Liberaltariansim

Why Don’t Women Like Rand Paul?

The New Republic thinks Paul's supporters are mostly male because libertarians are too fond of tricorn hats and robber barons.

|

a rare sighting!
Reason

Today at The New Republic, Jeet Heer asks why libertarians are mostly dudes, inspired by Sen. Rand Paul's polling gender gap, which shows the Kentucky Republitarian pulling 13 percent of the male primary vote and only 2 percent of females: 

Why is Paul so unpopular among women? Setting aside what women think about Paul's personal qualities, which would require pure speculation, consider what sets him apart from all the other candidates vying for the GOP nomination: his highly distinct political philosophy. While not a doctrinaire libertarian, Paul is by far the most libertarian-leaning candidate in the race. And there's plenty of evidence that the libertarian worldview leaves most women cold, despite the fact that female intellectuals—Ayn Rand, most famously—have been pivotal in creating libertarianism.

First things first: Libertarians are indeed pretty darn male. Last I checked, about 9 out of 10 Reason magazine readers are men. Even after obligatory nods to grand-dames Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson (not to mention former Reason editors Virginia Postrel and Marty Zupan), and the growing number of young libertarian ladies, libertarianism is still an XY-dominated zone.

I'm profoundly grateful that Heer—who emailed (and quoted!) a bunch of Reasoners in his piece, including yours truly on the topic of long-tail sausage fests—didn't opt for the old saw that libertarianism is more rational and less emotional, which is why it doesn't appeal to those soft-hearted (soft-headed?) ladies.

(For a non-stupid take on that question, check out Mollie Hemingway's Federalist column on the Paul poll numbers. Hemingway quotes former Reasoner Lucy Steigerwald at length making the case that libertarianism has tons of emotional appeal, it's just that the relevant emotion for this particular lady is "outrage at the state's many crimes." I'd just add that perhaps the most stereotypically masculine thread of libertarianism—the "don't tread on me, liberty or death, pry my gun from my cold dead hands" line—is also rather emotional.) 

Instead, Heer attributes libertarianism's (white) maleness to a weird historical nostalgia for "the rough-and-tumble capitalism of the nineteenth century, which they saw as being subverted by the progressive era and the New Deal….This type of yearning for the America of the Robber Barons has little to offer most women (who might not want to return to a world where they couldn't vote and had severely restricted social lives) or for that matter most non-whites (who might recall Jim Crow segregation)."

To a significant degree, libertarianism is a philosophy that exalts a world where white men enjoyed enormous freedom, but other groups were even more marginalized than they are now. How surprising is it, then, that politicians like Paul who voice libertarian ideas have a fan base that is overwhelming made up of white men?

Way back in 2010, there was actually was a big intra-libertarian debate about whether the 1880s were a Golden Age of liberty (see David Boaz, Jacob Hornberger, Megan McArdle, Bryan Caplan). 

But no one in that debate said: "Gee, I wish we had more coverture and Jim Crow today." The exercise, instead, was an attempt to tote up the two columns in the ledger and see how they balanced. Many libertarians, myself included, saw the sum of slavery, state-enforced segregation, and female subjugation as too large to counterbalance low taxes, minimal regulation, and Constitutional literalism.

Here is Cato's Boaz

Has there ever been a golden age of liberty? No, and there never will be. There will always be people who want to live their lives in peace, and there will always be people who want to exploit them or impose their own ideas on others. If we look at the long term—from a past that includes despotism, feudalism, absolutism, fascism, and communism—we're clearly better off. When we look at our own country's history—contrasting 2010 with 1776 or 1910 or 1950 or whatever—the story is less clear. We suffer under a lot of regulations and restrictions that our ancestors didn't face.

But in 1776 black Americans were held in chattel slavery, and married women had no legal existence except as agents of their husbands. In 1910 and even 1950, blacks still suffered under the legal bonds of Jim Crow—and we all faced confiscatory tax rates throughout the postwar period….

No doubt one of the reasons that libertarians haven't persuaded as many people as we'd like is that a lot of Americans don't think we're on the road to serfdom, don't feel that we've lost all our freedoms. And in particular, if we want to attract people who are not straight white men to the libertarian cause, we'd better stop talking as if we think the straight white male perspective is the only one that matters. For the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by Jews, blacks, women, and gay people. Libertarians have not opposed those appeals for freedom, but too often we (or our forebears) paid too little attention to them. And one of the ways we do that is by saying "Americans used to be free, but now we're not"—which is a historical argument that doesn't ring true to an awful lot of Jewish, black, female, and gay Americans.

But it's not just a strategic mistake. It's a mistake. Whether we were more free at some point in the past than we are now is a complicated issue. I would tend to argue that we were not.

To the extent that modern libertarianism is entangled with modern conservatism—and boy howdy, is it entangled, especially when it comes to Rand Paul—the nostalgia is more traceable to the conservative half of the equation. Libertarians, by contrast, tend to be futurists and optimists—younger libertarians even more so. Want some evidence? How about six of the last 12 Reason covers:

Reason
Reason
Reason
Reason
Reason
Reason

 

Boaz (and Heer) are right: If women think of dudes in tricorn hats waving pocket Constitutions and longing for a past golden age when they think of libertarianism, then libertarians aren't doing a good job selling themselves. But bad marketing isn't the same thing as bad philosophy. In the mood for some cheerful, emotionally resonant, forward-looking libertarianism? Have I got a magazine for you!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

430 responses to “Why Don’t Women Like Rand Paul?

  1. That young lady in the picture is cute as hell.

    What were we talking about?

    1. I was just about write to something here that other white males would appreciate.

      1. Disgusting.

    2. What were we talking about?

      The liberal who thinks this is the New York Times.

    3. Would

  2. I just can’t take anyone named Jeet seriously.

    /briannnnn

    1. A *Canadian* named Jeet (even worse).

      1. “Jeet Heer?”

        “No, at Tim Horton’s.”

        1. I chuckled.

  3. White males dominate libertarian demographics because they have absolutely nothing to gain from the growth of the state and a lot to lose from it (unless they control it), whereas everyone else is apparently content to indirectly rob them blind in the furtherance of their own interests.

    1. Ahhh… That actually makes sense.

    2. Protected classes rather enjoy their protection.

      In my own personal experience, many GOP women are largely conservative for social issues/traditions – abortion, God and the larger culture war. Libertarianism doesn’t easily fit into a left-right social issue spectrum and is therefore unappealing to them.

      1. Please. There is no group in American history more protected than the white male. I say this as a white male.

        1. How the hell are white males protected?! Every single de facto diversity quota is designed purely to select against white males.

          1. Perhaps protected is not quite right. But it’s certainly true that no group has received more benefits from government, over the course of the U.S.’s existence, than white men. If the worst thing you have to complain about is that a quota keeps you from getting into an elite university, you’re clearly far better off than the vast majority of society. Has this sort of thing gone overboard recently? Certainly. But white men have received an enormous amount of favoritism from governments at all levels, implicitly and explicitly, for most of the history of the U.S.

            1. I’m frankly uninterested in the benefits received from the government by anyone from around 1776 through, call it, 1990.

              What matters isn’t who got these benefits years ago and is now long dead.

              What matters is who is getting the benefits now. And, unless you are a crony capitalist, it is emphatically not white males.

              1. Interesting. How do you wish to quantify the benefits? By dollar amount? Number of beneficiaries? How do you wish to measure those figures? How do we account for crony capitalists, the military, LEOs, members of professional societies (e.g. the AMA is handed out all kinds of legal-codified guild benefits) and all the other classes that are dominated by white men? The numbers we’re talking about in those examples are staggering.

                1. I get the impression that you’re limiting benefits to include only explicit things like welfare payments. That’s too bad, because those programs are peanuts in comparison to other budget items.

                  1. At any rate, I have nothing against white males. I am a white male. But this notion that white males are libertarians because we (as a class; we apparently gave up on individualistic notions long ago in this thread) don’t rely on government benefits to the same extent as other demographics is patently absurd.

                  2. That’s some epic stupid, right there. The “benefits” that white men don’t enjoy don’t have anything to do with cutting a check. Look at the state of family law…. even after a couple of decades of supposed reforms, who is going to get to stay with their kids, and who is going to end up cutting a check to pay for that life? Sure, it has changed from the old days of 98%, but it is still way above 80% women who get the cushy version.

                    This is probably the main reason for the gender divide. Women have income insecurity due to a need to care for their offspring. They have marriage as the original cultural bulwark against this, but that is now a shaky prospect. So they have very advantageous divorce laws. But beyond that they still want protection for their family income – so they are full-in for the safety net. This fully explains the gender divide between team blue and team red, and explains the gulf between the green party and the libertarians.

                    It isn’t marketing, it is policy.

                    1. So you cherry-picked alimony and child support as your one point of support. Good job.

                      Also, “fully explains”? Fucking really? Don’t you claim to be a scientist? I would hope that you would never imply 100% correlation with such scant evidence in your day job.

                    2. Yes, the need of a safety net fully disqualifies the libertarian position for most women. It is the one issue that has the greatest gender divide.

                      Don’t buy my B.S. … lets go to Womens News for their take on the gender gap.

                      The real basis, she said, was differing outlooks between men and women on the role of government, with women more inclined to support social safety nets.

                      Sure, there’s lots of other chaff swirling around, but if you could magically flip “safety net” into the libertarian pile and out of team blue, you’d see a mass migration of women with it.

                    3. What do you bring? Liberal bullshit?

                    4. Women have income insecurity due to a need to care for their offspring.

                      Maybe men’s lives would be better if they stopped believing women had to breed.

                    5. You mean treat childbirth as a decision women make by their own prerogative, and not as an unpredictable and unavoidable catastrophe afflicting all women no matter what precautions they take?

                      Sorry, that doesn’t square with my pregnancy-as-bus-collision paradigm.

                    6. It isn’t about what men believe. People have their own wants and needs regardless of what those around them would believe about them.

                      Of course you can’t predict what one person will do based on a stereotype. Aggregate numbers only work in the aggregate.

                      But to your point – the number of women in the US aged 15-44 who have never had kids is pushing up toward 50%. And yet despite these obviously drastically different life choices, the gender divide on safety net issues is unchanged. Why? Shouldn’t the absence of children mean that close to 50% of women 15-44 should have the same views on this as men? Yet they don’t. Because it is not a policy position decided based on the presence or absence of children. We are talking about a built in preference for one way of doing things vs. another.

                      If even 20% of the electorate arrived at their decisions based on a careful analysis of policy and its implications for their lives, our political landscape would be much different. But that isn’t how people think. They have a gut reaction to something and then they backfill a rational to support that position, if they are pushed.

                      In short, very few people think like “Hey Nikki!” You are not most people. Nobody on HnR is “most people’. This is the self-selected group of the weird. And worse still, we are uniformly proud of it.

                    7. Yeah, I think this is it.

                    8. Ok fair enough. If a woman doesn’t want children, she shouldn’t be forced to have one. But if her mate wants a baby, his choices are limited. He can’t have the kid himself. Should he cheat? Find a surrogate?
                      If women don’t have kids, them no one else has kids, and the human race becomes extinct.

                  3. I get the impression that you’re limiting benefits to include only explicit things like welfare payments.

                    Then you are quite wrong. In fact, cash payments was what I didn’t have in mind. And I suspect you didn’t, either, because you were referring to a long scope of history where such payments were practically nonexistent.

                    No, I was referring to the embedded institutional advantages, programs, privileges, and protections extended to everyone but white men, these days.

