As an economist I occasionally get sent magazines by the Cato Institute. I rarely bother to read them because they are mostly full of arguments as to why markets should be fixed to allow big companies to exert oligopoly or monopoly control (all in the name of “freedom”, of course). David Moles, however, is a braver soul than I. He reads Cato Institute publications so that I don’t have to. Which is how come I discovered that Libertarians look back fondly on the 1920s as a golden period of American politics, because in those days women (and other enemies of “freedom”) were not allowed to vote.
Yes, of course, how silly of me. I would be much more free if I wasn’t allowed to vote. Why, a man told me so, how could it be otherwise?
GAH!!
Of course I was particularly free during the 1920s since I had not yet resorted to taking corporeal form but as a believer in liberty and, last I checked, a woman I am just a tad put out by the post in Cato Unbound. And if I remember correctly, which I almost certainly don’t, in space terms a tad is approximately 93 million miles.
So, Paypal was founded by a raving nutter. Colour me surprised.
Not surprised at all, though, that women are a “tough constituency for libertarians.” That kind of stupid is (on the whole, and recognising that there are exceptions) mostly a male failing.
I really liked the part about PayPal being a “new world currency.” I’ve used PayPal; I’ve put US dollars into it; I got US dollars out. Had it been any other way, I would not have used PayPal.
Cheryl please do not say “Libertarians look back fondly on the 1920s as a golden period of American politics” because no-one will take you seriously since the 1920s was the era of Prohibition and everyone knows that libertarians like their beer. And wine, Scotch, etc.
Now that the joking is done I do have a serious comment about the Thiel article. First the Thiel article really needed an editor to give it a good rewrite before publication since I think it was very confusing particularly in the sixth paragraph. I have read the sixth paragraph at least eight times trying to understand it. I can see why you might interpret it the way you do and why you find fault with it; I would also find fault with it if I thought that was what Thiel was saying. I attempted to try to make the fifth and sixth paragraphs be logically consistent and got a different interpretation however even if my interpretation is what Thiel was really getting at then I still find fault with it although for a different reason. Since the article is Thiel’s ideas, not Cato’s, not libertarians in general, I wanted to ask Thiel about the various interpretations and criticisms but the comment period on the article has closed.
Fred:
The ideas may be Thiel’s but by publishing them Cato has signaled that it thinks such ideas are part of Libertarian thought. If they want themselves, and Libertarians, to be taken seriously, they should think twice about publishing that sort of thing.
As to Prohibition (she says, tongue firmly in cheek), surely a period in which alcohol was only available to the people who had the most guns is exactly the sort of thing that Libertarians would like.
Rich:
Well, the US is part of what used to be called the “New World”…
“Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians”
Wonder why he thinks women “are notoriously tough for libertarians”? Do “they” knowing something the male species doesn’t?
Michael:
I suspect that Thiel’s mom told him off once too often when he was a kid and he has never forgiven women for this slight to his Liberty.