• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How statist do you think the womens' suffrage movment was?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Weren't the advocates for women's suffrage more authoritarian than those who were outright against it or who said nothing against it? I can't think of libertarians from the movement who spoke out in favor of the privilege of women to vote.

Mercy Otis Warren, the legendary Anti-Federalist and one of my heroes, did not speak out in support of womens' political privileges. Mercy Otis Warren is in stark contrast to Abigail Adams for obvious reasons.

Then there was the Great Libertarian from Buffalo (Grover "responsible women do not want to vote" Cleveland) vs. the hardline statist and corporatist progressives Woodrow Wilson and TJR.

It was the same way with those who supported voting privileges for blacks. For example, John C Calhoun was more libertarian than John Q Adams. Another example would be the statist, pro-war, anti-market Radical Republicans vs. the anti-war, pro-market Democrats who were defending themselves against the tyranny of Reconstruction.

I personally think the anti-slavery movement was highly correlated with statism; feminism in all of its forms (i.e., not limited to the third wave) has been as well.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
6
81
This must be a troll thread. Nobody could seriously be this stupid.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,940
5
81
What says "Authoritarian" better than politically empowering the Oppressed?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Enfranchising women and blacks is authoritarian? So disenfranchising them is the libertarian way? OK, gotcha. I learn something new and unpleasant about libertarians every day, it seems. What other individual rights and freedoms to libertarians oppose?
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
44,398
4,170
136
I personally think the anti-slavery movement was highly correlated with statism; feminism in all of its forms (i.e., not limited to the third wave) has been as well.
You, sir, have outdone yourself. Soon enough, modern space commerce will be mining the asteroid you inhabit, however. Remain vigilant!
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,549
650
126
The OP wants the days when slavery and women suffrage was the norm. Racist and bitter that he'll never get laid. Thankfully, he'll never leave his parent's basement.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
"Think of the average guy. Now, think that there are 49% of people that are stupider than him." - George Carlin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naw, think of the average anarchist 420, 99% of the the people are smarter than him.

But that is the problem with being stupid and ignorant, people like anarchist are somehow unable to conceive of the fact they are lacking in smarts. But to compensate, anarchist420 comes up with one grand theory of everything after another to explain all human behavior in some uni-dimensional sense.

And first 100% of the people follow only Jeffersonian ideals, and then suddenly there is a quantum change and suddenly 100% of all the people all follow Jacksonian ideals. While only anarchist420 remains above the fray because he is an aristocrat.

But still, anarchist 420 has a forum right to ask stupid questions, but maybe it past time for all of us to threat him like a child, and when anarchist asks why, why not give him the same answer we would give a small child, as anarchist 420 asks why and we say because.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
This is a horrible post. Personal individual liberty in the way of granting woman the right to vote or ending slavery has very little to do with statism.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Or to rephrase: How would World War II have turned out differently if Eleanor Roosevelt had had the ability to fly?
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,736
670
126
Or to rephrase: How would World War II have turned out differently if Eleanor Roosevelt had had the ability to fly?
Just flight? Not any other powers such as super-strength, invulnerability or the power to communicate with aquatic life?
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
This was kind of intended to be a troll thread. That said, I posted it with the hope of finding out how many people here would consider voting a right.

Voting is NOT a right. It is a political privilege. If you don't have the privilege to vote, then you can still retain all of your rights, especially if no one votes. I never said women or blacks shouldn't have the privilege to vote if republicanism exists; I just think it should be up to the states (only states should be allowed to vote for the union, if the union is to exist) and that those who spoke for the women's suffrage were generally more authoritarian than those who didn't speak out for it.

Governing, whether it's done by one or the majority, is the antithesis of rights.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Just flight? Not any other powers such as super-strength, invulnerability or the power to communicate with aquatic life?
:D

This was kind of intended to be a troll thread. That said, I posted it with the hope of finding out how many people here would consider voting a right.

Voting is NOT a right. It is a political privilege. If you don't have the privilege to vote, then you can still retain all of your rights, especially if no one votes. I never said women or blacks shouldn't have the privilege to vote if republicanism exists; I just think it should be up to the states (only states should be allowed to vote for the union, if the union is to exist) and that those who spoke for the women's suffrage were generally more authoritarian than those who didn't speak out for it.

Governing, whether it's done by one or the majority, is the antithesis of rights.
I think voting for your representative is a right, although it took us damn near two hundred years to live up to that ideal. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". (Quoting from memory, apologies if I mangled it.) If all men (and by extension, all women, equality presumably not lodging in an individual chromosome) are equal, then the republic must include every adult citizen not disqualified for felony or incapacity.

