ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Women and the civilizational cycle

The materially deleterious effect of women working on a society is illustrated in a paper entitled "Women Prefer Larger Governments: Growth, Structural Transformation and Government Size"
The increase in income per capita is accompanied, in virtually all countries, by two changes in the structure of the economy, namely an increase in the share of government spending in GDP and an increase in female labour force participation. This paper suggests that these two changes are causally related. We develop a growth model where the structure of the economy is endogenous so that participation in market activities and government size are causally related.

Economic growth and rising incomes are accompanied by a greater incentive for women to engage in labour market activities as the opportunity cost of staying at home increases. We hypothesize that government spending decreases the cost of performing household chores such as, but not limited to, child rearing and child care so that couples decide to engage further in the labour market and chose a higher tax rate to finance more government spending.

Using a wide cross-section of data for developed and developing countries, we show that higher participation by women in the labour market are indeed positively associated with larger governments. Furthermore, we investigate the causal link between the two variables using as instrumental variables a unique and novel dataset on the relative price of home appliances across OECD countries and over time. We find strong evidence of a causal link between participation in the labour market and government size: a 10 percent rise in participation in the labour market leads to a 7 to 8 percent rise in government size. This effect is robust to the country sample, time period, and a set of controls in the spirit of Rodrik (1998).
This is also an implicit argument against female suffrage. However, the researchers' hypothesis is incorrect, as government spending observably does not decrease the cost of child rearing and child care; one reason European families have so few children is that the cost of raising children is exorbitant despite the greater amount of spending by European governments. Free day care and year-long maternity leave doesn't make up for the fact that food and gasoline cost considerably more than in the USA.

Voting is not freedom. The conflation of voting with freedom is one of the key deceptions upon which feminism rests. And like all ideologies based upon deception, the more powerful feminism becomes, the more likely it is that the polity in which it has become influential will collapse on the basis of the weight of its contradictions.

Labels: ,

139 Comments:

Anonymous ck July 26, 2014 9:13 AM  

"However, the researchers' hypothesis is incorrect, as government spending observably does not decrease the cost of child rearing and child care; one reason European families have so few children is that the cost of raising children is exorbitant despite the greater amount of spending by European governments. "

Right, this goes to Steve Sailer's observations on affordable family formation where we see Red States with lower government spending, regulations and taxes have bigger families than in Blue States where oppressive regs and taxes make it nearly impossible to raise families greater than 2 kids.

Anonymous Dark July 26, 2014 9:42 AM  

England and co are to busy complaining that there football associations are "to white and male" to look at the real problems right now maybe in a few years

Blogger Tommy Hass July 26, 2014 9:58 AM  

Don't red states have more land?

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 10:02 AM  

Don't red states have more land?

California as a counterexample, moron.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 10:06 AM  

Seems about as useful as this claim that whether or not your language has strong future time references forces you to save or not.

Anonymous Icy Illusion July 26, 2014 10:10 AM  

The point above that democracy != freedom is an extremely well taken one. It seems that people like to conflate the process used with the end desired. A good corollary is that democracy is only useful insomuch as it protects freedom. When that ceases to happen then a different system is appropriate.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 26, 2014 10:14 AM  

"California as a counterexample, moron."

OOOOOOOO ONE (!) state.

It's almost like you don't know the term "on average."

Anonymous Roundtine July 26, 2014 10:26 AM  

California as a counterexample

California has a lot of mountains though. Housing is cheap where you can move a little farther away and build. That can't be done in many blue states because they run into mountains or water. Washington is a stark example: extremely liberal Seattle penned in by water and mountains, Go over the mountains and its very right-wing.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 26, 2014 10:33 AM  

The size of the blue state doesn't matter anymore. These days liberals crave urban life.

Here is the 2012 electoral map broken down by county The only real exception is the northeast or as I call it, Canada Junior.

Anonymous Philalethes July 26, 2014 10:45 AM  

Link to original paper?

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 10:46 AM  

Here is a different map set from Gizmodo.

It seems to show some five states in the west with lots of land as blue.

However, the map above is also interesting. Would be interesting to weigh by how self-reliant those people are.

Anonymous StanTR July 26, 2014 10:47 AM  

"Voting is not freedom."

What is Freedom, then?

Anonymous Stephen J. July 26, 2014 10:55 AM  

The opportunity to make your own mistakes, and the responsibility to handle the consequences.

Anonymous Philalethes July 26, 2014 11:01 AM  

It seems to show some five states in the west with lots of land as blue.

In the county map, the blue counties in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado have large populations of Spanish (i.e. descendants of original settlers; they don't like to be called Mexican) and Indigenous Americans (Pueblo and Navajo). In western New Mexico and northern Arizona, it's the Navajo and Hopi Reservations; in southern Arizona it's the Tohono O'odham (Papago) Reservation.

On the West Coast it's obviously the urban areas (Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz-Monterey, Los Angeles, San Diego) plus liberal coast residents. Then there're Tahoe, Reno and Las Vegas. Other blue spots in western, mountain and central states look to be largely Indigenous reservations.

Anonymous StanTR July 26, 2014 11:02 AM  

"The opportunity to make your own mistakes"

The more rules there are and the more negative consequences there are to breaking those rules, then the more opportunities there are to make mistakes.

I think there must be a far better definition of "freedom". Anyone under any circumstance is free to make a mistake.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 26, 2014 11:03 AM  

@ Philalethes Here you go but it's not a paper.

Bigger question and more critical to the matter at hand. Do Feminist women prefer to live in urban envrionments?

It's not a minor question when you think about it. The current primary objective of feminist women (whether they choose to admit it or not is irrelevant) is to maximize the extraction of resources from men and transfer it to themselves.

Cities are ideal for this project.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:06 AM  

Are you really questioning the entire concept of freedom based on the right to vote? Are you seeking wisdom and truth or just snarkily implying we are not free if we cannot vote?

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:08 AM  

There are probably a lot of great opinions here on the subject. Share some of yours and we can begin to compare.

Anonymous sarah v July 26, 2014 11:10 AM  

"It's not a minor question when you think about it. The current primary objective of feminist women (whether they choose to admit it or not is irrelevant) is to maximize the extraction of resources from men and transfer it to themselves."

I think you are mistaken. The transfer of resources from men to women is the consequences of Feminists' objectives, not the primary objective.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:11 AM  

"The opportunity to make your own mistakes, and the responsibility to handle the consequences."

I like that. But irresponsible people tend to make more mistakes. How about being held accountable for the consequences.

Anonymous StanTR July 26, 2014 11:14 AM  

"There are probably a lot of great opinions here on the subject. Share some of yours and we can begin to compare."

It is a tough thing to define. But for a start, I think we need to ground the concept of freedom in a social/civilized context. By that I mean, "freedom" has no meaning unless you inspect the idea in the context of a social setting in which it is possible for some to possess more freedom due to their actions.

Anonymous StanTR July 26, 2014 11:18 AM  

"I like that. But irresponsible people tend to make more mistakes. How about being held accountable for the consequences."

You mean being held accountable for your mistakes. But being held responsible for your mistakes is merely a function of whether there is someone able to bring you to account.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:19 AM  

Agreed. But we live in a culture that wants everything to be acceptable without consequence. That limits increased freedom with positive actions because I must now help bear them when I do not want to. So, I think there must be a moral aspect to it as well. And I think we beat morality without religion here enough to assume most here equate morality apart from Christ as an oxymoron.

Blogger David July 26, 2014 11:21 AM  

Interesting; women do seem to largely prefer a society based on coercion (the state) vs one based on voluntary association (the market).

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:25 AM  

Not all mistakes require accountability. Some are simple oops. But yes, someone must obviously do the enforcing but based on something that creates the largest amount of freedom for all. Mistakes in a vacuum wouldn't matter.

Blogger David July 26, 2014 11:26 AM  

The notion that democracy is in any way similar to liberty is silly on its face, and lots of political philosophers have laughed at this notion for a long, long time.

In principle, people seem to think democracy yields consesus...as in "okay, we all agree that killing someone for his property is morally wrong and/or logically leads to chaos, and we don't want chaos, so we'll have a law against it."

Instead, democracy beyond the scale of a very small town (where anonymity plays no role in rule-making) simply turns into factions layering self-serving rule after self-serving rule on everyone.

Public Choice Theory offers nify insights into rent-seeking, legislative log-rolling, and (above all) "concentrated benefit, diffuse cost" problems that render democracy a means for every faction of society to pillage the others.

Political democracy is a mutual suicide pact, an inevitable trip into shared poverty and Hobbesian "war of all against all."

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:27 AM  

To keep the thread on track, his point is that voting for women is not necessary to the definition of freedom that we are discussing.

Anonymous bob k. mando July 26, 2014 11:28 AM  

StanTR July 26, 2014 11:14 AM
in which it is possible for some to possess more freedom due to their actions.



'freedom' is the ability to make your own decisions about how you will live your own life.

trying to connect 'voting' or 'democracy' to freedom is absurd.

the US as a nation began as a Republic, not a democracy. and it also began with many white men not being allowed to vote, much less women or minorities.

are you going to assert that they had LESS freedom in 1800 than we have today?

http://www.steynonline.com/6487/holiday-memories-youll-cherish-forever

border patrol pulls guns on boy scout troop ... because the troop was following orders ...

OpenID cailcorishev July 26, 2014 11:30 AM  

Freedom is the opportunity to make good choices. Being human, you may screw up and make bad choices; but if you're free, you can make good ones. If all your choices are bad -- say a rapist points a gun at you and says, "Tell me where your daughter is hiding." -- you're not free just because it's your choice whether to speak or not. Likewise, voting is not an act of freedom if all the candidates are bad or your vote is meaningless.

And voting doesn't tend to lead to freedom, which I think is the point Vox was making. The usual pattern is that voting follows freedom, not the other way around. People revolt or move to a new frontier to gain freedom, and then they start voting. People will quite happily vote away their freedoms. Americans have been getting steadily less free with every election since the founding.

Blogger Cataline Sergius July 26, 2014 11:30 AM  

@sarah v

Not directly of course beloved lady. That would be far too direct and confrontational. Women in my experience prefer non-confrontational consensus, then shun those holding dissenting opinions.

Regardless.

This generation of feminist women is a second generation of women raised without fathers. They have no template for a traditional family life and no clue how to maintain a marriage. Oh they all want weddings but no marriage, as I've said before.

Urban environments provide single women with easy access to desired resources. First and foremost the female need to gather with other like minded women and groom each other like monkeys. The words, companionable silence are unknown to women in general and liberal women in particular.

They have ready access to transportation, that they won't need a man to maintain for them. Daycare for fatherless children is easy to get to. They can make themselves feel more desirable no matter what their SMV is by pretending to live the Sex in the City fantasy.

And they feel more secure . They aren't of course. The urban environment is much more dangerous for a woman but it feels that way.

Blogger RC July 26, 2014 11:31 AM  

John Lott wrote a paper in 1999 entitled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" He and his co-author examined state expenditures before and after women were granted the franchise in the various states, many of which granted them the franchise before the 19th. The correlation of female suffrage and increased state spending was undeniable. It's been over a decade since I've read the paper carefully, but I recall being impressed with their methodology and thought their methods quite clever.

The authors also considered the causality question.

Anonymous StanTR July 26, 2014 11:32 AM  

"Agreed. But we live in a culture that wants everything to be acceptable without consequence. That limits increased freedom with positive actions because I must now help bear them when I do not want to. So, I think there must be a moral aspect to it as well. And I think we beat morality without religion here enough to assume most here equate morality apart from Christ as an oxymoron"

I don't think it's necessary to contemplate the contours of faith and reality to sneak up on a meaning for or working definition of freedom. Nor do I think we should start from an assumption that our culture is one that wants everything acceptable. It's more that we live in a culture where what is considered acceptable conduct is understood differently. No. Freedom must have something to do with the degree to which the individual may act on their own without obstruction. So, freedom certainly has something to do with imposed obstructions. And if that is true, then the question becomes what is the source of obstructions in a society or culture?

Blogger David July 26, 2014 11:33 AM  

@ Bard,
While attempting to avoid a restart of the religion/morality/rule-making issue, I think we can all agree that any (by definition coercive) monopoly on rule-making & ultimate decision-making will ALWAYS devolve into tyranny if the rulers have no moral compass.

That's fine, but it's not enough.

I prefer to go one further; the power that comes with a role in the ruling paradigm will corrupt EVERY soul it touches. Angels turn to demons once the ultimate opioid, power, seeps into their veins.

Thus, even the most well-intentioned, benevolent ruling paradigm soon becomes suffocating and intolerable. Even "primary enforcement" of seat-belt laws, intended to be purely "good for people," metastasize and lead to unintended consequences.

Anonymous hausfrau July 26, 2014 11:33 AM  

"California as a counterexample, moron."

OOOOOOOO ONE (!) state.

It's almost like you don't know the term "on average."

It's urbanization and concentrations of minorities in those urban areas. Illinois is a prime example. Large state completely controlled by Chicago. Culturally, the rest of Illinois is close to Iowa. Likewise, New York and Pennsylvania are both considerably larger than Vermont and all are in the Northeast. Yet Vermont isn't the Marxist hell hole the other two are. Less populated upstate New York trends more Republican from what I understand. Likewise, if you removed Eugene and Portland from blue Oregon, you'd have a very red, libertarian leaning state. Cities that grow past a certain population level should really be their own states, they exert such a parasitic level of control on the rural areas outside themselves.

Anonymous StanTR July 26, 2014 11:34 AM  

"Interesting; women do seem to largely prefer a society based on coercion (the state) vs one based on voluntary association (the market)."

Every culture or society has coercive qualities. The question is who is doing the coercion and toward what end

Blogger David July 26, 2014 11:41 AM  

Our current "anything goes" progressivism attempts to thwart nature's punishment of mistakes people make, and of the less common effects of "bad luck."

For example:
If we agree that babies are best raised within a permanent pair-bond of mom & dad, efforts to mitigate nature's punishment (via poverty, etc.) of single-mother parenting alter the cost-benefit calculation of sexual promiscuity for women.

This is but one of many perverse incentives coercive redistribution of wealth creates, all while appearing to "help" the kids born to young women who lack stable husbands. That the consequences are soon worse than the original "problem" is no surprise.

The essence is coercion. Nothing good ever comes via the institutionalization of the use of force. This is the original sin of progressivism, in its adherents' zeal to create heaven on Earth via the judicious application of coercion by the employment of the state.

Now, the state is to see the union of two men in "marriage" as legally the same as a man and a woman, so will it soon be ILLEGAL to deny a gay "marriage" the same standing when a state-based adoption agency is placing an infant?

The slope is slippery indeed.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 26, 2014 11:45 AM  

@StanTR

OK, let's start with the simple proposition: Freedom is a comparative state. One is more free if one is more able to possess and enjoy the results of one's own labor, and to freely trade the results of one's own labor for the results of other's labor.

(This is derivative of John Locke's argument as to the existence of private property.)

Therefore, freedom is a continuum about how much you are able to hold and enjoy your own private property.

Liberty, closely aligned, but when the sheep has the gun against the wolf, is when the lowest and highest in a society is entitled to the same degree of freedom.

Justice is when there is a mechanism for ensuring that those who deny you of either of these are held to account and you are restored, made whole.

Therefore, there is a trade-off since the same mechanism that is used throughout the world to impart justice (government/courts) is fred by taxation (which destroys freedom), we should like exactly enough government so as to maximize liberty, which is a sort of egalitarian freedom.