            2. Truth. I would say that this is more an effect of cronyism than any kind of explicit institutionalized bias, however.

              A protected class would not have interest in limiting government. Yet, as the article illustrates, white males are the biggest proponents of libertarian philosophy. This leads me to suspect that they are not protected.

            3. Perhaps protected is not quite right. But it’s certainly true that no group has received more benefits from government, over the course of the U.S.’s existence, than white men. But it’s certainly true that no group has received more benefits from government, over the course of the U.S.’s existence, than white men.

              I might dither on this and call it ‘lack of oppression’.

              Minority groups have been held down by government, absolutely. But this idea that government has been feeding the white man (all white men, because we said ‘white men’) graft for 200 years is dubious.

              What we’ve enjoyed is the lack of a boot on our neck. Which I will never downplay. Ever.

              1. I don’t know that I necessarily believe this either. Crony capitalism has been with us forever. White men, as the traditional captains of industry, have received massive benefits from this. Same with protections afforded to professional groups (AMA, for instance), most unions, etc. These are all (or historically have been) white male-dominated enterprises. And they most certainly have been propped up. It’s not just a lack of a boot on our neck.

                1. I don’t know that I necessarily believe this either. Crony capitalism has been with us forever. White men, as the traditional captains of industry, have received massive benefits from this.

                  Ah, I had a feeling you meant certain white men. For instance, Barack Obama was very eager to give white men building faulty solar panels kajillions of my white man dollar so they could fly around on private jets and bang hookers.

                  So here’s a case where my taxpaying white man ass has been stripped of spending power so other white men could benefit. My point is, it’s complicated.

                  1. Plus, cronyism will always benefit a tiny minority of well connected people. Race and gender don’t really enter into the equation directly. When I was in Atlanta the cronyism was legally required to be race-based. It was such a racket that there were quite a number of African American millionaires who made their living by being the face on the contract – and then quickly subcontracting out the job to a white owned firm. Everyone knew what was going on – it was just the cost of doing business in the city.

                    The real problem is concentrating the power and money with the government. As long as that is happening, someone is going to figure out how to steer that cash in their direction. Of course, this is why the libertarian philosophy is straight up evil in the eyes of both establishment party leaderships. They are already on the gravy train, and they don’t want anyone messing that arrangement up.

                  2. “Ah, I had a feeling you meant certain white men. For instance, Barack Obama was very eager to give white men building faulty solar panels kajillions of my white man dollar so they could fly around on private jets and bang hookers.

                    So here’s a case where my taxpaying white man ass has been stripped of spending power so other white men could benefit. My point is, it’s complicated.”

                    But if he didn’t mean that, there’d be a major double standard here. It’s not like all black people get affirmative action benefits, welfare, etc. If in one case, receiving something disproportionately counts as being “protected” or “propped up” as a class, how does it not in the other?

                    1. It’s not like all black people get affirmative action benefits…

                      All black people are eligible to take advantage of affirmative action benefits, and all white people are ineligible to take advantage of affirmative action benefits. Isn’t that the salient point? Not every white man owned a slave (in fact, only about 1.5% of the white population owned slaves). Not every white business excluded blacks. They did, however, have universal access to that privilege.

                    2. All black people are eligible to take advantage of affirmative action benefits

                      Not if they live in New Hampshire.

                    3. “All black people are eligible to take advantage of affirmative action benefits”

                      Not all states have affirmative action, and it only helps you in edge cases – if you’re qualified on your own merit, it doesn’t matter, and if you’re too unqualified for it to be of any help, then it still doesn’t matter.

                      “Not every white man owned a slave (in fact, only about 1.5% of the white population owned slaves).”

                      Why this comparison specifically? There were plenty of government programs throughout the first 150-200 years of US history that white people were eligible for and black people were not (either implicitly or explicitly). You don’t think white people got an advantage based on their race in getting hired by the government or getting into college for the majority of US history?

                      As a side note, the 1.5% figure is a bit misleading as it only includes the heads of households. The percentage of white families that owned slaves was several times higher than that (I don’t recall the exact figure for the US as a whole, I do remember that it was over 30% in the CSA states).

                    4. Not all states have affirmative action

                      FedGov does (duh). I thought that’s what we were talking about. Not every state had Jim Crow, slavery, or vote suppression either.

                      and it only helps you in edge cases

                      That’ll come as terrific news to every contractor who ever lost a federal job, or every business that lost out on an SBA loan explicitly because of quotas for women and minority owned businesses.

                      Why this comparison specifically?

                      I’d say it’s arguably the greatest injustice in terms of racial disparity (although not all slaves were black and not all slave owners were white). It’s certainly been used as a justification for affirmative action.

                      (cont’d)

                    5. There were plenty of government programs throughout the first 150-200 years of US history that white people were eligible for and black people were not (either implicitly or explicitly).

                      You’re making my point, probably without realizing it. In the same way that not all black people get affirmative action benefits, not all white people benefited from programs from which other racial groups were excluded for “the majority of US history” (doubtful, considering the size and scope of government until relatively modern times, but that’s not really important to this point – we’ll just operate as if your premise is true). But, and here’s the important part, they were the only ones who had any possibility of benefiting from those exclusionary programs. I’m guessing you’re probably comfortable recognizing the injustice of whitey getting that official leg up “for the majority of US history”, so I don’t understand why you feel compelled to defend the practice when the beneficiary is of a different race. (Well, actually, I do understand why).

                      (cont’d again)

                    6. As a side note, the 1.5% figure is a bit misleading as it only includes the heads of households.

                      From my understanding, that’s based on the 1860 US census, taking into account total population vs total number of slaves. If the 1.5% figure only included heads of households, the true figure would actually be lower since counting the rest of the household would increase the total population pool against which the total number of slaves is being compared. Comparing by household actually gives you the higher number. Here’s another source from the 1860 census, showing the overall number of slave-owning families in all states to be 8%. Of course there is considerable variability by state, since slavery was illegal in a little over half of the states at the time, and was more widely practice in the agrarian south.

                    7. Sorry about the necromancy, btw. I’m not intentionally trying to squeeze in my points when nobody is around to respond, I just only have so much time in my schedule for Reason (and I’m on PDT).

                2. Same with protections afforded to professional groups (AMA, for instance), most unions, etc. These are all (or historically have been) white male-dominated enterprises

                  You seem rather hung up on the AMA, I suspect because it’s one of a few such groups convenient to your point, but as far as unions go…

                  Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.

                  10.8% of whites, 13.2% of blacks, 10.4% of Asians and 9.2% of Hispanic or Latinos belonged to a union in 2014.

                  inb4 “but muh 1880’s!”

                  That’s kinda the point. The leg up for whitey just doesn’t exist that way anymore.

                3. Capitalism of any kind has been around for a much shorter time than the sexes have.

              2. What we’ve enjoyed is the lack of a boot on our neck.

                Whenever I hear someone talk about “white privilege”, that’s what they mean. It’s privilege not to have a boot on your neck.

                1. Whenever I hear someone talk about “white privilege”, that’s what they mean. It’s privilege not to have a boot on your neck.

                  Comparitively, it is. What’s great about modern times is government is getting much better about making sure the boot is on everyone’s neck equally.

                2. Whenever I hear someone talk about “white privilege”, that’s what they mean. It’s privilege not to have a boot on your neck.

                  And they always follow up by asserting the need to modify white privilege. Which means they wish to put a book on your neck. The merely seek to make it a vibrant boot.

            4. “Perhaps protected is not quite right.”

              But why should that stop you from talking out of your ass?

            5. Perhaps protected is not quite right.

              Maybe “persecuted” is a better word.

            6. Liberalism holds that everything I have or have accomplished is due to my white privilege.

              They furthermore hold that even my very thoughts and opinions are all rooted in my privilege, which they assert makes them unimportant or invalid (check your privilege!).

              So if I can’t have a valid opinion on any matter whatsoever because I’m white, how the fuck am I privileged?

              1. Shut up, you white male cisgendered asshole. Your opinion is worthless, unless you are a minority, female, gay, or transgendered.

          2. Actually on that one hypothesis alone we should expect to see a growth of Asian libertarians. And I actually am beginning to see that.

            The white male libertarian category has always been an occlusive aggregate, covering up that WMLs are probably slightly more likely to be Jewish or LGBT than white males in general.

            I think we should take this Trap Neuter Release piece as a sign of fear, especially as it came out on the day the black pastor denounced Democrats. The real fear is that black people may turn on the party that kidnaps black children and sells them to educrat cartels for campaign donations.

            1. Or kidnaps black children and locks them in cages for ten to twenty years..

          3. Untrue. University selection is designed primarily to discriminate against Asians (Whites also get screwed but Asians got screwed more),

        2. White men have born the brunt of all our wars.

        3. You may not have noticed, but we don’t actually live in history.

          At present, whites and males do not receive the same protections or benefits from the state that protected classes do. Whether you think that’s an effective counterweight to all those social blemishes not caused by the present state (aka the All in the Family argument) or a series of perverse incentives that exacerbate old wounds and create both culture war and economic drag, it’s pretty fucking difficult to go into a family court or examine funding of men’s health issues vs. women’s or register for the Selective Service and conclude that men have the same “rights” in the eyes of the state as women.

      2. FYI, interesting handle.

        1. Thanks! I wanted to go with anthropomorphic, but hit the character limit and had to settle for fleshy.

          1. Ah. I was gonna ask what the fleshy was all about. I’ve recently gotten very interested in David Bohm’s solution to the measurement problem. I find myself convinced that quantum mechanics is completely deterministic. And I find myself once again in an existential angst about determinism, free will, and all that crap. An anthropomorphic wavefunction is a terrifying thing!

            1. “And I find myself once again in an existential angst about determinism, free will, and all that crap”

              You should get a job and quit living off your parents or the government.

              Being fully responsible for one’s self tends to focus one’s angst toward more concentrated subject matter.

              The white man’s privlege is equally weighted against white man’s burden.

              1. Weekends were made for Tulpa time.

    3. Umm… but white males do control the state. Take a look at basically everyone in Congress…

      1. Take a look at the agencies in the executive branch, you know, the branch where Congress surrendered its power (back when a white male was in charge of it). Outside the DoD, women and minorities sure ain’t the hardest hit.

        1. What is your point here? Is it that the executive agencies are being filled by women and minorities to the exclusion of white men? Is it that non-white men are taking over the positions of power in the executive agencies?

        2. I thought the point was pretty clear:

          When you look at who wields the power that people feel day-to-day (because the day-to-day imposition of the State is done by agencies, not Congress), its not just white males, and may even be disproportionately not white males.

          1. I understood that as well, as indicated by my line of questioning (which still hasn’t been answered, and an answer is necessary to establish your conclusion). Who do you think wields the power that people feel day-to-day? Is it the low-level clerical workers? Or is it the high-ranking people in the organization?

            1. Who do you think wields the power that people feel day-to-day? Is it the low-level clerical workers? Or is it the high-ranking people in the organization?

              People at all levels of a government agency. From the DMV desk clerks on up.

              What line of questioning hasn’t been answered?

              What is your point here?

              Answered.

              Is it that the executive agencies are being filled by women and minorities to the exclusion of white men?

              Nice straw man. Non-response to a straw man is acceptable, IMO. Now, change “to the exclusion of” to “disproportionately to”, and you might be on to something.

              Is it that non-white men are taking over the positions of power in the executive agencies?

              They certainly are, to at least some extent.

