Dangermouse wrote:How exactly can you be a 'hyper libertarian' and not support the right of women to vote?
Apparently (from what I can tell based on the article), he believes women are inclined to vote against his conception of freedom, e.g. women are disposed to voting for economic regulation, the welfare state/social safety net, and redistribution of wealth.
And I'm not sure "not support the right of women to vote" is the correct conception, it's probably closer to "if we let people vote, they (in part because they includes women) will make bad or self-interested decisions that don't benefit me or don't agree with my idea of freedom/capitalism, so we should reject democracy. It is ( or seems to be, but then I'm generous) the difference between, in a democracy, people (the majority of whom may be women) who disagree with me will have power, so lets reject democracy, and a democracy should only have male voters.
Edit: In general, ignoring the speculation about women voting differently then men, it's not hard to see why libertarianism may be incompatible with democratic rule not subject to sharp constraint. If it's possible that the people can vote themselves wealth, then since most people are below average in wealth, there's a temptation to try to redistribute wealth. That's fairly clearly not libertarian, and let without strong external limits on the power of the voters (or the power of government), it may be a natural tendency in a society with a certain set of cultural values. This doesn't mean democracy has to be anti-libertarian, but if you combine the potential for a strong government that redistributes wealth with a society where many people agree with that kind of policy, it's not surprising that you end up with tension between libertarianism (or freedom) and democracy.