Great… like the libertarian movement needs this: chauvinism

Posted on April 29th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,…

by Peter Thiel:

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.

As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a libertarian politics appear grim indeed. Exhibit A is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and leverage, facilitated by a government that insured against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that the response to this crisis involves way more debt and leverage, and way more government. Those who have argued for free markets have been screaming into a hurricane. The events of recent months shatter any remaining hopes of politically minded libertarians. For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our education culminates with the knowledge that the broader education of the body politic has become a fool’s errand.

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.

1. capitalist democracy is an oxymoron in practice. Read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.
2. libertarian politics has always been grim. Politics can help legitimize libertarian beliefs to some people but a libertarian society can never truly exist within a traditional political system.
3. What the fuck are you hoping to do by saying that women are naturally more statist? The argument can be made (and has) but the reality is that it must be made by a woman. We all know how the MSM and statist liberals would react to such a statement… that’s how I found this article in the first place.


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.

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:

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.

Yes… because voting who your slave master is is freedom.

And it seems that sarcasm is lost of these people. He is speaking of drugs in relation to bothering to proselytize free markets. That it was smarter to do drugs rather than waste time with trying to convince the unconvincable.

Ron Paul’s question to Ben Bernanke: when will you admit you’re wrong?

Posted on February 25th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment »

In the second version provided note CNBC cutting off the answer to Paul’s question.