              You have a very limited idea about what a “position of power” is. You seem to think its limited to the C Suite. I can assure you it is not, and that any citizen confronted by a government agent, regardless of that agent’s job title, is experiencing the exercise of power over them.

              Of course. It’s obviously about individuals in the end.

              Then why do you insist on talking about white males collectively?

              1. You have a very limited idea about what a “position of power” is. You seem to think its limited to the C Suite. I can assure you it is not

                This. Just wait until a critical aspect of your life is on hold due to some semi-retarded “public servant”.

            2. The reason your argument is bullshit because “white people” are not a single individual.

        3. At any rate, the comment original was about control. I’d take that to be about positions of power. No matter what you look at, whether it’s members of Congress, Cabinet officials, Supreme Court justices, heads of Fortune 500 companies, or whatever, white men are significantly overrepresented. That’s a pretty good indication that they (we) control quite a bit. There could be any number of reasons for the overrepresentation; I’m agnostic to that question for the purposes of this thread. Regardless of the reason, white men have an enormous amount of control, inside of government and outside of it. Any claim to the contrary is absurd.

          1. I’m not those people. I’m not a CEO, a member of Congress, Cabinet official, Supreme Court Justice. Those people aren’t me. They don’t wield power or capital for my benefit.

          2. I would point out that just because a small group of white males (the government and corporate leaders you mentioned) are holding most of the power, does not mean that most white males are powerful, privileged people.

            “All X is Y” does not necessarily mean that all Y is X as well.

            There are plenty of white males in dismal socioeconomic circumstances, but the fact that the positions of power are held by their fellow white men does not seem to offer them any salvation.

      2. Umm… but white males do control the state. Take a look at basically everyone in Congress…

        Yes, that’s true. I guess if we’re talking about white maleness, then sure, I guess… I mean… I think.

        I find very little in common with any of those white males, and many of those white males are out to limit, stop, restrict and even take things that are dear to me.

        1. Of course. It’s obviously about individuals in the end.

          1. Then why do you expend so much energy collectivising white males ?

      3. Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett or Loretta Lynch?

        You are conflating white tax serfs and tax predators of the ruling class. Is this equivocation deliberate? It’s why you and the people annoyed by you are talking past each other.

      4. And you think Congress controls the State?

        How quaint. Congress is democracy theater.

        Perhaps you missed the IRS apparatchiks pissing in their faces on national TV.

        The unaccountable federal bureaucracy controls the state.

        1. Huh huh huh, where’d you read that, wingnut.com??

          /shriek

    4. I think much of it is that women are “nicer” and “more compassionate,” which often translates into “less logical” and “more willing to spend other people’s money.”

    5. No one has anything to gain from the growth of the state and a lot to lose from it unless they control it.

    6. So what’s your solution? White separatism?

    7. Right on, that’s a huge part of it. Another way to say it would be that libertarian thought advocates personal responsibility, which American women are not particularly fond of.

      Let’s look at single mothers. Why would they want to have to take full responsibility for choosing the wrong man as the father of their kids when they can just vote for the ultimate beta male in the form of the welfare state?

      Single mothers vote democrat. Married women vote republican.

  4. The question should read: Why is Rand Paul so unpopular with homely women? Paul appears to be quite popular with the attractive ladies I know
    .

    1. TIWTANU(gly)FL.

      1. I only understand some acronyms that aren’t over 5 characters.

        Did you mean: TITAN Ugly)FL?

        1. I think there’s a W in there for “why”. Maybe I don’t know my libertarian acronyms.

          1. ..and I know ’em? ( Not much of an acronym guy ( too many acronym fields to keep up with )).

    2. Ugly women need government to rob men to support them. Attractive women are able to obtain resources from men on a voluntary basis.

      Yeah, I fucking said it.

      -jcr

  5. “Why Don’t Women Like Rand Paul?”

    On population statistics, women prefer more government and less freedom relative to men.

    1. You know who was very popular amongst women?

      1. Ryan Gosling?

      2. Babies.

      3. That jumped-up Czech corporal?

      4. Bluebeard?

  6. “Last I checked, about 9 out of 10 Reason magazine readers are men”

    well, they *present* as males, at least.

  7. Why is Paul so unpopular among women?

    Because woman are dumb….

    🙂

  8. If a woman conflates government with society there’s no way she’ll be a libertarian, or even a respectable conservative. Human beings are social creatures, woman especially, and if liberty comes across as some kind of cabin-in-the-woods, I’ve-got-mine philosophy, then no way the fair sex will vote for it.

    Once they realize that it’s arbitrary government, not liberty, which promotes hyper-individualism by breaking up the intermediate institutions and little platoons, maybe they’ll come calling.

    1. If it wasn’t for the fact that some of the most classically liberal creatures I know are female I’d probably very much lament women getting the vote.

      1. Ugh. As a woman, I hate to admit it, but when I look at all the election day polling, i see time and time again that the candidate or issue I voted for would have passed if only women hadn’t voted.

        Depressing as fuck.

        1. I like your handle. It comes from a great music video.

        2. I think love you

    2. If a woman conflates government with society

      You know who else conflated government with society?

      1. Bastiat’s evil doppleganger?

        1. In the world where Bastiat’s evil doppleganger lives, are his ideas as ignored as Bastiat’s are in ours? I would like to live in such a world.

  9. Women generally don’t think as much as they feel. They also like to be taken care of. This is why they are instinctively drawn to an alpha male. Rand Paul talking about anything that smells of individualism just isn’t the flavor of musk to which the ladies respond, because they feel that take-care-of-yourself attitude is meant for them as much as for the fellows. And I think I read somewhere also that Paul’s wife complained once that he leaves the seat up.

    1. The bastard.

    2. And I think I read somewhere also that Paul’s wife complained once that he leaves the seat up.

      In my office we developers are sequestered to the basement where we’ve got our own toilet. There is one woman developer, but she goes upstairs. Well, we had a new IT guy, and shortly after I noticed that the seat was being left up. All of the rest of us are married and well trained. So I said to him, in the presence of a few other guys, “You must lot live with any women.” He looked at me oddly and affirmed. Then when I told him how I knew, everyone had a good laugh.

      1. In my office we developers are sequestered to the basement where we’ve got our own toilet.

        Is that you, Moss?

        1. Back when I worked for the government, I was sequestered to the basement and worked with a female partner. There was a bathroom, but most of the time she and I were out on the road investigating these weird and unexplained cases no one else wanted to touch. Good times.

          1. Was she the skeptic that eventually came around? Also a hot redhead?

      2. All I can say is that I must know too many of the wrong kind of women, because many of the ones I do know tend to leave the toilet seat up, and *I’m* the one who keeps putting it down.

      3. Maybe he lives with a woman, BUT just isn’t a fucking pussy?

      4. So you only have guys who use the toilet but you still leave it down? I have 2 boys and after they were old enough to piss standing up, I told my wife she had 2 options: leave the seat down and have piss all over it OR leave it up all the time and have it dry (most of the time). She chose “up.”

    3. Ehhh… That actually makes sense.

    4. You do realize that you lose all credibility when you talk about women as though they are goats an not people, right? I mean the unironic use of the term “alpha male” is a giant, trillby-shaped flashing signal that you are not to be taken seriously.

      1. I’VE NEVER BEEN UNIRONIC IN MY LIFE.

        1. Again with the layered meanings, I couldn’t figure out if Hugh was trying to out ironic you. I DON’T KNOW WHAT ANYONE REALLY BELIEVES!

          1. I DON’T KNOW WHAT ANYONE REALLY BELIEVES!

            Isn’t it delicious?

        2. Take off your trucker hat and have a PBR, Fist.

      2. People who have “third rail” words that cannot be used are not to be taken seriously.

        Also, the alpha-male thing is not a farce. I used to work with a sociobiologist at the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University who’s main work was examining mating patterns in humans and primates. She travelled the world figuring out who is bangng who, and why.

        Her conclusion? Women throughout the world, across all societies and even among many primates will choose the “nice guy” to partner with. They want the reliable, safe provider. They will even give him a child or two. But then they will seek out the rogue alpa-male. The dangerous warrior type who couldn’t be trusted as a provider. She will have affairs with this type and have a few of her children that way.

        She believed this was a strategy to avoid “placing all of your eggs in one basket”. It is an instinct that kicks in, not a conscious decision. It was her belief that this explains the “seven year itch” phenomenon and the high divorce rate at around that time. In more primitive societies, one would hide an affair. No longer. Just kick Mr. Provider to the curb and do your thing.

        This is a highly credentialed woman who spent her entire career studying the phenomenon of the alpha male and his attractiveness to the female. And yes, she is taken rather seriously in her field.

        1. So the women who marry the bad boy or don’t marry at all or resist the temptation to cheat or prefer the company of women or prefer the company of no-one are what, defective? The biological imperative is part of all of our decision-making processes, but it is not the only part. Reducing women to their instincts misses the bus to the boat to the distant continent that the point is on.

          1. What about my male instinct to identify with tricorn hats and robber barons? What about that?

          2. You are right. I’ll call her up and tell her to chuck her life’s work in the bin. It is all a waste, because people can make their own choices. There’s no reason to understand what people in the aggregate do, because any on person can decide to act in any way they see fit. So even if you are dealing with actions that are taken in the aggregate, one should never undertake to decipher what moves the aggregate. Because each individual is his own prime mover and his actions may or may not align with the group.

        2. “Alpha male” is not a scientific, biologically valid term when talking about homo sapiens. Please share the name of this respected sociobiologist so I may take a look at her work.

          One giant red flag for me

          “Women throughout the world, across all societies and even among many primates will choose the “nice guy” to partner with. They want the reliable, safe provider. They will even give him a child or two. But then they will seek out the rogue alpa-male.”

          All societies? You do realize that women in many societies don’t even really have control over who they partner with? And who are these “many primates?” Most non-human primates are not monogamous.

          1. Why do you suppose those draconian controls exist, if not in response to fears over paternity? And yet even in countries that have the death penalty for women who stray, somehow there is still a meed to enforce this law. How is that possible?

            Ponder this point for a moment and you will begin to see that the biological drive to reproduce is not logical. It cannot be dissuaded by threats of horrific consequences. This is why abstenence only education is so misguided. Even the mating strategies are hard wired.

            These studies were backed up by determining the paternity of the children. Long story short, cucoldry is not an uncommon thing, and the rates are fairly constant across societies with poor family planing options.

            It has been twenty years, so I dont even remember the director’s name. I’ll ruminate in it and see if I can dredge it up. She was releasing a book on the topic at the time which was spicy enough to get her on places like CNN. Maybe it’ll come to me…

        3. Cyto, your sociobiologist friend was absolutely right. Libertarianism, besides having few women, also seems to be overburdened with what the Red Pill world (people who see the world as it is, rather than as they want it to be, from the point of view of human sexuality) calls “white knights” or even “manginas.” These are men who feel compelled, for a variety of reasons, to leap to the defense of women, as individuals or as a group, when they feel those damsels to be in some distress. Funnily enough, women are famously not attracted to white knights, but instead are attracted to jerk boy, narcissistic, alpha, “dark triad” males. The truth hurts. And it especially hurts beta males and white knights who can’t bear to think the worst of women. Read Chateaux Heartiste’s blog.

          1. The Neckbeard is strong with this one.

          2. Go back to Reddit

          3. I’m guessing your blog hosted on a server running Fedora?

      3. You do realize that you lose all credibility when you talk about women as though they are goats an not people, right? I mean the unironic use of the term “alpha male” is a giant, trillby-shaped flashing signal that you are not to be taken seriously.

