Silly Suffrage

I find joy when women, in this case Ann Coulter, admit that giving their half of the species the right to vote was a bad idea:

Just in time for the Fourth of July, John Lott, author of the groundbreaking 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime," has released another amazing book: "Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't." This book provides studies and analysis proving that your every right-wing instinct is based on sound economic analysis.

To wit:

• Women shouldn't vote: "What changed ... that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage."

I have been a personal fan of Lott since my days as a talk radio junkie; I heard him interviewed
on one of the local programs and proceeded to read both of his books, both of which make cases for the right to bear arms, one of which I actually own. I'm tepidly adding his next tome to my list, though I hope I'll be able to find a used copy.

Anyway, Lott and Coulter are correct. Granting women the suffrage was a disastrous idea. However, it's important to recognize that there is no moral precept which would preclude women from voting. It just so happens that women value security over liberty; allowing women to dictate public policy ensures a growth in government and a decrease in freedom. It is not surprising, or anyway it should not be, that the first plank of the Fascist Manifesto proclaims a need for universal suffrage. John Adams was not being sexist when he refused women the vote in order to prevent "the tyranny of the petticoat".

On occasion women emerge who do esteem liberty. It's hard to fault Margret Thatcher for her sisters actions; nor would I have a problem with allowing Ayn Rand, Camile Paglia, Ilana Mercer and the aforesaid Coulter a say in the way government is run. But these are big exceptions, and Lott's point holds true: For the sake of liberty, women should not be allowed to vote.

It's a wonder I'm still single.