.html and the profiles on other three libertarian women are linked in that post.
Ayn Rand would hurt you if she heard you calling her a libertarian. :)
Oh man, I want to get in a fight with Ayn Rand...
"historically women, as a group, have tended to be more liberal, progressive, left, or whatever you want to call it--in their politcs."
Actually, women as a group didn't have different voting patterns from men until the 1980s.
Or I guess I could say that men as a group didn't have different voting patterns from women until the 1980s...
Well, I don't mind taking the blame for libertarianism's lack of success.
Samhita, what do you mean when you say that you could have told us that libertarians and women are strange bedfellows?
A few things:
1. Denying the franchise to the majority of adult citizens invalidates any claim a government has to being a democracy, whether a capitalist democracy or not.
2. Land distribution, either by giving the land away for free or selling it at very low cost, was probably the biggest welfare program in the history of this country, if not the world. And I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone here how the government obtained that land -- by killing Native Americans and driving the survivors off that land.
3. Once land distribution was no longer a feasible option for alleviating urban strife (i.e. once the frontier closed in 1890), it was no longer possible for politicians to point to cheap land out west as a solution to the country's ills. It took about 40 years, but eventually the government was forced to concede that a capitalist democracy cannot survive without some degree of social welfare, whether in the form of free land to anyone willing to cultivate it or in the form of a social safety net. The implosion of the world's economy in the 1920s (which, as ever, was the fault of libertarians) was more responsible for this shift than extending the franchise to women could ever have been.
4. Mr. Thiel is an ignoramus who undoubtedly thinks he's much smarter than he actually is.
Well said, keshmeshi.
Dude is an idiot.
I saw him speak once. I think his comment is more than misrepresented here.
His comment IS sexist, but I agree it is being misrepresented here. I genuinely don't believe he means to suggest that women shouldn't have the right to vote--just that their voting has killed libertarian political viability because women have largely voted against it. I believe he is lamenting the fact that women don't vote the way he wishes they voted, and complaining about it as a bad thing (which is inevitably sexist, but not the same thing as anti-suffrage).
I think this is largely akin to something that happened in many of our liberal circles in the last year. Some liberals (quite incorrectly) blamed high African American voter turnout for the passing of Prop 8 in California. Many liberals decided African Americans were responsible for holding back gay rights (a very racist assumption), but I never heard anyone suggesting that African Americans voting was, in itself, wrong.
How so? How do you not read it as "People who dislike my politics now have more power than I want them to, and society has sucked since then" and condense it neatly into "Women don't like libertarianism, therefor giving them the vote made things suck", particularly coming from someone who supposedly wants equal power for all people?
I'm sorry, but this is utterly ridiculous.
So, because I happen to be white and female and my grandfather decided to leave the farm in Norway and move to the US, anything I do or earn or put into society is invalid because I have privilege? Should I just stop going to pharmacy school because I didn't *really* earn my place there, I just got handed it because I'm white and hey, didn't really have to work that hard to get it?
Privilege exists, that claim is absolutely undeniable. But to say that uncontrollable factors such as race, social class of birth, or the lessons parents choose to teach should remove the consideration of and accountability for the actions of the individual is ridiculous.
I happen to think that, with proper adjustment for uncontrollable factors (like insuring fair pay regardless of race/gender/whatever, like affirmative action when necessary, like properly regulated welfare programs), we *can* and *should* consider the actions of the individual outside of society.
Do I think that *everyone* should be able to keep most of their income, regardless of size? Absolutely. Do I think the size of government is too large? Absolutely. Do I want my money going into a health care system that will turn to rationing, and will lessen the ability of the poor to get specialized treatment and procedures even more than it is now? Not in the slightest.
I'm fine with putting a chunk of my money in a system that actually benefits society and the individuals that need extra support from outside sources. I'm *not* fine with redistribution of wealth - because, yes, by going to school for 6 years, getting into debt to pay for said school, and getting specialized training in a field, I damn well earn the salary I'll be getting.
But I guess thinking that no one should have to give most of their salaries to an unregulated system makes me the angry fat kid.
Ahhh, crap. This was supposed to be in reply to Anon up there.
I think this is a really good argument and would encourage you to post it again further up the page in its intended place as a reply to anon, so it gets treated more seriously as part of the discussion.