        Jeez, Hugh, next thing you’ll be claiming this whole thread is why there are no libertarian women.

        1. That’s Kunt Schultz’s job.

        2. “females,” nicole. When we’re discussing these particular objects we refer to them as libertarian females. Not that I would expect you to understand that.

          1. “gash” is also acceptable.

  10. My wife likes Rand Paul. And she’s a drug warrior Republican. Go figure.

    1. So there’s hope for him yet.

  11. First. Reason is the galaxy I love the most on this sick fucking globe of fucking bullshit. Second. um. I know 3 Libertarian females in air-breathing actual life. MAN DO NOT ASK ME why I said that… but one of these 3 air-breathing actual edifices of galactic queensville has never been online a single time in her life except to buy thousands of dollars of lingerie for me and her two boyfriends and the other one games and puts her lovely land-striped cunt online for jizz and money and the other insane child of the sun is really un-explainable really. Just fucking out there and rainbow like.

    This might explain this shit. A few branches on the multitudinous and complex female tree has several branches of introverts who are brilliantly quiet and go about their fucking business smoking pot and making the best lettuce ever in their garden while they raise their kids to be unschooled, extroverts who don’t give a shit about the internet social scene but run tiny social clubs that are extremely tight and closed kinda like old-school speak easys, and middle-verts who are prone to writing and exposition and who often make tons of money.

    REASON queens are the best online scribes on the sun god’s rotations.

    1. Hard to argue with any of that.

    2. several branches of introverts who are brilliantly quiet and go about their fucking business

      This + leave me the fuck alone + you aren’t the boss of me + get your hands off my money.

      1. Nah, married to that branch. She’s awesome… And yes, I’m not the boss of her, Moriah..

        Fuck I love that name MORIAH…. remember moriah in the late 80’s on the library phone and the green screen game?

        1. Oh thank you! No, sadly, I do not remember any Moriahs. I have been some variant of “mojeaux” or “mojo” online since 1997, so when I went looking for a pen name, I picked a Mo- and a Jo-. Sadly, I’m not happy with my dartboard-name-choosing, but I stuck myself with it.

          I actually don’t know any(body) women IRL who would claim to be libertarian, although I do know several who fit the qualifications. Then again, I’m self-employed and an artist and I really really really like staying away from people, so there might be some in my circle of acquaintance and I just haven’t spoken with them in enough depth to know.

          1. So anyways you joyful intelligent peach, I traveled online in 1988 on a phone. So your name is exceedingly special. This fucking lovely amazing geek I loved called (i want to give his name But I am privacy fuck) and I would phone in on the original internet in the late 80’s on a numbered modem and play Moriah on greenscreen computers on the local high school network and even the downtown library and we’d have to dial a number to get online and play these really strange lines through line pyramids and earn some great fucking shit made from green lines…

    3. Are you sure you’re not mixing up libertarian and libertine?

      1. Yes. and no.

      2. I once met a webcam girl IRL after hitting on her at a burger joint/bar. We spoke briefly about the welfare state and she was an adamant “what is mine is mine.” She was a hot, black, female, and libertarian. That’s the fucking trifecta right there. Spent the whole night with her going back and forth between a magazine release party, my apartment, and her apartment (complete with stripper pole).

        It was one of my favorite nights ever.

        1. Oh man, bro. Invite me. I love ebony cunt philosophy. The past sucks except that the past can be the future ribbons of a present surprised by bears hunting on a city long lost or maybe alien life forms reading this post and searching on the time machines for the Sudden Ebony hot chick… I will transponder code to search time on machines before and after this sick experience. Time will rewrite and in the future Sudden will post me and Agile Cyborg once met an ebony webcam girl IRL…. sorry for fucking with your time Sudden but shit gets real when the future is available.

          1. Alas, she dumped him for being too needy. Going back to kill Hitler won’t stop it.

          2. AC, I will invite you when you finally agree to spend a week in the nether reaches of a desert somewhere with me and a bunch of peyote.

            1. OH man I love fucking peyote and if my anonymity unveiled is so fucking real and Sudden…. man you have to be ready to Suddenly roll, nigga

        2. Hot, black, female and libertarian isn’t a trifecta.

    4. I trust you look good in the lingerie that was purchased for you.

      1. I look awesome in victoria secret but not nearyl as awesome as her… her butt smashes from the bikini bottoms like a hanging sex dwarf camel and her tits attract fucking stars…. not these shits on this planet… like real stars.. out there. in the fucking universe and they come down like star fuckers and suck her honey tits and because stars have been there for billions of years and haven’t experience normalize america these same stars suck my cock and stick their star fingers up my ass while several star gangsters fuck my wife…

        This is called being fucked by the universe and it is exceptional because a trillion atoms based on dark matter is fucking cool.

        1. This response is…. correct.

          1. Except that this fucking response intergalactic star moon fish legs correct, nigga BeeP/. NOGGA NOgga NiggA BEEPEE???

  12. This type of yearning for the America of the Robber Barons has little to offer most women (who might not want to return to a world where they couldn’t vote and had severely restricted social lives)

    Um, can he cite any libertarians that think the best part of the so-called Gilded Age was the fact that women couldn’t vote and had less rights?

    It isn’t even true since during that same time period Western states, beginning with Wyoming in 1869, gave women the right to vote and extended them liberal property rights as an incentive to live there.

    1. Herbert Spence was against women getting the right to vote.

      His reasoning turned out to be correct.

      1. Didn’t go far enough. Men shouldn’t have the right to vote either.

    2. That’s not what Heer is saying. He’s just saying that anyone who likes anything about olden times is going to be unpopular with marginailzed peeps because olden times were bad for them.

      Which is also dumb.

    3. Many of us who’ve looked at the polls conclude we’d be better off if women’s votes didn’t count. Women are more authoritarian than men. In the USA it’d also be better if blacks couldn’t vote, same reason. Equal rights & democracy is not a favorable mixture.

  13. I believe Caitlyn Jenner might possibly be a libertarian.

    Okay, not really. She’s a Republican.

    1. Caitlyn Jenner confuses me but I respect that fucking supra complex journey. I like what trans people do to my mind. They are like living philosexualtripbows…. I do NOT like the hollywood circus USING trans people to sell commercials however…. FUck that….

      Give me a trans story but don’t give me a volcanic eruption. My mind trips on LSD but I admit to being tripped up on trans friends occasionally.

      How is the trans world NOT an adjustment? Give us your journey but don’t overwhelm us… Just because I suck occasional cock and share my wife with studs doesn’t mean I can handle all this hot shit rolling down the vine right now… though zero judgment….

      If I met Caitlyn in a bar I would go to bed with her if she wanted me… I’d have to ask the stud-fucking wife first but I would fuck Caitlyn.

      1. Caitlyn Jenner confuses me

        She is a vortex of confusion.

        If I met Caitlyn in a bar I would go to bed with her if she wanted me

        I am not, thank god, privy to the details, but its my understanding she is not yet, erm, fully modified. Just sayin’.

        1. Not entirely sure that’s a dealbreaker for Agile. There’s a certain fluidity to him.

      2. I am learning a lot from Jenner’s transformation. I had previously thought that being transgender was “stuck in the wrong body”. But Jenner has had surgery to alter his face and breasts,but wants to keep things intact below the waist AND is attracted only to women. That helps me to understand that there are many, many genders/identifications/phases etc. I understand that I don’t understand them all, and it’s ok because I care about everyone as an individual.

        And that’s the reason we should quit making categories in which to pigeonhole people. But we should keep male and female restrooms.

        1. Hilariously, in the most tepid show of solidarity for gender-nonconforming individuals conceivable, my state’s legislature entertained a bill that would strip gender designations from single-occupancy government restrooms. I haven’t ever encountering a single-occupant restroom in a public building.

  14. No female Libertarians? Well, That young man in in the headline picture fills me with hope. Plus some other emotions which are weird and deeply confusing…

  15. FUCK harvard, princeton, and berkely. You suck, bitches. Libertarian women might spawn from your fucking repetitive worthless depths but it will be so because that libertarian female star found her galaxy in spite of your worthless over-rated bullshit. FUCK YOU.

  16. It’s not just marketing, it’s the ideas. Women are protected by Title 9 and other non-discrimination laws. Most women appreciate this, and it’s not hard to see that a world without those protections would be better for women. Same with non-whites. Why would most women support a world that eliminates protections that are important to them?

    Any movement that proposes eliminating protections for disadvantaged people will have a hard time attracting those people to their movement.

  17. To a significant degree, libertarianism is a philosophy that exalts a world where white men enjoyed enormous freedom, but other groups were even more marginalized than they are now. How surprising is it, then, that politicians like Paul who voice libertarian ideas have a fan base that is overwhelming made up of white men?

    This type of thing bugs the shit out of me.

    Wishing that people would stop leaving the house and going to the grocery store in their fucking pajamas doesn’t mean I support slavery. Jesus fucking Christ.

    Yes, I yearn for a time when every kid wasn’t burdened with four hours of homework a night so they could go out in the woods and shoot off model rockets ala October Sky. I yearn for a simpler time when we rode our bikes in the rain and anxious bitches in Volvos didn’t yell out the window “Helmet!”.

    I too yearn for the time when it was simpler to start a business by pushing a cart of goods up or down the street and build an empire out of it without every step of the way requiring a license and gauntlet of petty regulations– which to the progressives of TNR is suspiciously and inconsestently not racist… for reasons I still know not.

    However, because I yearn for those things doesn’t mean I yearn for crosses being burned in the front yards of uppity negroes, or that women shouldn’t have the vote.

    I don’t think anyone should have the vote.

    1. Damn, Paul. That was excellent.

      1. You are a reactor. A refinery of thought. A responder in the emergencies of a failing planet.

        FROM THE TUNDRA is now required to post his/her brain lava. Don’t react. POST. VIBE. GIVE. GIve your brain orgasms unto us… FROM.

    2. Tell us how you really feel…

    3. So Paul supports slavery. Got it.

      /sarc

      1. PAUL’S ENTIRE COMMENT WAS CODE LANGUAGE

        1. *ahem*

          It was a dog whistle, thank you very much.

    4. Thanks for saying that so eloquently for me Paul. Now I don’t have to spend the time typing it.

      What kind of moron thinks that “lack of onerous business regulations” was a causal agent for “slavery” or “women being denied the franchise.”

      There should be a Latin phrase to denote the fallacy of “occurred at the same time as, therefore, caused by…” Oh wait…

  18. Ayn Rand is the fucking most misunderstood goddess intellectual ever… WHY the don’t the FUCKING scribes read her works? for realz man… I get pissed off at this shit. Ayn Rand is a brilliant female star setting an example for MEN and WOMEN of thought. what the fucking fuck? Not to say that my lovely dead girlfriend is and should be worshipped but her thoughts I’ve studied for years and she is a brilliant atom bomb in the collective planet of minds..

    1. Is that what is meant by troll failure?

      1. Bruce, AC is treasured around here because he just gets it.

        1. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that I get it…

          1. If you do, do anti-biotic a work?

  19. Rand should work harder to promote his wife’s book, “True and Constant Friends: Love and Inspiration from Our Grandmothers, Mothers, and Friends.” I mean, you can *see* the estrogen dripping off of it and making slippery puddles on the floor:

    http://www.amazon.com/True-Con…..WJ7BXXR9CF

    1. estrogen can be interesting when it is mixed with moonshine?

      1. A colony of transgendered backwoods hillbillies undergoing hormone therapy and brewing some of ol’ pap’s famous ‘shine. I love it. Greenlight this immediately.

