Of course it is.

monocasa · on Jan 5, 2020

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.

That's a libertarian position?

lazyasciiart · on Jan 5, 2020

Libertarians don't think voting should exist, so it seems compatible that one of them might think extending the franchise at all is bad. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-perspecti...

monocasa · on Jan 5, 2020

But Thiel in this essay argues that "capitalist democracy" as seen in 1920s should exist, just that women shouldn't be allowed to participate.

SamReidHughes · on Jan 5, 2020

No, it's compatible with libertarianism. I'd also remove unmarried men and Rolex owners from the eligibility list, myself.

monocasa · on Jan 5, 2020

I fail to see how giving some the vote but not others based on whether you think they'll agree with you or not is a libertarian position.

SamReidHughes · on Jan 5, 2020

"Compatible with X" != "Is (or isn't) an X position"

monocasa · on Jan 5, 2020

For ideologies attempting to be totally internally consistent, it is.

SamReidHughes · on Jan 5, 2020

So then, what's the internally consistent libertarian position on the Eagles vs. Seahawks game?

monocasa · on Jan 6, 2020

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?

SamReidHughes · on Jan 6, 2020

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.