Like a lot of us at feministing, I myself am a tax-and-spend liberal to an extreme (I think universal healthcare, for instance, is a human right), but I am really bothered by how ugly the characterizations of libertarianism, or even small government conservatism have been on this thread. The level of respect for the substance of libertarian beliefs here is pretty much on par with the level of respect for feminist beliefs on conservative websites--zilch--and I'd like to think we're better than that. We shouldn't be the dismissive ones.
Especially since many in this community are libertarians, fiscal conservatives or have moderate streaks in some of those areas.
I wasn't sure if I should repost it up there, but I think I will now. Thank you for the compliment. :)
And, just a comment on universal healthcare. I worry about our current trend because, as it stands now, we don't have enough money to make it viable in such a way that would truly benefit *all* of the recipients. Rationing would be inevitable, which is utterly abhorrent to me. Who are we to put a higher value on one person's life than another? I've commented briefly before on just the purely pharmacoeconomic consequences of socialist systems. I'll sum up again, just for the sake of ease: socialist governments spend are not willing to spend as much per patient on healthcare. The average maximum cap is $50,000 total. In the US, up to $50,000 is automatically approved, up to $100,000 is usually approved, and the cap is $100,000. I can give you the references (I got the information from a pharmacoeconomics class), and would be more than willing to get into an in-depth discussion off of the board, if you like :).
I'd like to think we're better than that, too. While we may not agree on the specifics of policy, I think we should always be open to honest, non-critical discussion of ideas.
Shade, I really do respect your logic and reasoning,especially coming from the health care sector, but what do you suggest be done to solve the shameful state of the underinsured in America?
I ask because my mother has been a public health nurse for 30 years, during which she's supervised some pretty large public programs in rural and urban areas providing care to the homeless, mentally ill, uninsured pregnant women, AIDS patients, etc. However, even though she does pretty effective outreach, her work is usually underfunded to an insulting degree. From her, I've come to believe that this system is fundamentally broken and we can't, in any kind of good conscience, allow it to continue as such.
As someone about to enter this arena, what do you suggest? It just doesn't seem possible that those of us making significant salaries are going to be able to keep so much of them if we're really serious about health justice. I too have plenty of education loans, but I'm not sure how much salary I deserve to keep when lots of children have no healthcare. What are your thoughts?
This is a huge issue for me, because I also live in a rural area and see the same thing.
The system is absolutely fundamentally broken. I just haven't seen economic evidence, for a country of our population, that a single-payer system would make that much of a difference for the people who need it most. Especially considering specialized procedures like kidney transplants or dialysis, or cancer treatments. A great deal of my classes have had at least partial focus on the economics of medicine and pharmacy (not on salary, on the economics of new procedures or treatments v. old, how governments decide what and what not to cover, etc).
My current ideas on fixing it mostly revolve around better oversight and regulation of the existing programs like Medicaid. Pharmacists and doctors often aren't involved in deciding what is and isn't covered, or to what extent it's covered. This needs to change. We are the ones who know what's most common, what's most effective. We are the ones who know what's best to spend money on now to avoid costs down the road for patients with early signs of, say, increased risk for heart issues caused by cholesterol or blood pressure, or diabetics. People are making decisions about these things who don't know the day-to-day realities.
Another big thing that needs to change is the availability of medications like Risperdal (it's an antipsychotic, often used in schizophrenics). Right now, there are aid groups and things that will cover the medications for patients on Medicaid when Medicaid stops covering it. The patient on the medication becomes stable - is able to apply for and hold a job, is able to get a salary going and their own healthcare, so the group stops helping. Most companies don't cover such medications, though, and they're unfortunately expensive, so the patients stop taking them, become unstable, and lose their jobs. It's a horrible cycle to watch.
Specifically on the issue of children - I think we should have a safety net to ensure that they do have access to necessary health care. Idaho has free immunizations for children under 18, if the family can't pay the $9.00 fee. No questions asked - children will be vaccinated. It's a good start, definitely, but we need to keep going. There's another program, WICA, I believe, that provides milk, cheese, and fresh vegetables to families with small children who make under a certain salary.