  20. You know who else had support mostly from males….

    1. A corpse getting borne to its final resting place by the Cleveland Browns?

      1. Come to think of it, I’ve never seen a female pallbearer. Am I supposed to be offended by that for some reason?

        1. And yet nearly every ballparer is female.

    2. Feliz Navidad

  21. OT: Is anyone here using Windows 10?

    ( Had an offer for “Free Windows 10” pop up in my task bar. Checked it out and it appears legit. Couldn’t find anyone I know who is using it to tell me whether or not it’s crap, though. )

    1. No, I upgraded to 7 and never looked back.

      1. Using Win7 IS looking back.

        1. I have a friend with Windows 8 who sends me streams of angry texts about how bad it sucks. I keep telling him to upgrade to 7.

          *phht*phht*

          Is this thing on?

          Take my wife…

          1. Windows 8.1 Update 1 is what Windows 8 should have been on release.

            1. So Windows 8 is so awful that MS is “free” upgrading not only W8, but W7 ( ( W7) which seems to work just fine ) for free hoping everyone will forget the terrible W8 disaster?

              I don’t mind cashing in on disaster. What the heck, I didn’t cause the catastrophe, so why not?

          2. That’s my dilemma. I’m using W7. It works great. Everytime in the past I’ve “upgraded” from something that worked great it’s been a disaster.

            What to do…what to do…

        2. Haha ha HA.

          Yes. I think will upgrade.

          What’s the worse that can happen? My computer will be destroyed?

          Live dangerous! Or don’t bother living…hmmm

    2. But seriously… I’m getting the same thing on my task bar on my old win7 laptop. I didn’t notice it said “free”, but it was an offer to upgrade to 10. I believe it’s legit.

      1. It’s legit. But Windows 10 is not being released until end of July, IIRC. It’s just holding your place in line.

    3. I am interested in this too. Windows 8 is a crime against humanity.

      1. Windows 10 will be worse. Microsoft wants to move to a model in which you continually pay for the use of their software. I’m sorry, but people only use Windows because it comes pre-loaded on their Best Buy laptops. Make the switch to Linux and be happier for it.

        1. Microsoft is lost as a consumer products company. They’re not lost as an enterprise software company (yet), but as consumer products, they’re gone. Kaput. Doesn’t mean they can’t come back, but at this time, at this moment, they’re adrift in a dead sea.

          1. This has been the case since, what? The Zune or whatever the fuck it was called? I’m absolutely shocked that Microsoft thinks that there will be a significant market segment that will buy their products when they don’t come pre-bundled with their new computers.

            1. Yeah, the Xbox was DOA

              1. The XBox may be the one consumer product they’ve got that’s widely accepted and competitive.

                Ironically it’s built around Windows 8 (if I’m correct) which is also ironically, a decent operating system for use with a controller with two thumb joysticks.

                1. Well, Windows 8 was designed for tablets…

    4. It’s not out until the end of July. The icon is just to sign up for an automatic download instead of going to get the download yourself when it’s out. I upgraded to Win8 that way.

      Despite what others say, I’ve had no problems with Win8 at home. Not sure I’d use it at work though but 2012 Server has been fine at the office. If you are running Win8 and aren’t programs over 10 years old, the upgrade should probably not be a big deal, but you might want to search the web for developer issues in the meantime.

      1. Is there any real reason to upgrade? Given Microsoft’s product history, do you think that Windows 10 will come out free of serious flaws? Take your Windows 8, upgrade to Windows 7, and call it a day. Better yet, go to Linux.

        1. The Windows 8 upgrade from win7 was a breeze. The upgrade to Win8.1 was unnoticeable.

          The OS doesn’t matter that much anymore, most things are done through the browser.

        2. IMO, Win 8 came out without serous flaws. All the reported flaws were people simply scared shitless of change.

          For most people, an upgrade is probably not necessary. But it will probably be painless.

          The reason to not upgrade any OS from any supplier is it will likely do even more tracking of your movements than the prior release.

          1. IMO, Win 8 came out without serous flaws. All the reported flaws were people simply scared shitless of change.

            As a professional who has used dozens of operating systems including every iteration of Windows from Windows 1.0 (yes, I did) through Windows 8 (and every server product starting with NT 3.51 through Server 2008) I can tell you that “change” is about the last thing I’m afraid of.

            I did feel some minor frustration between 95 and XP because MS had an annoying habit of moving things about and when you’re supporting 3000 users and have to talk a percentage of them through operations, this habit can get… frustrating.

            Having said that, Windows 8 represented a major and frustrating departure from the user interface standpoint, leaving people with simple keyboard and mouse almost completely out to dry. For professionals trying to do things quickly, just trying to open up a command window became an eye-rolling experience and no enterprise that I’ve worked in has adopted it. That says something profound.

            It also says something profound when Microsoft explicitly says that “this new Windows 8 update will add support for keyboard and mouse.”

            *pause for explosive irony*

            1. This. Windows 8 is fine for tablets and smartphones, but not so good for laptops and desktops. I myself use Windows XP on my desktop, and even my work computer (provided by my company) only has Windows 7.

              1. Microsoft has been trying to unify their products since as far back as I can recall, and the consequences are getting worse.

                Even I’ll admit that initially, on paper, it made sense back in the 90s. Yeah, I’m familiar with the windows interface on my desktop, so when I pull out this PDA, it’ll ALSO have Windows on it, and it’ll all be familiar.

                It was a mess. Putting the same desktop OS on a PDA didn’t make a lot of sense and WinCE (pronounced ‘wince’ by professionals) became a distant memory.

                Now they’re trying to make it in the tablet and phone game, and they’ve decided that the tablet and phone OS should go on the desktop! What Microsoft should, but won’t do, is offer different products that give a different experience based on the platform. They stubbornly stick to this idea of a unified user experience for all Microsoft/Windows products, and it predictably ends up being a mess.

                Flicking my finger across a screen to switch displays or pages makes sense on a phone and a tablet, it doesn’t make sense when I’m sitting at a desk and need heavy use of keyboard and mouse input. And the concept of a large touchscreen is still… dodgy. When screens get above a certain size, I don’t need to touch them anymore, and it can even become counterproductive.

        3. I have to keep Windows 7 for VPN access to work network so I can work from home. I have never seen Linux, and not really savvy enough to redo my computer myself anyway.

        4. Hell, just stick Classic Shell in front and you’ll barely notice.

    5. The Spousal Unit has already slain this dragon for me. He says:

      Hide Windows update kb3035583.

      It enables annoying prompting to update to Windows 10. Right click on it to select Hide Update

      1. Tell him to decline it in WSUS.

    6. John Galt is another of my fake user names. Every John is me.

    7. I installed it on a workstation for others in the office to play around with and promptly forgot about it. The sole improvement over Windows 8.1 that I could suss out was a hybrid of the start screen and start menu.

    8. My friend, a former Mac enthusiast-turned Linux network admin, is very pleased with Windows 10. He says it took all the registry edits he used to render Windows 8 tolerable and made them standard.

    9. In still on XP.

  22. Mollie Hemingway made her kids watch a Ron Wyden speech on C-SPAN.

    1. Who?! and… WHO?!

      1. From KMW’s links. The Hemingway kids missed their usual “treat” of DVR’d Jeopardy re-runs. I love Mollie Hemingway but she doesn’t sound like a fun mom.

        1. yeah I saw her name in the post, but I didn’t click through to get context. You’re right, she sounds like she’s going to have very successful children who will resent her for the rest of her life.

            1. But there’s a way of interpreting this data to suggest that libertarian ideas themselves aren’t supportive of emotional engagement and community involvement. And, unfortunately, most media presentation of libertarian ideas falls into that trap. That’s because media tend to be biased in favor of government action.

              That’s putting it extremely lightly.

            2. present issues of concern a bit too analytically at the expense of emotional engagement and a hearty focus on community and other institutions.

              I have put SO many issues forward in terms of protecting the little guy from the zillion pound hammer of government and yet, the so-called ‘compassionate liberal’ is completely tone deaf on the concept.

              If the progressives couldn’t muster an ounce of compassion for Suzette Kelo, there’s truly no hope for them.

          1. I doubt it, to be honest. That’s an eccentric thing to do but occasionally being bored watching something boring isn’t a soul-crushing test of endurance. The proggy sort of maniac who hovers over her child’s every waking moment force-feeding him kale and exhausting herself and her marriage protesting the vagaries of reality with all its sharp corners and upsetting ideas is the mother whom children come to resent.

  23. Right now politicians seem better at buying the votes of single women than single men, but that’ll change as soon as we start mass-producing sex robots. Just you wait.

  24. Honestly, I have to say both Heer’s and Ward’s analysis of the issue is pretty weak. Both analyses miss the ten-ton elephant (pardon the pun) in the room – the gender gap we’re talking about here is among Republican women. The whole “not looking for the good old days” trope just seems particularly inapplicable here. My guess is that women in the GOP probably skew a little more socon and activist in foreign policy than the party as a whole.

    1. No offense, but perhaps people like…H&R contributors…are dragging down Rand’s numbers among the kind of women who vote in Republican primaries.

      1. Let’s look at it this way…Mrs. Republican Voter hears that Rand Paul is the libertarian candidate, so she says to herself, “hmmm…maybe I should look into this libertarian philosophy…what would be a good Web site to pursue this inquiry? Look, this site says Free Minds and Free Markets…and they seem to like Rand Paul…let me see…

        “Nice, they’re concerned about police brutality…maybe the cops *are* getting a bit out of hand, fair enough…and they’re not enthusiastic about the drug war…well, the drug war *does* have a few bugs in it…hmmm…

        “Ah, let’s read some of the articles by that nice young Ms. Brown…hmmm…she’s morally indignant about pornography, good…wait, she’s indignant that some guy is trying to get his girlfriend *out* of the porn industry! Now, that’s not nice…maybe I should check the comments…”

        [sound of fainting and falling on floor]

    2. Fine. Tell us what Republican women seek.

      1. AC, is that to me or Notorious GKC?

        1. The truly Bill, love… I think your mind is on to something.

          1. Well, Republican women tend to skew married moms. Married moms tend to be more risk averse. And a socially liberal or non-interventionist set of policies are probably a lot less so (at least in most people’s minds, regardless of sex). Plus, I’d add the whole abortion issue. A guy who is pro-choice is probably more likely to vote GOP than a woman who is. It’s a lot more likely that he’ll be willing to vote GOP because he agrees with them on other issues than a woman does. It’s not as big a priority for pro-choice guys. But, that means the women who do vote Republican are more likely to be pro-life and that’s going to correlate with other socially conservative views.

            1. But Rand Paul *is* prolife:

              (congress.gov)

              http://ow.ly/NWvHq

              Mrs. Republican Voter, of course, might wonder about Rand’s social conservatism as *some* of his fans say “oh, that’s just to appease the rubes, he’s really a cool social liberal like me!”

              1. And Rand talks like a SoCon by being impolite enough to mention the War on Christianity, and he at least wants the states to get back their authority over marriage.

                Again, the question for Mrs. Republican Voter is whether he’s being sincere, or whether he’s just going through a checklist of Stuff To Say To Appease The Hicks During Primary Season.

              2. But, like a lot of socons they’re going to be “pro-law-and-order”, pro-War-on-Drugs, and supportive of “protecting traditional marriage”.

                You’re deluding yourself if you don’t think there’s a correlation in the views. And Paul takes a view that people like that are going to see as ambivalent.

