Why might women be hesitant to openly identify as libertarian? Lily Goldberg at The Libertarian Republic believes she has figured it out: anarcho-capitalists are disgusting.

I’m sure Goldberg thinks her piece is in the same genre as Avens O’Brien article ’12 reasons you’re not getting a libertarian lady’ intending to give tough love to perpetually single libertarian dudes. Superficially, it is in the same spirit of encouraging self-improvement, but Goldberg’s is less tough love and more vitriolic spite. Where O’Brien lays out concrete steps for a more well-rounded and dateable man, Goldberg viciously lays into a strawman. It’s apples and giraffes.

Her article is in a particular category of ad-hominem that I call ‘Dweeb shaming’, in other words, “you are sexually undesirable, therefore your argument is invalid”.

First, the obvious; there’s a picture of some guy in Adam Kokesh’s studio as the article header. Who is he? Is he an ancap? Is he single? It doesn’t matter; she (or whoever put the picture up) is not content to generalise but literally name a name. That’s not cool. You don’t publish an article about how a particular person is ugly.

He’s not even that bad looking. All right, the horizontal lines aren’t working. If he wore a jacket he’d be a solid 7, maybe 6, but disgusting? One would think that someone trying to smear and stereotype a particular group of people would find a better example. Obviously using Adam Kokesh’s picture wouldn’t work because he’s ripped. Already, I’m not convinced by the hypothesis.

But analysing what Goldberg has to say, she seems to be fulfilling the role of the statist Internet troll, appealing to the shallowest audience possible, stereotyping to the extreme:

You’ve all seen the worst of [the anarchists], I bet. The hamplanets in fedoras who run around quoting Lew Rockwell at a volume that would peel the chrome off a Chevy truck, and a pitch that shatters glass?

Phew, I was worried she was going to forget to use the fedora card; and later on she even throws in the officially recognised Childish Insult of 2015 “neckbeard”. Give me a break.

I had never heard of a “Hamplanet”‘. The Urban Dictionary defines it:

“An absolutely, ginormous, tub of lard on legs. We aren’t just talking about your slightly obese English teacher here we’re talking about those people whose appearance is more than physically disgusting. “


That’s but a fraction of the would-be zingers Goldberg has to offer. I don’t have the patience to deal with them all, but I strongly encourage you to read the article. Suffice to say, the “you can’t get a girlfriend” attack should be the reserve of 13-year old boys playing Call of Duty, not rational adults discussing political philosophy.

Where O’Brien article was aimed at a certain type of personality within the movement, Goldberg attempts to make a link between ideology and character: that Anarcho-capitalism necessarily implies social dysfunction – a reclusive, physically undesirable social inept. She’s arguing “the less you like the state, the more creepy you are”, which in her eyes should make Fascists the swellest, hottest and most personable guys in the world.

Glibness aside, her attitude to love and philosophy is cause for concern. Her problem is not that anarchist men are wrong, or merely misguided, it’s that they’re physically weak beta-males. The opposite of sociopathic statists she’s dated before, that “basically manipulate you until you’re putty in their hands.” She reckons anarchists should be more like them because it will help their cause:

…the State’s kind of the perfect sociopath. Its leaders prey on peoples’ emotions under the pretense of caring about them, commit violence and then make people think it was the victim’s fault, and never give up trying to control everything you do under the pretense of caring. And yes, I agree with the anarcho-capitalists that this sucks, but the fact is that it works and you need to be able to beat the State at its own game if you want to get rid of it.

And it will turn her on:

If you’re the kind of guy who walks around making others respect your dominance [like Howard Roark], and telling the busybodies who interfere to get lost, I can’t speak for other chicks, but I’d give you my number and probably offer to sell you my body at a market rate.

Sociopathy might be sexy, but it won’t send the state. Rather, it is the sociopathic elements across society that provide the state with the legitimacy it needs. We need to be teaching empathy and non-violence – peaceful cooperation. If that’s unattractive to Goldberg, perhaps she’s in the wrong movement.

Also, libertarianism is nothing to do with dominance, it is about non-aggression. In the context that Ayn Rand was talking, she advocated man’s dominance over his own life. Sociopathy is dominance over other people, which is at odds with Rand’s philosophy of leaving people to live their own lives.

Goldberg seems to be conflating sex and philosophy, and even though she “can’t speak for other chicks”, she assumes that her view of things is the reason why women might not fit in in the Liberty movement:

“[Anarchists] usually try to approach you with pickup lines that sound like they were written by the libertarian equivalent of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Like, “excuse me, do you know the state is a lie? Also, what are you drinking?”

