Partly, I suppose, this comes out of his whole men's-rights schtick about how women are oppressing men, which he recently took to such lengths ("When people talk about 'reproductive freedom,' they generally mean women’s reproductive freedom") that he ticked off his usual fellow traveller Ann Althouse, leading to a spat and resulting in a rare long Perfesser post full of paranoid gas ("we give women a pass on sexual behavior that would be considered predatory if it were done by males"), whining ("noting the unfairnesses involved, is not 'victimology' — though given how successful women have been in obtaining power via victimology, no one should be surprised if men start to give it a try"), and just plain bullshit ("When Rush Limbaugh suggested that Sandra Fluke should at least pay for her own birth control..."). Someone who actually thinks this way is bound to consider abortion some kind of illegitimate special right because men can't have one.
Mainly, though, it's a reminder that for libertarians abortion is an agree-to-disagree thing you shouldn't concern yourself over too much, despite the unprecedented current attacks on it, while you should fight to the death for the non-negotiable right of companies to hire workers for five cents an hour if they can get away with it, and to fill the air and water with pollutants pretty much at will. In other words, it's a maximum-liberty movement for adherents who are overwhelmingly male and don't believe they'll ever be in any financial difficulty, and who think empathy is a river on Gor.
UPDATE. Speaking of bullshit libertarians, here's David French, whom we saw last year raving against gay marriage and, I swear to God, Griswold v. Connecticut ("Think for a moment of the awesome power of the sexual revolution over law and logic. Is there a single legal doctrine that can stand against the quest for personal sexual fulfillment?"). Now he's arguing for a "libertarian military." Whereas maximum sexual freedom is an outrage, military-style libertarianism is dead butch -- liberty means more killing and less building, and isn't that was Hayek and Rand were all about?
In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, thoughtful military libertarians tend to advocate something we haven’t really tried in our more than decade-long fight against Islamic jihad — the relatively brief application of truly overwhelming destructive force against identified enemies.
That’s why I wonder if a libertarian military might be more lethal, even on smaller budgets. A trimmed-down bureaucracy, an increased emphasis on the destructive rather than nation-building capabilities of the force under arms, and doctrines designed to inflict maximum (non-nuclear) destruction on enemy forces rather than transforming and democratizing communities — all of this could add up to a more lethal (yet smaller) military.Normally you have to tell one of these guys about someone buying a Big Mac with food stamps to get his bloodlust roaring like this. I know there are a lot of guys out there who are like, "oh yeah, libertarians, Drew Carey right, free the weed," and God bless them, but when it comes to the professional-grade stuff libertarianism still just a niche brand of conservatism.
French also makes an avatar for the free-markets-free-fire military of Rand Paul, whose idea of a proper army probably involves grey uniforms.