                1. I think this is close to my point. Mrs. Republican Primary Voter might see Paul as just going through the motions on abortion and marriage. He may see him as being sympathetic to the kind of person who puts scare quotes around “protecting traditional marriage.”

                  As to drugs and crime: Lots of SoCons are drug warriors, and others see any leniency in the criminal justice system as a return to the 1970s. But since Rand is being fairly nuanced he actually has a chance of reaching out to SoCons, considering that the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF FRICKIN’ TEXAS is now saying that maybe we should reconsider some unduly punitive criminal justice policies.

                  1. Mrs. Republican Primary Voter might see Paul…He may see him as….

                    So, Mr. Republican Primary Voter is transgendered? What kind of GOPers do you hang with?

                    1. Don’t you oppress me!

                    2. On a more serious note, you undermine your own point. “Protecting traditional marriage” isn’t a job of the government, at least from a libertarian perspective. And even Dr. Paul says it isn’t a federal responsibility. If female Republicans think the federal government ought to be doing that, libertarianism probably isn’t for them.

                    3. It is the government itself from which marriage needs to be protected.

                      Even the visionary and, bluntly, totally unrealistic project of “deregulating” marriage would be far preferable to what the feds and the states are doing now, especially “no fault” divorce and abolishing the sex-binary definition of marriage.

                      By this time, I’m sure the primary voters would be grateful to leave marriage in the hands of the states rather than empowering the feds to override state laws – but even this is probably a pipe dream.

                      And while Paul is probably sincere in wanting to return marriage to the states, I suspect that when the Supreme Court decrees same-sex marriage for the whole country Paul will shrug and say “ah, well, what are ya gonna do?” I think primary voters suspect the same.

                    4. Cruz’s approach is the only realistic one – hand the matter over to the state courts so that, if the voters of a particular state are for real marriage, they can throw the same-sex marriage judges out of office.

    3. Exactly. I posted this below before reading your comment. Do you think this is dishonesty, stupidity, or just that Jeet intended to bloviate and the actual polling gap was a springboard for his real theme?

  25. This commentary, right here, is why there are no Libertarian women.

    /ironic

    1. women like hamsters, tho. I think. what living thing doesn’t like hamsters even the eaters of hamsters of love hamsters. tho I don’t think women eat hamsters. Do they?

  26. I am fucked and my wife is bitching at my ass to get packed to go transcontinental and that fucking lovely slut of mine is wearing pink panties and underneath her black super tight dress is a FUCKING inch thigh gap bros. man.. the earth curves on lingerie and full inch gap man kills my fucking brain motherfukers…. goddam

  27. Really? Are you serious? He is trying to get the GOP nomination. That is who he is aligned with, who will write a platform. And he will live to. Do you even understand what they stand for in regard to women’s health issues? Wake up. Let me know when he leaves the GOP

    1. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Do you even understand what they stand for in regard to women’s health issues?

      You mean when it comes to heart attacks? Pancreatic cancer? Rheumatoid arthritis? Or do you mean lady parts? Because Marxians have this penchant for conflating “health issues” with lady parts.

      1. You are the perfect example of GOP understanding of women’s health issues. Thanks…I can always count on you for Neanderthal thinking.

        1. So, I guess women never have health issues except, you know, down there?

          1. Down where…c’mon…show some courage.

        2. Re: JackAss Ass,

          You are the perfect example of GOP understanding of women’s health issues

          Aha! I knew it! You DID mean lady parts!

          Do I get a prize, idiot?

          1. Keep ’email comin.

            1. But you didn’t provide one.

              Instructions unclear.

              Awaiting clarification.

  28. I thought I was why TANFL.

    1. Actually, no. Last night we found out it was Cytotoxic.

      Weird, huh?

      1. That only explains the poor showing of the libertarians in Canada.

        1. Relative to the awesome showing of libertarians everywhere else?

      2. You give me too much credit. For once.

  29. I’m profoundly grateful that Heer?who emailed (and quoted!) a bunch of Reasoners in his piece, including yours truly on the topic of long-tail sausage fests?didn’t opt for the old saw that libertarianism is more rational and less emotional, which is why it doesn’t appeal to those soft-hearted (soft-headed?) ladies.

    I don’t understand your beef with that explanation, Katherine. Socialism and all other collectivist philosophies are based on nothing more sophisticated than pure jealousy. People who feel jealous of other people’s prosperity or wealth will tend to favor policies that purport to level the “playing field”.

    If you and I accept this proposition, then it follows that there are many less women libertarians because many more women tend to feel jealous of other people’s wealth or status. This explains why so many women are bamboozled into believing the pay gap, why they’re so easy to fool into thinking that the State nurtures or why it is so easy to hoodwink them with the notion that they’re victims.

    1. Without saying that mine is a scientific poll, but my experience listening to partisan debates in Fox News has shown me the level of pure intellectual incompetence among the liberal women than among the liberal men. The liberal men that contribute to Fox are usually either gay guys or just plain liars who don’t believe their own words. Most liberal women they invite are incredibly stoopid (and I mean Whoa, there! stoopid), where instead of arguments they throw emotionally-loaded bromides.

      1. At the risk of being called a white knight, I don’t think that female liberal commenters represent the whole female sex.

        The problem with liberal women is the same problem with liberals in general – they tend to be morons (with notable exceptions of course).

        Now, in general, I suppose the sex which scratches its balls has, in general, a greater tendency toward abstract reasoning divorced from specific individuals, and the sex with the shoe collections has in general a greater tendency to more relationality and touchy-feely stuff. But there are exceptions on both sides.

        1. And neither approach is inherently more stupider than the other.

      2. The men on FOX who either are, seem, or are rumored to be gay are rarely liberal: Andy Levy is a libertarian, Guy Benson is a conservatarian I suppose, Rick Gennell is a neoconservative I guess. And I won’t even go into Judge Nap, or the various anchors, weathermen or correspondents who don’t give opinions.

        Of whom are you thinking – Alan Colmes? Robert Fowler? Mark Hanna? All unctuous worm tongued pajama boys, the two latter dripping with hair and makeup. But are they actually gay or just liberal castrati?

      3. Julie Roginsky and Kirsten Powers don’t strike me as “stupid”. Both seem able to present their “side” while engaging contrary arguments and without sticking to a script of talking points. Of course it is Fox News so they’re both relatively hot, are willing to concede points and don’t strictly hew to the party line.

    2. When I look at most of the female humans I’ve come in contact with over the years, it isn’t so much that they crave others’ wealth, rather that females tend (a generalization) toward wanting to be in control because they are wired to respond to anxiety with emotional efforts to control the environment. Socialism as policy is so often about the irrational approach that satisfies the short-term emotional need for the illusion of a solution. The Democrat policies are the policies of the “feminine” while the Libertarian policies are the policies of the “masculine”.
      Men have in general a live and let live approach to stress – avoid it, plow through it, come up with actual solutions to get at the root of it, and are therefore more inclined toward non-compulsory behavior imposition. Men generally try to find rational solutions to rid themselves of stress so they can go nap or play and are just wired toward problem elimination. The process of problem solution pleases them more that the emotional buzz they get from the stylistic problem solving approach.
      None of this requires women and men to fit this crazy take, but those women who are Libertarian are probably just wired in a way that goes the way of rational solutions.
      (This is kinda tongue in cheek – but i think it has at least a thin connection to social or biological wiring between the genders.)

  30. All right, I’ll delurk for this one. I’m a woman of libertarian beliefs, voted for Ron Paul, read Reason regularly. This is a great article that really gets it (not everything but a good start). So my next thought is, let’s hop to the comments and see if they ruin it as usual.
    Yeah, it really is a mystery why women don’t want to be in this club.

    1. TITS OR GTFO

    2. Obviously you’re secretly creaming your pants at their hypermasculinity. I know I am.

      1. TITS OR GTF…oh, wait. Never mind.

        1. Why does Nikki get special treatment from you?

    3. So my next thought is, let’s hop to the comments and see if they ruin it as usual.

      Virginia? Is that you?

      1. Meagan McArdle is to libertarian as David Brooks is to conservative…

        If it were not illegal to pay married men more than women, to discriminate against women in hiring, and so on, most of us might still be stuck as secretaries . . . which would probably mean most women still stayed home after they had children, and that the social and economic networks supporting female independence would be considerably weaker. This is why I can’t get all worked up about the injustice of affirmative action. Maybe it doesn’t work . . . but even so, it’s still pretty low on my priority list of things to repeal.

        Not to mention a woman of her social class could have easily avoided the coverture laws of the 19th Century just by remaining single and hiring Suderman as a chauffeur or a footman.

        Or moving to a more enlightened state where married women had property rights, like say Texas or Mississippi, if she insisted upon matrimony.

        1. I didn’t mean to thread this here.

        2. Or moving to a more enlightened state where married women had property rights, like say Texas or Mississippi, if she insisted upon matrimony.

          Or become a Viking, where free women could divorce their layabout husbands!

        3. “If it were not illegal to pay married men more than women, to discriminate against women in hiring, and so on, most of us might still be stuck as secretaries”

          Or someone could hire you for less than your market value and make a killing, forcing up the bidding for labor via the competitive market process until you received your going rate. Women were not held back by discriminatory hiring; they were held back because traditionally they did not receive the education, training, or experience of a men. It wasn’t the frigging market process that made women secretaries.

          Jeez, Meagan. You could at least pretend to listen to Boaz when he’s lulling us all to sleep.

        4. Institutionalized racism and sexism shouldn’t be low on anyone’s list to repeal (except for tactical reasons).

          If you can’t get worked up about institutionalized racism and sexism that you admit doesn’t even work to accomplish its overt goals, then you probably aren’t a libertarian at all.

    4. let’s hop to the comments and see if they ruin it as usual.
      Yeah, it really is a mystery why women don’t want to be in this club.

      Boy, you oughtta see Youtube.

      *looks around*

      Right? Right?

      1. The new know is horrified at the new old. Man. Youtube is changing, man. The brutal posts that are Youtube always are not new Youtube. New youtube is cutting edge changing but the recent world hasn’t revealed.

    5. Maybe it’s the white male privilege talking (I’m routinely assured I have a surplus), but once you learn to stomach the ribaldry and understand that most of what’s posted here is posted with some degree of irony, it’s actually pretty enjoyable.

      But then, I’m a basement-dwelling sociopathic miscreant just by virtue of being an unapologetically white male libertarian, so fuck your cunt and whatnot.

  31. You are all wrong. It’s because they all want to hump that beefcake Rick Perry.

    1. They all want beefcake.

  32. Women and men are different and think about things differently. And, while women can certainly think rationally without emotion, emotion is a bigger part of their thought process. I don’t think libertarianism appeals to emotion in nearly the same way that portions of the major two US political doctrines usually do, thus it doesn’t resonate with women the same way it does for even the relatively small percent of American men who agree with much of libertarianism.

    1. It’s good to be among the dispassionate, emotionless, nay Vulcan-like males who post on H&R!

      1. emotion is the clearest sun to the most optimal trip, man. What the fuck are you smishing about?
        emoted voyages lose humans in a spiral of tornadic fucktwangs, love.

        Man emotion is my paint face.

        emotion is my brain parasite.

        FUCK you NGKC. you FUCKING horrible fuking waste of trillion sun rays… notice, a trillion sun rays cannot be wasted so my metaphorical flirt of the female disguised as a reason thread male called this really fucking cool human NGKC.

      2. You’re making the value judgment, whereas I made an observation. I never said being more emotionally oriented was bad. Or good. It is what it is.