Another big issue is dissemination of information. Most people in that situation simply don't know that there are places they can go to get help with their meds, or that most companies will give them big discounts on drugs they can't afford. I work in a small, family-run pharmacy, and we do as much as we can to let people know what their options are. I have worked in places like Wal-Mart, and there really simply isn't enough time to talk to individual patients about what they can do when the out-of-pharmacy managers are expecting 500+ medications to be filled daily, no questions.
On the salary issue, I'm really divided. The reason medical salaries are so high right now (especially pharmacy)is because there's a huge shortage of qualified people, so businesses like Walmart have pushed it up to get pharmacists and other places have had to compensate. One one hand, yes, I do think I should have a reasonable salary as a product of my education and responsibilities. On the other, I agree that it's hard to say that I should get all of this money when there are children who aren't getting taken care of. But when my salary is a reflection of the competition for pharmacists to work, I don't know how I can change that.
Another thing that kills me about children's health care are situations like when parents won't pay $4 for an antibiotic (sorry to siderail, but I saw this a lot at walmart and it made me absolutely furious. Don't tell me you can't afford $4 for some medicine for your sick child when you've got six cases of coke in your cart). I think we need better general education on basic health care and nutrition to the wider public than is currently available/given.
Of course, I don't have all of the answers, and I only have detailed information in regards to pharmacy, but I hope that helps.
"Who are we to put a higher value on one person's life than another?"
We do that now. The lives of the rich, who can afford medical care, are valued more than the lives of those who cannot.
I suspect most of the people who argue that "socialized medicine" will result in long waits and rationing do not have personal experience with illness. As it stands (in the USA), people must wait for procedures, for treatments and for run of the mill appointments!
Our current system is an abysmal failure, considering the skyrocketing amount of money that's put in. Our outcomes are not great. They are certainly nowhere near the top, as far as developed countries go.
Exactly. And we already ration health care in the US. What do folks think is happening to all the people and their families who've lost their job AND their health care? Self-rationing is still rationing.
Rationing is inevitable in any system because health care is one of the few things were the demand is potentially unlimited. So the question is do we want to some how control the rationing or do we want to leave it to the whims of the economy and uninformed choices (lack of basic reproductive education in many communities for example ) in a system that is chaotic, inefficient and wasteful?
This guy has a case of the Sexist Swine Flu...also known as the "I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about and say random things making fun of women because I am very insecure" flu.
"I guess he didn't get the memo. Women and gays are supposed to be friends!"
please explain the relevance of this statement.
It was a joke. The authors on this site often intersperse their commentary with jokes.
I too was concerned about this comment. I understand that it was intended as a joke, but it seems entirely inappropriate to be using one's sexuality against them in this type of argument. It feels a little like joking about how crazy or emotional someone is suppose to be because they happen to be a particular gender.
I'm sure it wasn't intended to be hurtful or harmful, but basic traits like gender, sexuality, or skin color are frequently used to stereotype individuals. Suggesting that because someone has one trait that they might think or feel a particular way, well it seems like the kind of thing we are trying to prevent.
Thankfully, our well-secured two-party system will never allow a Libertarian in major office.
However, I do fear that Republicans and Libertarians are coming together on issues. They are both so afraid of their own shadows that they might team up to force us all under their comfort in Feudalism.
Typical misogynist dipshit.
Delurking to comment as another feminist libertarian. I'm not saying that I support privileged or that I dogmatically support any political school of thought. Always question authority, trust only what you can verify for yourself (sorry, once a reporter, always a reporter).
Libertarianism, like any other political party, has those who fall far on the spectrum of ideology. Rush Limbaugh was mentioned several times further up thread as an apt example of this from the Republican sphere. So by couching the argument in terms of "Libertarians are anti-feminist" or "Libertarians think women ruined the country" the tacit implication there is "all Libertarians think this way." Are there some? Yes, maybe, perhaps (and I'd like to work on changing their minds).
All? No.
Second, I also find it very problematic that the quote from Thiel's essay is being parsed outside of *both* social and textual frame-of-reference (this wouldn't fly in Lit. Crit 101). He never says that women shouldn't have been given the right to vote, nor does he ever say that women should only do what their husbands tell them to. He said women --- and welfare recipients --- are not usually big supporters of libertarianism. Which is true.
