That's not actually true.

He's stating that that was compatible with what he wanted. He's not claiming in that essay that we should go back to it. He doesn't want democracy, that much is apparent, because he thinks it's incompatible with freedom on a long time scale.

So what you're saying is that even though he's that women's suffarage isn't compatible with freedom, 1920s style "capitalist democracy" that removes the vote from people is compatible with freedom, in one of the most pro freedom platforms out there (the Cato institute) somehow isn't actually pushing for those positions?

I'm not sure that I'm capable of the mental gymnastics to get there.

He's pushing for an end to democracy. That's distinct from both the current system, and the 1920s democracy he mentions.

Reading the piece makes this much apparent.

The latter led to the former in his mind, so bringing the latter back would get him back to where he started.

Did you read the entire article you cite, or did you just get stuck on one paragraph?

> "In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”"

The piece is arguing that ANY government system of politics: democracy, theocracy, communism, or whatever is not compatible in the long term with true 'freedom' as he envisions it, and he is looking towards technology to remedy this problem.

You may not agree with him that a world without a government is a good idea, but make that argument instead of trying to twist what he wrote into some sexist fascist diatribe.

Then why would he bring up women's suffrage specifically other than 'groups who in aggregrate don't vote the way I think they should, should have the ability to vote taken away'?

Like, he specifically brings up the 20s as a positive example.

His whole argument is spent looking back at a time when certain folk couldn't vote with a positive light.