Women are frightened of identifying as libertarian because anarchist guys use bad pick-up lines? I’m not trying to be obtuse here, I genuinely don’t understand her argument. It seems to imply that a woman’s main requirement of a political movement is that its adherents are good at getting them into bed. But that is a put-down of women, not men. One would hope women become libertarians on the strength of the libertarian message, not because they get sexually flattered more than in other movements.

She specifically focuses on Anarcho-capitalists, but this distinction doesn’t make sense either. There is no reason to assume that minarchists do not also have this problem. Most anarchists were also minarchists at some point in the past – have they only become socially awkward since they realised that the state is a gang of thieves writ large?

She is willing to make an exception for Austin Petersen, who clearly, cured of being a stupid anarchist, simultaneously became a sex God.

Sure, it’s intuitive that those of a low social-status, the overweight recluses, may be attracted to fringe movements, but that doesn’t explain everything, not least why there are so few libertarian women. I simply don’t buy what Goldberg, and presumably Austin Petersen, are saying. It seems that it’s a stereotype coming from too much time on the Internet. The fact of the matter is something for science, not a tirade.

The datebility issue

Look, you won’t get any argument from me about self-improvement. Becoming more dateable is good advice for anyone, not just libertarians. Losing weight and learning empathy and emotional intelligence should be a life goal of all men, the development of which will bring returns in all aspects of life, girls being just one of them.

There are resources that can help you. Along with Avens O’Brien piece, a good start is this one from podcaster and liberty.me’er Jeff Berwick. Also, The Art of Manliness is a cool blog with useful articles.

The unfortunate fact is that the liberty movement is still relatively small, which for anyone who cares about sound philosophy in a partner significantly reduces the amount of suitable options. It’s difficult even for the sexy ones. For this reason, we need to give libertarian guys a break. Men are equal victims of sausage-fests. Not only is there greater competition for partners, the movement comparatively lacks the qualities the finer gender can bring. Because, as shocking as this may seem, us guys aren’t only interested in sex.

It appears Goldberg didn’t realise that men actually do have more than poontang on the brains:

The ones who will approach you and instead of trying to get to know you as a human being, will interrogate you about your first principles, then smugly declare that they’ve won the debate against you when you give up in disgust, as if they’ve somehow proved they’re John fucking Galt because they can shout you into apathy?

The truth behind this ‘article’ is probably this: Goldberg met a guy at a libertarian gathering, got talking about liberty, got into a minarchism versus anarchism debate and got her ass handed to her. She got angry, and with no reasoned argument to give she resorted to this spectacular ad hominem attack. He wasn’t even trying to get her into bed, he was arguing his case. Goldberg was in the philosophical kitchen when she couldn’t handle the heat.

One reason that people of all genders may be put off by Anarcho-capitalism is that it requires steadfast adherence to clear principles. It’s very difficult to accept that one has logical inconsistencies in their thinking, and if one has been taught that their feelings are sacred as Christ himself, it puts the ancaps at a disadvantage.

Miss Goldberg admits that she suffers from this:

“Like, if you screamed because you saw a spider (something I’ll shamefully admit I’m prone to doing), these guys will lecture you on how harmless common varieties of household spider are, rather than taking the cue to stomp the thing and get chivalry points for being strong and fearless. It’s not their fault, because they probably can’t tell that we’re afraid, but that doesn’t mean we have to fuck them.”

In other words, reason is unattractive. Men should be slaves to any flutter of emotion women have, rational or irrational, because vagina. But it’s not that intellectual types don’t recognise emotions, it’s that they recognise being afraid of a household spider is irrational, and killing it would serve no practical purpose, and would be a poor indicator of strength and bravery. She’s likely to be the one complaining about the millions of flies in the house that have been liberated thanks to the death of their natural predator. There’s no winning.

If a man just wants to get laid, he may find abandoning reason for the sake of a woman’s emotions a viable short-term strategy. However, libertarian men have other goals than getting laid, one of them being fighting for their principles. If they are to be expected to forgo their values to cater to emotion, there’s no reason why a socialist woman couldn’t demand a libertarian man to become a socialist because libertarianism is ‘mean’.

There is a way for libertarian men to push women’s buttons (in more ways than one 😉 ) whilst maintaining their principles. It’s difficult, but no more difficult than attempting to persuade any particular group – women can reason, and can cut it intellectually with any man, but it needs a different tact. We can be sure all libertarians would welcome advice on how to hone that tact.

But Lily, your belligerent, sexist petulance is not helping us on this quest. Bugger off.