  33. Boaz is right that it’s not a very appealing message, but I’d say that’s because it’s poorly delivered or poorly received.

    The argument is that the freest man in 1880 was secure in a number of liberties that the freest man today is not. We ought to reclaim those liberties – and, obviously, they should be secured for all persons.

    Arguing about whether “we” were freer than or now is ridiculous, and all it seems to accomplish is to minimize the freedoms that have been lost. Freedoms that once were reserved for some and should be secured for all.

    1. The women of 1880 lost many of the same liberties. It wasn’t like they traded them for the ones they have now.

    2. Now the misery is spread around more evenly, rather than being concentrated just on some minorities as in earlier times.

  34. Women of brain power are lightning rivers into skulls floating on ancient dance floors… women transcend history. time. fucking. sex. and the entire fucking galaxy.

  35. I (cisgendered married female Christian engineer) like Rand because he is the first Republican presidential candidate in my voting age lifetime that has not made me cringe and change the channel when he speaks. I like what he has to say, and so far his record indicates he means it.

    He has even challenged and changed some of my beliefs, because I used to skew more neocon (I work in defense; please cut a little slack as I learn).

    1. Neocon? Accept Murray Rothbard as your personal savior or GTFO.

  36. I (cisgendered married female Christian engineer) like Rand because he is the first Republican presidential candidate in my voting age lifetime that has not made me cringe and change the channel when he speaks. I like what he has to say, and so far his record indicates he means it.

    He has even challenged and changed some of my beliefs, because I used to skew more neocon (I work in defense; please cut a little slack as I learn).

  37. I (cisgendered married female Christian engineer) like Rand because he is the first Republican presidential candidate in my voting age lifetime that has not made me cringe and change the channel when he speaks. I like what he has to say, and so far his record indicates he means it.

    He has even challenged and changed some of my beliefs, because I used to skew more neocon (I work in defense; please cut a little slack as I learn).

  38. I (cisgendered married female Christian engineer) like Rand because he is the first Republican presidential candidate in my voting age lifetime that has not made me cringe and change the channel when he speaks. I like what he has to say, and so far his record indicates he means it.

    He has even challenged and changed some of my beliefs, because I used to skew more neocon (I work in defense; please cut a little slack as I learn).

  39. I (cisgendered married female Christian engineer) like Rand because he is the first Republican presidential candidate in my voting age lifetime that has not made me cringe and change the channel when he speaks. I like what he has to say, and so far his record indicates he means it.

    He has even challenged and changed some of my beliefs, because I used to skew more neocon (I work in defense; please cut a little slack as I learn).

    1. You see, women are always repeating themselves!

      1. LOL! Ducking kindle fire wouldn’t update.

        Sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry (one for each post).

        I promise to vote for Rand 5 times in the mngop primary if possible. 😀

        1. Ha ha, just busting your balls…uh, so to speak.

          1. Hey, sometimes a gal has to wear her ovaries on the outside.

  40. Sadly I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that women are less physically secure than men. And now that traditional family structure is precarious at best, thousands of years of evolution are pointing women the way they always have: toward greater security for themselves and their children. Only now it’s through the state and not through monogamy.

    1. Yes, I would venture to say that some, though not all, of this is linked to public-policy decisions, such as “no fault” divorce, subsidies for single-mother households, and now of course SSM.

      Yet any talk of reversing these policies is ruled out of order as hateful and evil.

    2. Why should women be less secure then men? Most men are over-weight and hairy and most women while even FAT are sexy.

      Women have zero excuse to hate themselves more than dudes. It is far fucking harder to get Hollywood muscled than FUCKING base female healthy. No FUCKING woman has to work her ass off with 200 pound weights unless she’s fucking planning on going into an MMA cage.

      Women in 2015 have it easy.

      1. Especially when 10 grand will get you some awesome tits. 10 grand doesn’t get you shit as a male.

    3. Booms, busts, inflation and debt aren’t security.

      1. Yup, I totally agree. But it’s easy to argue that the state taking care of you cradle to grave is a comfy sort of coma when you rely on the feelz for your evidence.

  41. If you want to understand why women, or anyone, vote Republican, you really must read Jonathan Haidt. Specifically, The Righteous Mind. The short answer is that conservatives have a huge advantage in politics because they appeal to *all* of the “moral taste buds” with which man is endowed, whereas liberals (and libertarians) only appeal to a couple. Fascinating, profound book. Read it. (Oh, Haidt is an admitted liberal who has advised the Democrats how to win elections.)

    1. I love how Haidt found that conservatives have more nuanced and complex reasoning than liberals, which would blow liberals’ minds if they had any to blow.

    2. I’ve heard Haidt speak several times (there’s at least one good CATO video on youtube), and he’s always come across as the sort of left-of-center character you could hold a good conversation with even if you disagreed with his premises.

      In other words, a unicorn.

      1. Agreed. My sentiments exactly Knarf.

  42. The Trap Neuter Release editor makes a basic logical error in the beginning of his argument. He begins with an observation that out of Republican primary voters, Paul does much better with men than with women. He then leaps to his opinions about women in general and how this relates to broad gaseous notions he imbibed in college about political economy and American history (and KMW discusses those, since they are the topical bait most libertarians find fascinating).

    If TNR was interested in investigation and analysis he would ask how male and female Republican primary voters differ, since those are the relevant populations. It might be that male GOP voters are more libertarian and female GOP voters more hawkish, social conservative, or establishment leaning. Perhaps libertarian leaning voters identified in recent polling and discussions at Brookings, Cato, and the Reason Foundation, as often having certain demographic characteristics (secular, younger, more educated) are more likely to register GOP and vote in GOP primaries when male, and more likely to be non-voters, independents, or even Democrats (or Greens or Libertarian Party voters) when female. We will not find out there. We didn’t get any analysis, in part perhaps because it was difficult enough for a TNR scribbler to admit that female GOP voters exist, let alone survey what they think.

    1. “Trap Neuter Release”

      I’m not entirely sure how this particular derogatory remark is supposed to be understood.

      I suspect i’d find it funny if i did.

      TNR seems to me to desperately want to be “intellectual”, but talks solely about Prog/Democrat petty politics. (the least intellectual stuff on earth)

      Basically, they churn out Salon-esque fodder with a higher-brow sheen.

      i.e. its still “monkeys throwing poop”…. but *pretentious monkeys* who think they’re intellectual elites.

      See = ENB, et al

      1. Sorry! ESB

        1. You better be sorry!

  43. “I’d just add that perhaps the most stereotypically masculine thread of libertarianism?the “don’t tread on me, liberty or death, pry my gun from my cold dead hands” line?is also rather emotional.”

    Serious libertarianism is kind of a weird admixture of red-ass radicals like Rand & Rothbard, hardcore political economy of two different stripes (everyone but Rand) that have serious intellectual implications re: the outcome of political & economic orders, and misfits who’ve decided to sell their democratic birthright by leaving first-past-the-post behind and either going third party or anarcho.

    If Welch and Nick think that the movement as a whole is marginal, then the intellectual influences are downright obscure. A vanishingly small percentage of the population could tell you the difference between natural rights and consequentialism or the various disagreements between Austrian, Chicago, neoclassical, and neo/hyper-Keynesian schools, and those are essential for getting a grounding in the philosophy of the movement.

    In other words, gosh darn it, we’re just too smart for mainstream politics. And women, apparently, as we have a strong tendency to invoke technical, hyper-rational arguments, Objectivist passion aside.

    OTOH, the real reason I got involved in liberalism at all was horror at what the statists had done while people tra-la-la-ed through life oblivious to the suffering that planners & bullies had inflicted from the time we discovered agriculture.

    1. As for enjoying rough-and-tumble capitalism, maybe, but the rough-and-tumble of seductive, peaceful markets beats the shit out of the rough-and-tumble world of war and genocide.

      Either goods will cross borders or armies will.

  44. What did I miss?

    1. Broad-brushing huge demographics is the logical, emotionless argument. *beard stroke*

      1. Typical woman! (Except for the beard)

    2. Oh, if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you.

    3. Also, Agile Cyborg being the pan-dimensional being that is Agile Cyborg.

      1. please remember your Quincy is 12 dimensions which translates into dimensions no FUCKING hill billy ever read about even in his bible baby

  45. Why are there so few women libertarians?

    I don’t know.

    But I think we should use the “c-word” more often.

    1. Which one?

      There are so many.

      http://phrontistery.info/c.html

      1. You know which one!

        The one we always use on a first date–because women love being called that.

        1. crepuscular?

          1. Crusty?

          2. Crusty is all about bear penis and I do believe no bear jizz can beat Crusty penis lava. No way… No fucking bear sperm will beat a juggling pirate or ninja or space pirate…

            WHAT the fuck..fucking Crusty do you juggle?

        2. Ken eat a boob

          1. Well, nothing can top that.

    2. For the sake of your delicate ears Ken, never EVER visit the United Kingdom.

  46. “For the past 70 years or so conservatives have opposed the demands for equal respect and equal rights by Jews, blacks, women, and gay people.”

    I’ve taken Boaz apart for this historically inaccurate assessment before. A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act then did Democrats. Republicans were also responsible for pushing the right for women to vote. This flies in the face of the false narrative that David Boaz tries to push.

    1. You forget that when Republicans did good things they were really today’s Democrats! And When Democrats of the same time period did good things, they were also Democrats!

  47. So do Boaz and KMW love the NSA? Before it existed there was Jim Crow, sodomy laws and no abortion.

  48. If you had to choose, would you rather live in a country with a department of labor and even an income tax or a Dred Scott decision and a Fugitive Slave Act?

    Holy False Choice Batman!

    1. So pick a time you like better. No fair taking bits & pieces from different times.

  49. A solution would be a “men of the reason hit and run blog” calendar. There is no doubt in my mind that there would be more women after that hits the shelves.

    1. Are they going to be diving into piles of money?

      1. I was thinking more like: reciting movie quotes, writing code, playing video games.

        1. Ok then you better hire some male models

  50. Another solution: more conversation about shoes and ponies, because that is what chicks like! Right?

    1. I think you’re confusing “chicks” with this.

      1. Why why why why why is that a subculture? I”ll shelve that with folks that slice their own penises with razors.

        1. Why the fuck do yu not peruse your avatar? Fucking Pompey…

          man all you dudes and your names and all the FUCKING whys?

          REALLY? POMPEY?

          REALLY HEROIC MULATTO?

          REALLY CRUSTY?

          REALLY WINSTON?

          REALLY QUINCY?

          REALLY LAP83?

          REALLY MSD62581? i seriously dont know this bitch

          REALLY KEN?

          REALLY Hamster?

          Really RUFUS?

          1. I have not a single fuking idea why I called all these honky tonk hill billies out…man I ate some catfish butts and then fucked redneck mama with my uncle dick………

          2. REALLY QUINCY?

            What did I do?

            1. shut up quincy… I lov you like motherfucking tidal wave of stars

          3. Why what? What’d I say?

            1. We’re on a list, Doomster, we are on a list.

    2. I bought a coupla pairs of shoes at the outlet center the other day. Same brand as last time, cuz they fit my wide feet and seem to last a while. I wore my new shoes to the track. All my trifectas fumbled their instantiations at the wire.

      1. I bought myself a pair of penny loafers the other day. I figured I needed a shoe for the warm weather, because in the summers it tends to get as hot as a fake-rape porn reenactment around here. But then I was like…penny loafers…who am I, Poppa Juggler?

        Now I just stare at them, watching them taunt me and reminding me of my grey chest hairs (that’s right lady libertarian…grey…chest…hairs).