You could perhaps stretch the definition of born equal to enfranchise only property owners, but not enfranchising on the basis of sex or racial phenotype makes a mockery of our Declaration and our grand experience becomes nothing more than another coup, i.e. "We think our group of wig-wearing white boys should be in power rather than Georgie Boy and we need something to sell the rubes on supporting us."

As far as states deciding who votes, we have to at least be able to vote for our national and state representatives if we're to be a republic in anything more than name. I'd prefer that the states select Senators as they were originally there to represent the states' interests. I don't have anything in particular against elected Representatives electing the President rather than popular vote, but I suspect we'd get even bigger douche bags.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
350
126
Governing, whether it's done by one or the majority, is the antithesis of rights.
QFT.

It's amazing how libertarians such as Anarchist420 are able to grasp what freedom really means, and the rest of the sheeple at the teet of government mock him for it, if only for as long as they can until they need to suckle again.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
QFT.

It's amazing how libertarians such as Anarchist420 are able to grasp what freedom really means, and the rest of the sheeple at the teet of government mock him for it, if only for as long as they can until they need to suckle again.
I would never mock him for grasping what freedom means, but this is pretty dumb post IMO. Lord knows I appreciate personal freedom and I'm a social libertarian (small 'L'), but I also recognize that without government your freedom is worth only as much as you can make and hold. For instance, on the American frontier in the seventeenth century there was no government and consequently you had ultimate freedom. However, many of the choices we take for granted today were only available if you had no objection to starving to death.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". (Quoting from memory, apologies if I mangled it.) If all men (and by extension, all women, equality presumably not lodging in an individual chromosome) are equal, then the republic must include every adult citizen not disqualified for felony or incapacity.
The Declaration of Independence only included white men due to the time it was written. In fact, the man who authored it was probably the most anti-feminist founder. Jefferson was a classical liberal who believed in popular sovereignty. At the same time, he believed in free and independent states. The Declaration does not say how big those free and independent states should be. It does, however, imply that each one should not intervene in the affairs of any other... he believed in leaving suffrage requirments up to each state when he was alive.
OTOH, Jefferson's views could very well be different today as he said every generation needs a new revolution and that does express a strong belief in democracy.

All of that said, it's important to remember Jefferson was not a Wilsonian. There is a very sharp contrast between Jeffersonian Democracy (local and decentralized for the protection of negative rights) and Wilsonian Democracy (globalist and centralized with suffrage not necessarily intended for the protection of negative rights).
As far as states deciding who votes, we have to at least be able to vote for our national and state representatives if we're to be a republic in anything more than name
The States should be free and independent of each other and the people shouldn't be allowed to vote for the whole union. Federal republics haven't worked and they never will. Federalism is a ridiculous concept because it tries to be a happy medium (i.e., in between a unitary state and a confederal union) when there are no happy mediums. A unitary state would satisfy the statists, confederal unions would satisfy the libertarians, but federalism doesn't satisfy anyone.
 
Last edited:

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,464
2
0
I support women suffering, i mean suffrage. Really. I just think they've taken it to far and are now the femi-nazis out there.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,299
350
126
Thanks:) I was beginning to get worried. I'm very happy you're still here.
Yea I am, but this forum's new nickname could just be Zimmerman Trial Discussion, it was interested for the first 3k posts, but I've already moved on but it still takes up a lot of peoples time.

I've also given up on trying to teach these people economics. Q1 2012 shows that $2.52 of debt buys $1 of GDP growth, nobody cares, they're all sheeple anyways. Sheep get to eat for free as long as they provide wool to the shepherd. So I guess it's not so bad being a sheep, the shepherd protects us from the wolves of Iran and the other terrorist nations, freedom is a cheap price to pay for protection from our enemies (terrorists and gold).
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,846
1,168
126
This was kind of intended to be a troll thread. That said, I posted it with the hope of finding out how many people here would consider voting a right.

Voting is NOT a right. It is a political privilege. If you don't have the privilege to vote, then you can still retain all of your rights, especially if no one votes. I never said women or blacks shouldn't have the privilege to vote if republicanism exists; I just think it should be up to the states (only states should be allowed to vote for the union, if the union is to exist) and that those who spoke for the women's suffrage were generally more authoritarian than those who didn't speak out for it.

Governing, whether it's done by one or the majority, is the antithesis of rights.
For one who claims to be a libertarian, you are one confused dude. The ability to vote is perhaps the most basic right of all, you it enables the populance to control and direct the government. And now we have a so-called libertarian claiming voting is a political privilege granted to the individual by the state.

I don't think you are a liberatarian at all, but a state's rights guy, a throw back to the glory days of Jim Crow South.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY