Somewhere between 70% to 80% of government spending is a transfer from men to women. This includes everything from effectively female only welfare programs like WIC, to social security where women get more out of it than men do, to make work jobs for women in government, in quasi-government fields like health, education, and the non profit sector and private sector jobs that exist purely to fill a government mandate. None of those things are productive so they can only be maintained by government taxing the productive sectors of the economy. In other words, government has to tax male productivity. Naturally, this has led many men to embrace libertarianism in the political sphere to change government policies that tax men and redistribute male productivity to women, and a ghosting form of MGTOW in the non-political sphere to reduce their own personal productivity. So far MGTOW has had more of an effect since government has no real options to force any man to be productive beyond a man’s personal needs.
While MGTOW is great, how can the political side of this problem be addressed? Libertarianism is basically the answer since government spending and taxation needs to be reduced. However, what is the correct size of government? Libertarians will talk about small government, but just how small would government end up if Libertarians controlled the government? Republicans also talk about small government, yet anytime Republicans have had control of all three branches of the federal government, they have failed to reduce the size of government. Republicans also routinely abandon their principles to white knight for women. There is no reason to assume that Libertarianism won’t fall victim to the same thing, especially when it comes to white knighting for women.
How do we get around this problem? We need a political system that has a specific principle of never taxing (male) productivity. It turns out that such a thing has been devised, and it is called Geolibertarianism. What Geolibertarianism does is combine libertarianism with Geoism or Georgism. The name, Georgism, comes from the fact that the geoist side of this was popularized by the economist Henry George. George and earlier economists, including Adam Smith and David Ricardo, (in addition to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine) were advocates of a land value tax. Even Milton Friedman called the land value tax the least bad tax. The land value tax is a tax on land and land only. It does not tax anything built on that land or done on that land. It can not tax production or any form of productivity by design. Because of this, advocates of the land value tax advocate it a single tax where there are no other taxes.
With only land (and anything else that meets the economic definition of land like natural resources and the electromagnetic spectrum) getting taxed in this system, it puts a ceiling on government spending. Thus it forces the end of government redistribution from men to women. It also adds a barrier to implementing additional taxes since any tax on anything that isn’t land is verboten by design. Geolibertarianism won’t stop politicians from trying to tax (male) productivity, but in a Geolibertarian system any attempt to do that is immediately suspect so there will be a built in backlash whenever a politician tries to tax productivity. It is telling that socialists and other leftists hate Geolibertarianism (and Georgism more broadly). Karl Marx hated it, and a likely reason is that it repudiates his ideas by showing that labor and capital are not the separate things he said they are. Paul Krugman admitted that the land value tax was efficient but that it could not be used to fund a welfare state. While Barack Obama has not commented on this, it is a stake in the heart of his, “You didn’t build that” because Geolibertarianism identifies the only things a man didn’t build.
After implementing Geolibertarianism the only way male productivity could be transferred to women would be by divorce courts. While Geolibertarianism can’t directly help with that, it will produce an ethos of productivity can not be taxed so it can become the basis for a movement to stop the transfer of male productivity in divorce. (And that assumes that divorce courts haven’t been already made irrelevant by the marriage strike.) Geolibertarianism also can’t directly help against the false rape industry or the false abuse industry. However, those things cost the government money and would cause the land value tax to be raised. Anyone interested in lowering the land value tax would have to deal with eliminating the false rape and false abuse industries. The false rape and false abuse industries and their costs will be more apparent since they won’t be dwarfed by big government spending.
Geolibertarianism isn’t a complete way to defeat feminism but it is the only political system that provides a built in defense against taxing male productivity and transferring it to women.