Within some socially conservative libertarian circles, there is some support for repealing the 19th amendment.
Someone asked if I was capable of steelmanning the position. To be clear, I don't support repealing the 19th. But here is the steelman I would make:
* Historically, women have voted for higher spending on taxes, welfare, government schools. They also support "nanny state" regulations much more than men.
* Women enjoy a disproportionate share of the benefits of government such as homeless shelters, WIC, Medicare/Medicaid, medical research funding, and Social Security. For example, women live 7 years longer than men, on average, so they collect Social Security for much longer than men.
* Men pay for the lion's share of the taxes (~70%).
* Men pay most of the military costs (death and injury).
Since men pay most of the costs, and women enjoy most of the benefits, women are incentivized to vote for policies that benefit themselves at the expense of men.
By restricting the vote to men, decision making authority is more closely aligned with those who are paying the costs:
* Men are less likely to vote for more government parasitism, since they know they will be bearing the costs.
* Men will make better tradeoffs between risk-taking and safety.
* Women will make better decisions in their personal lives (choose a good marriage partner, avoid STDs/unwanted pregnancy, raise children well) since they can't foist the costs of bad decisions onto taxpayers.
Do you think that's a fair summary of the "libertarian" anti-suffragist position? If not, what improvements would you make?