/liberty/ - Liberty

>>87503

As any westerner/follower of western history can tell you need look no further than Wyoming. Were Jewish tricks afoot? Doesn't really matter. Women's suffrage was because whorehouses were threatening to leave the state if they weren't allowed to own property/vote. The mayors/governors caved in because not doing so would mean all those single men brought in as miners, railroad workers, etc. wouldn't be able to fuck whores, meaning violent crime and rape would have shot through the roof. It was a sensible if not disagreeable position/understanding that the politicians had with the brothels. Then Eastern states saw this and completely misinterpreted why the literal career whores/prostitutes were allowed to vote & own property leading to them whining complaining until they also got the right to vote/own property even though they weren't major contributors to the economy or social cohesion (marriage aside but we could talk all day about marriage).

There's no special story behind it or conspiracy theory. It was quite literally "those prostitutes can vite, so why can't we?" without understanding WHY prostitutes & widowed farmers, the largest quadrant of working women who contributed to the economy, could vote out west.

>>87503

Women's suffrage was "muh feels, muh Enlightenment"+"if I give these dumb cunts suffrage and convince them I care about their bullshit I have a solid voting bloc for next term."

>>87506

what about europe?

>>87506

Whorehouses in Wyoming were owned by women? I fail to see why the whorehouses would be the ones to advocate the workers' (read: whores') rights in the first place.

>>87509

>Whorehouses in Wyoming were owned by women?

Yes. Brothels were largely owned by former prostitutes who had raised enough money to become female pimps leading around other prostitutes for their old clientele/new clientele. Generally speaking the whores felt safer/less like they were being cheated if a female was in charge of the establishment, so you ended up with higher quality whores.

>>87508

>What about Europe?

I'm no expert on Europe unless it's calling out the tawny Germans for their bullshit, but it largely followed a similar path as America to my knowledge. It's just women in Nordic countries actually contributed to the economy because they had a culture where that was expected of them, and similarly, mainland Europeans followed suit and bitched when they saw this without understanding why it was that way. The Soviets did it during their degeneracy phase, but they're fucking commies so no one cares about them. For the examples where this model doesn't largely hold up, see >>87507

Unlike a lot of ultra-conservative folks, I don't mind women having the right to vote so long as it's based on being a net benefit to the economy or social cohesion. I think voting is shit, but that aside, property ownership is a much better metric.

>>87574

>spoiler

I'd largely agree, for the most part. However there don't seem to be many examples of voting societies who chose to remove the sex requirement of voting that didn't remove the aristocratic part of it. And like you said, voting a shit anyways, so if we're having pipe dreams we may as well go all the way and dream about the ideal, fully private-property scenario, rather than a slightly better version of democracy.

>>87574

sexual workers- not whores!

>>87574

So the big city Yankees ruined everything again?

>>87503

If you read the Progressive Era by Murray Rothbard he talks about the reasoning behind suffrage, how it was a ploy by pietist yankies to increase their control over the government at the expense of the Catholics and immigrants. Because yankie women were more likely to vote because of their religious beliefs, which encouraged women to take an active role in the church and bringing about a moral society while the Catholic and immigrant women mostly contented to confine themselves to home and hearth and very few would actually vote. Their goal was to use the state to legislate morality, essentially. Close down brothels, prohibition, compulsory schooling, immigration relegated to only non-catholic western immigrants, etc.

>>87616

Pretty much, yeah.

>>87503

I think that of course everyone should be able to work, own property and earn money, but that doesn't mean I want to see women doing any of that. I personally think that in an ideal society, a woman's only real job would be to chill at home and take care of her children/husband, not by force, but because that's just what an ideal society looks like without communist propaganda.

As for voting, no one except geniuses with a high-IQ can vote, whether its men or women, everyone else can get fucked.

>>87670

"Geniuses with a high IQ" tend to vote for socialist bullshit and big government because it directly benefits them when it comes to grants and such, you literal autist.