I clicked through to the essay because Samhita's commentary suggested that it was anti-woman. What I found was an essay concerned more about the emerging influence of technology in political discussion and the changing face of economics. If we are to say that he suggests women ruined the country based on that quote, then we must amend it to also include welfare recipients to ruined the country, since they are placed on equal footing in the sentence.
Better still, though, would be to read the whole essay and weigh whether or not that is actually what is being said.
Um, I totally hear you on the tip that folks shouldn't be judged by the most assholic adherents to their ideology. Another example would be Bill Maher... I think he's done as much harm to (at least my view of) libertarianism as Thiel, if not more (more, I think).
At any rate, back to the essay, the argument here is not that the entire essay is focused on women's right to vote or even that the author was suggesting that right to vote should be revoked. Rather, Samhita was pointing out that he suggested, rather clearly, that women voters have "ruined our country" (in her words)... which is pretty spot on for what he actually wrote. Mind you, too, that the OP says nothing in general about libertarians or libertarianism, but that Thiel thinks that women and recipients of public services have been destroying the country since the roaring 20s... and she extrapolates that "Women and Libertarians are Strange Bedfellows according to Peter Thiel," which strikes me as a pretty on target statement, given what he did write. I mean, really, he speaks of cyberspace, outer space and underwater as places to go to escape a world in which the publicly assisted and women have destroyed the connection between "democracy" and "capitalism."
Perhaps this guy's an outlier; perhaps he has no influence on popular libertarian thought. That he stated this in a Cato Institute publication [featured, in fact, on the home page of Cato Unbound] suggests otherwise. My experience working with certain libertarians has convinced me that, for all of the attractive aspects of libertarianism, many of its adherents (perhaps just the most outspoken) have ruined it for me. And I actually am an anarchist... but I've noticed that most of the anarchist communities in which I've moved keep a keen eye toward collectivism and responsibility, something I've noticed a lack of in popular libertarianism.
And, while I agree with certain aspects of libertarianism (liberty is great, definitely), I also think that, if one is to live in a society with other people, one ought to own up to one's responsibilities to that society. Thiel's "philanthropic" donations to efforts to combat aging, develop AI and build underwater communities, while really neat, just doesn't cut it in my book (not that it matters what cuts it in my book). I feel like his idea of "giving back" in and of itself is a good argument for social services (since wealthy fans of science fiction apparently don't seem to concern themselves with things like equitable education or hunger or other commie bullshit like that)... I might not have mentioned this if it weren't a tenet of libertarianism that a social supports should be solely funded by private philanthropy.
Oh, and you know what kind of sickens me... I bet he thought he was being bold by throwing this statement into an essay about technology. Kind of like how he thought it was hip to mention his (and his colleagues') drug use in an article about intentional communities; because, um, that's relevant.
On another note, yeah, I don't think democracy and capitalism are compatible either. The clearest example of this, I think, is the legacy of Silvio Berlusconi... it clearly demonstrated that, in a world where viewpoints are more determined by media saturation than by any process of logic or real political discourse, democracy is simply a light veneer of legitimacy over a firmly entrenched oligarchy.
Finally, yeah, this guy isn't the only libertarian... in fact, the idea of a monolithic libertarianism seems kind of oxymoronic as well... but you've got to recognize that this cat's point of view is ridiculous when it comes to blaming poor people and women for the downfall of capitalist democracy.
"...the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women...have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron."
Umm...excuse me? Has he ever even heard of Milton Friedman and the "Chicago School" ideology? Women and welfare didn't make an oxymoron out of this notion of capitalist democracy, Friedman and his followers did.
So, for the folks who think small-l libertarianism is incompatible with whatever your conception of feminism is, how do you characterize Katherine Mangu-Ward, Megan McArdle, Kerry Howley, Veronique de Rugy, Shikha Dalmia (i.e. women writing from a small-l perspective that I've read over the past 2 months)? Are they "anti-women" as well? How would you characterize Will Wilkinson's response to Thiel and Friedman?
The most generous reading of Thiel's piece (the whole thing, not just the excerpt) is that he feels democracy and capitalism are incompatible and that demographics ensure this "cake finally finding out it can't be eaten and still exist simultaneously" trend is inexorable and inevitable.
Western Europe enjoys the some of the highest standards of living in the world--it's just that most economists, whether orthodox or heterodox, feel that an extremely generous welfare state isn't a sustainable model in the long run.