        1. I feel it, Jugular!

          I have a rack of shoes I will never wear because I fell for the delusion that i’ll just wear them in. It never happened. I can’t give them away, as that would make me feel insecure as a consumer.

          Meanwhile, I have my beer money on a 30 to 1 shot. Come on, Lasty!

          1. Man if this riveting shoe convo doesn’t draw more ladies in I don’t know what will

            1. you must imagine a human foot… the skin and bones and history behind that step mechanic and then delve into that genetic… and then you might find a Roman soldier or a feudal knight or an FBI agent … bitches all trying to save their particular worlds… doesn’t mean they are ethical…they just exist to try to do their best? in a riveting shoe?

              1. Best shoe commentary since The Manolo.

            2. Let me tell you about this pair of flip-flops I bought…

              OH COME ON ESPINOZA, BREAK OUT THE WHIP… ah fuck it.

              *tears up ticket*

              1. Quincy. I love my baby quincy….

                baby…
                man.. my brain envisions flip flops like clowns… and man

                dude, quiny quincy baby 12

                I came home tonight and I drove my toyota truck over backcountry ohio and I paused…… I saw a lonely brown …..flip flop in the middle of the road…

                lonely single flip flops freak me the fuck out, man…

            3. Are you not entertained, lap? Shoes just got cosmic.

              1. My face ate quincy balls because you decided to buy tickets on a planet my FUCKING arms don’t get QUINCY…. How about you get fucked up in a tourist spaceship you actually buy tickets for because I am on a rocket NASA is about to roll onto fucking mountain space and… yea check back

                Quincy has a million excuses and i am watching miniskirts with butt hanging in my face and all
                and you all know Quincy is hanging at the fucking space office and I’m sitting here watchin’ space ass hanging from tiny miniskirts…

                I will pay you to buy Quincy a chocolate bear with tits… loves….somehow…ok
                ….

                1. I LOVE quincy for all the eternal moons.

              2. I feel like I’m peering into his sole…

                1. fucking LAP83 … man I dont ever know on these starbangs.. man.. so lap is a fucking ear tornado of 83hell.. . dude is a space jeep smashing planets on really strange space calls in honky tonks not a single human has ever discovered on planets or comets never discovered….

                2. Boooooooo!

                  1. who juggles entire planets?….entire FUCKING planets?

                    the ancient universe star viking…. my love the crusty stranger

  51. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.jobnet10.com

  52. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.jobnet10.com

  53. Are women lasers from space?

    Men are occasional fucking comets lost.

    But women kill planets.

    Is this metamorphozi of terminologistic pseudo calming or strident?

    I think women kill planets. ENTIRE fucking planets.

    Hell, maybe vagina dark matter creates and REcreates this shit over and over and over in the trillions of space vagina years seeking the ultimate cock gods and, well. man…. fuck it the Vagina Space Queen GODS have not found their star garden yet and we will all be wiped out by these space queens…tho, as a thinking individual I have to question the vector of space and why it is predisposed to vaginas…. herm…. I know that answer… along with millions of stars I love the center of universe… the ripples and pink body hot mess of cunt….

    1. Let me tell you my thoughts on children. Boys are easy. So long as you can pay for the property damage, boys are no problem at all. Girls, on the other hand… girls are hard. Girls will eat your soul.

      When you have a boy, you have one dick to worry about. When you have a girl, you worry about every dick in the county.

  54. An entire fucking comet’s worth of humans are sharing tunes with a human called… let me check again….ok… not doing it again way too much goddam scrolling but I THOUGHT my internal computer read BUCK something…
    Man, dudes…

    On a forum involving space and time… you FUCKING DUMB PIG STARS…. NEVER EVER argue with someone or something called Buck…

    If the mind, alien, post, thought, or brook is called BUCK something… space will lose everytime….

    WHY argue with a BUCK…. Buck is to stars like Jesus is to crosses…. yea, hopefullly you whores get this shit.

  55. this thread is a time machine man…. I see a box with that fuckig light blue shit all around but I see bears and wolves and gigantic lizards and aliens and robots and tons of booze.. man,, i would never sing a song about empty booze you FUCKING genius Johnny…..

  56. does anyone else see that light blue line around all their shit? on google, man
    ?

  57. I am fucked up bros.. man, am fucked up and google doesnt need to know my chemical content

  58. i wonder if comment lines might be genetic collection?

  59. Women like free stuff too. And they often yearn to be “empowered” because of their physical limitations (physically weaker than men, pregnancies, women troubles, etc).

    And even though women dominate certain fields, they’re way less visible in positions of prestige. Black males made their mark on sports, hip hop, and entertainment. No one watches women’s softball and rom coms make almost nothing compared to the male dominated blockbusters.

    We would attribute some of that to market tastes and personal choices, but for feminists that’s just simple inequality.

  60. This is Hamster’s sad face that not one of you commented on this article – THIS ARTICLE – with “That’s what she said.”

      1. Says the guy posting music from 1998. Why don’t you just rickroll me?

        1. You didn’t watch till the end, did you?

          1. Of course I did. I watched the next one in line too (Off Limits), and liked that even more. I planned to save them for later, when all y’all east coast fogeys were in bed and I was just a wee higher, or, failing that, had another drink.

            On the other hand, there’s a cock-swinging style of posting etiquette here, and, well, when in Rome and some Roman’s digging holes that big…

            1. there’s a cock-swinging style of posting etiquette here

              You’re referring to jesse’s penchant for posting links to videos of ‘dick slangin’, aren’t you?

              1. And as an east coast fogey…I’m going to hit the hay.

                Goodnight all.

              2. I mean I enjoyed it. I was merely under the impression we were talking schmack for amusements.

  61. Hamster Seal of AHHHHpproval:

    Amalfi’s of Portland, OR.’

    I ordered a milanese pizza and half carafe of sangria. The chicken and sausage were large, well-browned and juicy chunks, the mushrooms firm. The alfredo sauce was a touch bland – I admit I would have given it a scant couple of licks with a basting brush of clarified garlic butter. But that’s the thing. At the higher levels of food quality, a matter of subjectivity works its’ way into the equation, and I can respect that. The crust was a thing of beauty, the ingredients were quality and handled well. The fights to get my leftovers have already begun.

    The sangria was delicious. FOH should never pour anything over ice without asking first, but I know the industry and I’m just being picky. The sangria was delicious.

    Family of six, total tab out the door including tip – a benjamin. Beautiful service; tactful, unobtrusive.

    A fantastic job all around, the menu is not extensive but I feel entirely comfortable recommending it.

    1. clarified butter is STUPID. why take extra time to cook the stuff that makes butter special out of it? olive oil is a tastier pure fat, and grapeseed oil is a more neutral one (and makes cool looking mayonnaise)

  62. It’s not just the extreme, the -ism, the ideology of activists that tends to turn women off. You can look at long lists of issues of public policy, and on a great number of those of significance, polls (at least in the USA) show a male-female difference, with more females taking the authoritarian side. The general public might be 20-80, 50-50, or 80-20, the percentage among women will be more favorable to the authoritarian side?sometimes slightly, sometimes to a large degree. So of course if you make all those issues converge on an ideologic divide, all those components add up to make the extreme, the -ism, the ideology of libertarianism very unattractive for ladies.

    Why this is, I don’t know. Biologic? Sociologic? Probably a mixture. Hard to figure how biology based on genetics that changes very slowly could create differences in opinions on issues that are of only recent concoction, so I tend to think the biologic influence is subtle & probably small.

    1. genetics don’t have to be “up to date” to have an effect on you. look at how fat america is. storing energy for later use makes a TON of sense when you dont know where your next meal is coming from. it’s irrelevance (and minor negative externalities) today have yet to breed that out of us. the issues we’re discussing may have changed but our biology hasn’t (much, at least)

  63. That picture is a tranny.

    Too much makeup. No chest. Hides their throat to conceal an adam’s apple

  64. yknow i don’t gravitate towards libertarianism because I think it will most effectively redress past wrongs, which seems to be the focus of almost every other political party/actor (interesting that “doubling down” on failed policies seems to be the preferred method). I think history has shown, time and time again, that freedom is the best way to improve EVERYONE’S life (aside from just being the right thing to do, if you’re more into deontology). Maybe historical luck or patriarchy or genetics or whatever you want has put more white men in a place where we have the luxury of thinking about politics morally rather than as a struggle for survival, but i don’t think that means they’re invalid. possibly the opposite? (no, not because of our whiteness and penii)

    1. *their opinions are*

  65. Where do I start? It is liberalism like yours,misandric gynocentric liberalism that is straight from the femocrat party fish fest that infests the mainstream parties,perhaps that is why men flock to the libertarian cause.

  66. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  67. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  68. From an evolutionary perspective, the species would have perished if women had not cared for the young. Evolutionary drives can be relatively stable and sometimes conflict with rapid cultural changes and widespread individual differences. Libertarians need to do a better job of explaining how we could take better care of others with less state intervention.

  69. Abortion

  70. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ????????????? http://www.workweb40.com

  71. For what it’s worth, we noticed at the last Libertarian Party convention that, although we’re still not balanced, we’re seeing more women among the LP in Texas. And most of my best volunteers on the Gary Johnson campaign were women. We (or I, at least) don’t know why we’re doing better, but we are.

    One theory for the gender imbalance we’ve seen is that women – with jobs, businesses, families and other volunteer efforts already on their plate – don’t have time enough time to spend it on an effort that is unlikely to succeed. In other words, the theory is that women will take time for libertarian issues and causes once we’re bringing more numbers and popularity. I will say that I have seen the numbers of women activists increasing greatly among the cannabis movement in Texas (again, in my experience the women often the hardest working volunteers and don’t need a title to deliver), and the theory could arguably fit there, too. *shrug*

  72. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netcash5.com

  73. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  74. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  75. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  76. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  77. I like Rand Paul. I am a woman. I am not the only woman who likes Rand Paul. Ergo, women like Rand Paul.

  78. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  79. Maybe the ladies don’t appreciate politicians who would force them to reproduce against their will. Didn’t one of those Grand Dames say something like: “Abortion is a moral right?which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered”? Rand Paul hasn’t read the 14th Amendment and, like the Prohibition Party and Bush, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

  80. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  81. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  82. The Libertarian Party has terrible outreach. When I see a table at any street fair (if at all) there are 3 flyers on guns and 2 on something else. We look like our major concern is guns. Whenever I talk to people about Libertarianism nobody knows what it is or if they think they do it is all wrong.

  83. To argue who gets, deserves, needs whatever benefit, subsidy, tax break is missing the point entirely. Libertarianism appeals to me because it appeals to their personal call to provide, protect, innovate and rely on self. To argue about it being a white thing completely ignores the fact that socialism and crony government doesn’t deliver what it promises. Government benefits don’t really deliver any of these things.

    It is entirely unmanly in my mind to be the sort of person who seeks out government assistance of any kind before exhausting all opportunity available from personal, financial and responsible decision making. This is the argument that needs to be made from the libertarian principle and tears the argument that some people need this government “advantage” a new one.

    As for it being simply a man thing, why can women not believe in themselves enough to enjoy the blessings of liberty just as much as any male. Portraying one’s self as the perpetual victim only makes you the new victim of a different subset of vultures. Women are perfectly capable as functioning as well as men with the system without any government help. The key is to make sure that they believe it and are not being misled by the new manipulator known as the social safety net.

    Make the case against government being necessary for all of these things and the need to point fingers back and forth pretty much disappears.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.