He's not saying removing everyone's vote, he's saying removing the vote for half of the adult population on the basis of gender, because he doesn't like how they vote.
Are you truly making the argument that disenfranchisement of groups based on demographics has as little to do with libertarianism as the results of a sports game?
The idea behind the NFL game example was to highlight the distinction between the notion of completeness with that of consistency. The connection (or lack thereof) between Libertarianism and the NFL game, or with enfranchisement, is a matter of logic, not some distance metric based on whether it's in the realm of politics.
That's not what he's saying. He's just pointing out that women are less likely to vote for libertarian policies. Replace "women" with "Trump voters" if you like, pretty much the same idea - and yet, no one's actually saying that the "deplorables" should not get to vote.
He's talking about the "extension of the franchise to women". That's giving them the vote. His literal thesis is "Freedom and Democracy aren't compatible anymore".
He's saying that the extension of the franchise ultimately made libertarian policies less likely, but that's not the same as saying that women should not get to vote.
The U.S. is not even a democracy anyway, regardless of women's suffrage. We're a constitutional republic, with plenty of checks and balances to ensure freedom in addition to the popular vote. Democracy was never the be-all and end-all of policy making, and serious political scientists understand this.
It's especially clear if you look at the point in the article where Thiel specifically addresses your question:
> 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. ... 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.
His latter points about politics and the political process look quite prescient in hindsight!
Saying 'oh but that would be absurd' while also immediately walkibg it back by suggesting that not doing so won't lead to anything better ("While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. ") and not offering any other solutions is a typical early stage fascist argument tactic to increase the acceptance of fascist ideas over time.
What other actionable items do you take from his essay?
Freedom and democracy aren't compatible because in a democracy there is nothing that protects the rights of those who lose the election. As another commenter pointed out in the US it's a little less bad - but getting worse by the year - because it's a constitutional republic. Going down the toilet fast, though, thanks to democracy.
How that means that Thiel is a Fascist, I cannot explain.
The demise of the word "literal" is a sad development in an otherwise flourishing era.
Here is what he actually said:
> 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.
In the essay¹ he literally says he doesn't want to remove women's vote:
> 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.
I don't expect what he actually said will change anyone's mind about what they think he's said though...
> Saying 'oh but that would be absurd' while also immediately walkibg it back by suggesting that not doing so won't lead to anything better ("While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. ") and not offering any other solutions is a typical early stage fascist argument tactic to increase the acceptance of fascist ideas over time.
> What other actionable items do you take from his essay?
No, more like denying something on the tail end of an entire essay in favor of it, followed by literally in the next sentence saying that there might not be another option rather than the abhorrent one is a way of minimizing and gaining acceptance of the abhorrent argument.
