"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."
is just terrible. "[T]he extension of the franchise to women ... [has] rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."
Even the most generous interpretation of that sentence is very illiberal. Well, if they don't agree with us and we're right, maybe they just shouldn't be allowed vote. They obviously don't know what's best for themselves, those women and welfare beneficiaries. Really?
And also is the 1920s really the decade we want to hold up as the last great decade in America?
The whole article swings violently between utopianism and nihilism. I find it very depressing.
Women's suffrage is generally acknowledged to have resulted in the passage of Prohibition, and Prohibition is generally acknowledged to be a mistake. Why couldn't other mistakes have their roots in suffrage?
That doesn't mean that suffrage was itself a mistake or should be repealed, just that there could be bad effects as well as good. I'm generally libertarian, and regard the extension of the welfare state as bad, but I'd regard the political inequality of half the populace as far worse.
The contrapositive of his statement is: IF you believe in capitalist democracy THEN you cannot have universal suffrage.
Since he believes in capitalist democracy, presumably he also believes you cannot have universal suffrage.
Actually, he's more explicit than that. He doesn't believe you can have democracy at all if you're a capitalist: "I no longer believe that freedom [read: capitalism] and democracy are compatible."
In this paragraph, he's observing, not judging or making recommendations. Welfare beneficiaries and women do not, empirically, tend to vote for Thiel's preferred policies.
He might believe these groups are voting against their own long-term interests, but he's not making that case here, in a piece specifically aimed at those who already agree with him on a preferred (much lower) level of government economic control.
His piece doesn't advocate disenfranchising anyone -- as you imply -- nor does he call the 1920s America's "last great decade" -- just the last one where he could be "genuinely optimistic about politics". America's politics is neither the totality nor the pinnacle of its expression as a place/society/ideal, as his audience of cynics about state power understand.
(Though, as the decade of constitutional prohibition of alcohol, it seems an odd political high-point for Thiel. I think its main attraction for him is that at least it wasn't the 'New Deal' and massive government economic intervention ever since.)
>> "[T]he extension of the franchise to women ... [has] rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."
Seems like so many people have been pissed about this line. It seems obvious that he didn't mean "women should not have the right to vote" though... just that it makes libertarian ideals harder to achieve, because women tend to favor more government.
Hence his main argument: The US majority will probably never be libertarian, so libertarians must try to go beyond politics if they ever want to achieve their goals.
He didn't say the "US majority," though, he said "women."
So, what place do women have in his ideal, libertarian state?
I think that's a relevant question.
For example, presuming women are disinclined to vote for libertarians, how do you reconcile the "democracy" in "capitalist democracy" and "universal suffrage?" Is he saying if we have universal suffrage then we have to pick one: capitalism or democracy?
That seems to be the implication of his statement.
"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."
is just terrible. "[T]he extension of the franchise to women ... [has] rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."
Even the most generous interpretation of that sentence is very illiberal. Well, if they don't agree with us and we're right, maybe they just shouldn't be allowed vote. They obviously don't know what's best for themselves, those women and welfare beneficiaries. Really?
And also is the 1920s really the decade we want to hold up as the last great decade in America?
The whole article swings violently between utopianism and nihilism. I find it very depressing.