>>87694

>government

>>87694

Furthermore being high-IQ doesn't prevent you from being convinced of really dumb ideas due to a combination of emotional appeal, and the simple fact that intelligence doesn't preclude ignorance of certain subjects.

>>87694

Not exactly, most of the "geniuses" you're talking about are often idealistic college kids who aren't at all experienced in life, set the minimum voting age to at least 25 or ideally to 30 and you're good.

>>87718

>emotional appeal

I know I'm going to sound really fucking reddity now, but high-IQ people are more logic-driven less prone to giving in to emotional appeals, this is especially true with age.

>the simple fact that intelligence doesn't preclude ignorance of certain subjects

IQ is a measurement of fluid-intelligence, it's not a measure of knowledge that you acquired throughout your life.

>>87758

>Not exactly, most of the "geniuses" you're talking about are often idealistic college kids who aren't at all experienced in life, set the minimum voting age to at least 25 or ideally to 30 and you're good.

Eh, he has somewhat of a point. I think he's talking about scientists specifically, as those doing research at universities rely on government grants for employment, which gives them an incentive to cede the government more power.

>I know I'm going to sound really fucking reddity now, but high-IQ people are more logic-driven less prone to giving in to emotional appeals, this is especially true with age.

Anecdotally speaking, I've met quite a few otherwise smart people whose own emotional barriers prevent them from taking the red pill. But that's just my personal experience and may not reflect the greater trend.

>IQ is a measurement of fluid-intelligence, it's not a measure of knowledge that you acquired throughout your life.

Exactly. Because IQ doesn't deal in knowledge it's not on its own a good indicator of whether someone will make good voting decisions. The smartest man alive would vote like an idiot if, for example, he only knew of the Keynesian economic school, and because he dedicates all his study time to his profession of geology he never dwells on economics long enough to realize the flaws inherent in Keynes' writing.

>>87758

>idealistic college kids who aren't at all experienced in life

Which is why the vote should be restricted to owners of property rather than age based, those who had to experience life and just want peoples' hands out of their pockets will naturally vote for less hands in their pockets and the power the urbanites hold over vast areas of the country will be diminished

Sure there will be outliers who own property due to mommy and daddy buying it for them but these /leftypol/ posters will be much fewer in number compared to the rest.

>>87760

>Eh, he has somewhat of a point. I think he's talking about scientists specifically, as those doing research at universities rely on government grants for employment, which gives them an incentive to cede the government more power.

First of all, they aren't exactly in the majority, even among high-IQ people. Second, high-IQ people don't necessarily want to work as scientists. Third, most of these "scientists" are just lab workers in the 100-120 IQ range that are hired to do chores around the lab. Fourth, it really depends on what they're researching, but unless you're talking about super advanced stuff, research these days just requires a knowledge of the subject and about a reddit-tier IQ.

>Exactly. Because IQ doesn't deal in knowledge it's not on its own a good indicator of whether someone will make good voting decisions. The smartest man alive would vote like an idiot if, for example, he only knew of the Keynesian economic school, and because he dedicates all his study time to his profession of geology he never dwells on economics long enough to realize the flaws inherent in Keynes writing.

I get what you're trying to say, but you totally ignored what I wrote. IQ is the measurement of the ability to solve problems (aka fluid-intelligence), so even if a man only studied Keynes, if he is intelligent enough then even on his own and in the absence of other knowledge for him to read, he can still come the realization that it's not at all a good idea to break windows in an attempt to benefit the economy. Human beings can still solve problems and puzzles easily without a special book that tells us how to do it.

>>87773

I don't know, it seems like this system can be easily abused.

>>87782

>so even if a man only studied Keynes, if he is intelligent enough then even on his own and in the absence of other knowledge for him to read, he can still come the realization that it's not at all a good idea to break windows in an attempt to benefit the economy. Human beings can still solve problems and puzzles easily without a special book that tells us how to do it.

