> His original statement was never that woman's suffrage was bad, it was only an (accurate) observation that women do not lean towards libertarianism. People saying that he says 'giving woman the vote was a bad idea' are literally inserting words of their own to imply that reading.

Either you're being far too generous (from my vantage point), or we're talking past each other regarding what we are determining the contextual meaning of "bad" to be here. And I promise I'm not trying to create a silly semantic argument here.

The paragraph in question follows immediately on the heels of lamenting "that the broader education of the body politic has become a fool's errand." He states that "the trend has been going the wrong way for a long time" (meaning bad, in comparison to what he thinks is good, to put it in simplest terms). He praises the roaring 20s as "so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it" (a claim I think is a bit overblown; people have forgotten, but historians haven't overlooked this). His claim builds its force here:

> The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics.

This statement would rightly catch the attention of even the most under-informed student of history. What could possibly have made the 20s the last optimism-worthy decade in American history, when there seem to many people to have been some of the greatest advancements in social and civil progress after that decade?

Please grant me a moment of latitude here.

> Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women ... have rendered the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron.

For Thiel, 'rendering the notion of "capitalist democracy" into an oxymoron' is bad. This is the centerpiece of his notion of what's good. And why have we lost that which was good to that which is bad? Because there are too many welfare recipients and women gained the vote. These are the two causes he identifies as doing the rendering of that which was good into that which is bad.

Based on your comments, you seem to place most of the emphasis for your understanding on the parenthetical aside that is included between the dashes:

> --two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians--.

This is, without a doubt, a very astute observation on Thiel's part. However, at least from the standpoint of reading his statement, in the context in which it was delivered, this parenthetical aside does not define the relationship of the stated causes to the unwanted effects. It only provides an additional thought on those two causes and the difficulty libertarians encounter in their attempts to win them over to the side of what they believe to be good. This is simply Writing 101 here. Parenthetical statements provide additional information and explanatory thoughts within the context of their surroundings. Or, Thiel could have intended his dashes to be understood as comma replacements, in which case he's merely offering an additional identifying bit of information to modify his two causes of rendering what was good into what is bad. Nonetheless, the dashed-off clause is an accurate observation that is related, but does not read as the point of the sentence. Perhaps this charitable reading you are maintaining would make more sense if Thiel is just a poor writer. Unfortunately, the whole of his essay is overwhelmingly well-written and appears quite intentional in its thrust.

Now, back to the bit where we are perhaps defining just what is bad differently. In light of his principles and what he thinks was good in the 1920s, and what would be good now into the future, he states both welfare recipients and extending the franchise to women are bad things that exist and/or happened. He doesn't equivocate in his original essay, though he does in his rejoinder. He affirms that he does not believe any class of people should be disenfranchised. Okay, great. All good there. He states that it would be absurd to suggest such a thing. Alright. Feeling good here still, right? But the equivocation comes in stating that this wouldn't solve the political problems that he believes vex us. You see, that doesn't actually clarify his original statement. He doesn't make a clear statement that extending the franchise to women was a good thing. This would, in my reading, clear the air. Instead, he appears to be holding up two conflicting ideas:

- Welfare beneficiaries and women's suffrage cost us what was good in American life, politics, and optimism for the future, instead giving us what is bad

- No class of people should be disenfranchised, it's absurd to think so, and besides, this wouldn't solve our problems anyway

> If the statement he made to explicitly counter that reading and to say that such a reading was absurd does not counter that reading, then I'm not sure what does.

What he says is absurd is suggesting that women's votes will be taken away or that doing so would solve our problems. So many years later, I'm left assuming that is what everyone was complaining about. But it's not what I'm talking about. So, great ... it's absurd to think he wants to disenfranchise women; it's absurd to think he believes this would solve problems even if we did disenfranchise women. But he doesn't plainly say that it's absurd to think that he suggested extending the franchise to women was a bad thing in the first place. He doesn't clarify that point. Instead, sadly too much like a politician choosing ambiguity to appear to be saying what s/he thinks people want to hear, he focuses on clarifying that he doesn't want anyone to be disenfranchised. At least not now, because voting and politics don't have a chance at solving our problems.

> I'm not libertarian, and I don't agree with Peter Thiels beliefs, but if you look at the whole point of his manifesto it's that governments interfere, and giving people the power to elect different ones won't make a difference, and therefore people need to build places that are free of government influence (Internet, Outer Space, and on/under the seas).

And just a few years later, he donates a ton of money and gets on stage at a national convention to campaign for a politician and tell people they should get out and vote to make a difference.

Everyone wants to government to stop meddling, except when they want the government to meddle on behalf of their pet causes.