I don't disagree. But you missed a key point I was making–this hypothetical man doesn't 'study' Keynes, or the economy in general, because he's not an economist. He just remembers some stuff about the paradox of thrift and the business cycle from secondary school, and hasn't looked into it further than that because it's neither his area of interest nor relevant to his profession. He has no reason that he knows of to mistrust the ones who taught him economics and isn't even aware that an alternate theory (the Austrian theory) exists. Sure, if he was skeptical and started looking for the man behind the curtain he'd easily run into the fallacies of Keynesianism, but for the moment this man is content to trust that the economists know what they're talking about becasue at first glance it sounds agreeable enough. This is actually what I was getting at about my comment about scientists and socialism before–Einstein was a self-avowed socialist and even attempted to write a short essay defending it. And while I understand that some people have quite a few objections to special relativity, I think we can agree that Einstein was not a stupid man. Rather, he was a smart man who was ignorant of economics.

This is the same reason so many otherwise-smart people (hell, even otherwise-right-wing people) are willing to believe in the climate change meme. Sure, anyone who looks at what's being said with a critical eye can see the cracks in the arguments–you don't even need to be particularly smart to do so. But most people, smart or not, don't think they have any reason to distrust climate scientists. And so, they accept the position of ethos that climate scientists carry when talking about the climate, and assume that their methods are sound.

>>87787

Ok, so what we need to find out now is if an intelligent person would really have a reason to answer a question he knows nothing about instead of refraining from voting. In any case, I think it's much better to trust important questions to intelligent people rather than to just any random clown off the street.

>>87788

I think a far more expedient solution would be to just remove the voting process in its entirety.

>>87783

telegony is not confirmed in humans

>>87758

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001373

>both parents working

>nobody to care for the kids

>give your kids to the (((government))) to raise them

>entire generations entire knowledge is limited to (((government))) aprooved textbooks

>kids are now raised by people who were not smart enough to get a real job and instead opted for making a career out of repeating what they read but failed to understand in the (((government))) textbooks

>more people end up dependant on the (((state))) and happily bash anyone who tries to pull the gov'ment nipple out of their faces

>>88119

This is the same fallacious argument as

>cuckoldry is the thinking man's fetish

>>87694

in ancap people will donate to science and scientific projects so scientist in ancap might earn more than now

>>88404

/r/ photos of stefan's daughters

>>88404

>Go get a real job

>He thinks being a cult leader E celebrity donation based parasite is a real job

Also the general greed of women, who take something like 60K more out in benefits than they contribute in taxes (from another Molyneux presentation), while men break even in taxes/benefits taken.

Incentivizing poverty by paying single mothers is another related disaster, if women got and stayed married (alongside a HS or better education) and cut down on their demands for others earnings women could easily stay at home to raise at least a few kids until age 5ish (at which point 80% of personality is formed).

Molyneux has a bunch of vids on women and single mothers that lay out the stats if anyone wants to look for them.

>>88428

>donation based

>parasite

pick one

>>87503

womens suffrage is the second station of the progressive movement. after came negro rights, then sexual deviance and hedonism general, then added fatties and here we are. first station was big business led (specifically JewP morgan bank) pushing for monopoly (railroads in that case) by advocating against monopoly. thus they founded the FTC, FCC, etc and later the federal reserve. see rothbards foundations of the federal reserve.

its the first manifestations of the parasitic strategy. many people confuse parasites with leeches. parasites actually change their host. they are not mere freeloaders. what if you can never own something, but you can control it to some extent? that would change your incentives such that the value you can derive is lower than the value if left in the things state of nature. but you will get ahead. in the 80s a similar idea revolutionized the business landscape. private equity. if your doing reduces a company to 70% of its value, but you get it for about 51-60%, you can use it for you. even though its clearly destructive to do so.

now back to progressive type movements: they are doing this to people. although to be fair its not so clear that the ones falling for it should be considered the same race as those who dont, or people at all. in any case, they are here, they are exploitable in this way, and are worth less than in their state of nature.

tldr: progressive type movements have been used for democratic, communist, big government type power shifts including revolutions for about 120 years.

its true that it takes someone of certain character, or at least world view, to do that something thats objectively destructive. they would have to believe that its worth it, that they are, lets say, chosen, or something.

regarding women in workforce, it seems to me that there are obviously women who can do more productive things than overseeing children. to me its also obvious that most women are doing an incredibly subpar job at raising children. across the board of child rearing good practices really.

I wouldnt be surprised if one day we look back on amateurs raising children at home the same way we look back on individual farming, individual cooking. and while looking outside gaze upon a future of specialized, industrialized child rearing.

what else?

fuck stef. stereotypically high ego confused mind of a jew.

>>88455

because people are so rational about who they give money to

>>88428

>>88455

>>88783

although I dont stef is a parasite. hes doing good work as propagator of information. disregard original thoughts though.

>>87760

>Anecdotally speaking, I've met quite a few otherwise smart people whose own emotional barriers prevent them from taking the red pill. But that's just my personal experience and may not reflect the greater trend.

that is the very tight norm for people.

an intriguing inquiry is why exactly some people are susceptible while others are not. I suspect a neurophysiological pattern.

>IQ

agreed. IQ is basically pattern recognition. wich has nothing to do with sound reasoning. on the other hand no amount of sound reasoning will get you to valueable, insightful statement if you have an iq of 80.

yet another intriguing inquiry is the correlation between high iq and sound reasoning.

>>88793

I think theres more to it. in the same way a cat doesnt understand what a number is.

also I mean physiology, not psychology

>>88797

but cats can count

>>87591

"Whore" is not a derogatory term unless you make it one. It's simply a title, like "plumber", or "soldier". Whoring is an ancient, honorable profession. It's a damn sight more honest than most women are comfortable with being, too.

>>87782

>I don't know, it seems like this system can be easily abused.

IT can. He's advocating for the rule of the elite and wealthy, and talking about disenfranchising anyone not wealthy enough to own property. He's walking the same motherfucking line that the leftists are, and he's either too stupid to realize he's marching to the same tune, or he's being deliberately subversive. Ignorance is forgivable. Malice is not.

>>90743

Money is power. Power corrupts. Those with money inevitably manipulate others to gain more money at the expense of others. It's the only think the pinkos ever got right.

>democracycuck

Republicuck, ackshyually. The structure of the Republic provides chains on the easily-manipulated power of the majority, and disallows the majority from disenfranchising the minority, or even the individual. That's why this country was built the way it was.

>>90740

Whoring is not an honorable profession. It is definitively dishonorable for a woman to bone random dudes for money (or for any reason). It's honorable for a woman to carry and nurture children for the perpetuation of a line, not to waste their youth and bodies on randoms.

>>90755

How the fuck do you redditors keep finding this place?

>>90808

Why over 30? Given how aggressively good goy the average Boomer is, I feel that biasing for the older crowd is almost counterproductive.

>>90808

Well, Dixie chick in the thread isn't a libertarian. He's a /pol/tard.

>>90813

/pol/acks are NEETSoc LARPers that are bluepilled on everything except race; they unironically support occupy Wall Street because joos and think socialism works as long as it's white people. I wouldn't count myself among that number and if you asked them I doubt they would either because muh usury.

>>90817

>except race;

like thinking that nonwhites are not Homo sapiesns but Homo neandertalis?

>>88793

bukakke's are the worst porn out there.

>>90903

>larger brain than homo sapiens

>genetic origin of red hair

>most genetically similar to modern northern europeans

>driven extinct by continuous interbreeding with invader homo sapiens

tbqh fam is there any evidence REFUTING the idea that the man from Neander valley was actually the true master race? Cause there seems to be a troubling amount suggesting just that.

woman are fucking garbage and only good for making babies.

>>88788

>2018

>discovering that libertarians and the rest differ biologically

>>91024

Men aren't garbage, you cunt.