Whether you cite this paper, John Lott, Ann Coulter, or any of the number who have observed - within two generations of women's suffrage, a liberal democracy greatly cranks up the dial on the weight of government, an institution opposed by its very existence to freedom, since it must feed from private property confiscation.

Given the reliable observation that women voters clamor for greater government services at the expense of private property, a lover of freedom and liberty would see that the franchise has reduced that. HOWEVER, of course, that same lover of freedom can AND DOES recognize that the franchise is a satanic institution and has, forever, been used to have parliaments and congresses confiscate more than kings ever dreamed of, even unto death. It is true today as it was true then - Democracy killed Socrates.

We should love freedom and liberty and justice, not the particular structure of government. America would be better if we could separate those concepts.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:45 AM  

David,
Strongly agree. Hence why freedom and liberty can only be maximized in a moral society. Thus the frequent discussion of who establishes morality. I know that it is God. Others however are atheists, but ironically find the most freedom in our Christian society. Now we use those freedoms to tear down the institutions that guarantee them, i.e. woman voters

Blogger David July 26, 2014 11:51 AM  

StanTR,
Societies vary in the relative dominance of coercion, with totalitarian societies (not necessarily political dictatorships) being saturated with coercion.

It's a spectrum. I prefer to live in a society that leaves most of human choice to the individual. This would be a place like the USA prior to the 1850's (unless you were chattel.)

Women appear to prefer a society saturated with rules (like that of the present USA, where rules govern life to the level of how much water a flush toilet can use, at what age a child must ride in a car facing to the rear, and with whom each of us, in our commercial experiences, MUST by LAW associate.) A society saturated with rules becomes arbitrary and essentially lawless, as the powerful can get away with almost anything while the rest of us commit "Three Felonies a Day" just like the book title.

Even ostensibly "less free" countries don't enforce such picayune dictates on individuals, which is why the USA is perhaps the most stress-saturated place around.

The USA's obsession with jailing (caging) people for vices is a perfect example. If only common law crimes landed people in jail, there would be a huge reduction in prisoner count (and maybe the truly dangerous would remain in cages instead of being let out after improving their skill sets.)

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:52 AM  

Vox provides the evidence that women voting reduces freedom. If it actually did not, I would not be inherently against it as a concept. Except from a biblical perspective. My question would then be to ask, whose authority is the woman under? If she is not married, it is not a husband. Why did her father release her from his authority? He failed, or she is rebellious.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 11:56 AM  

Failure and rebellion= More freedom of course!

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 11:57 AM  

Exit vs Voice.

Anonymous MrGreenMan July 26, 2014 11:58 AM  

@Bard

Of course; we have substituted group think for personal morality, and we have substituted popularity for objective morality.

From various reading, my opinion of John Adams has waxed while that of Samuel Adams has waned, and I find I still agree with Mr. John Adams when he says that our style and notion of government as originally laid out is incompatible with a lack of personal morality. It seems that the ever-increasing power of our government is required because we are ever less capable of being self-governed. One wonders how many torts we would need if people had more internalized the second great commandment.

Of course, for the dullards who travel among us who will say those who like the constitution would want to see humanity's second oldest institution, enslaving the other tribe, brought back, please don't suggest that to someone who has documentary evidence of supporting Mr. Brown and had relatives who signed up for the union cavalry, not for Mr. Lincoln, but to end that institution. We can still think Mr. Lincoln was wrong while being happy with the 13th amendment and respecting Mr. Douglass and Mr. Booker Taliaferro Washington as some of the finest minds and clearest thinkers America has ever produced. American presidents were right to force the House of Saud to stop the sale of black slaves on the slave platforms of Saudi Arabia in the 1960s, too.

Blogger David July 26, 2014 11:58 AM  

Bard,
I argue that a society saturated with political "order" cannot be ruled by Christian morality.

The more a society is governed by political law, the more power will be arrogated by those wielding it. Since power is THE most destructive, corrosive thing for a human soul, by definition "Big Government" means (to me) government BY Satan, Of Satan, and FOR Satan.

It is an axiom of human society. Power corrupts. This is why I don't understand why true adherents to Christ's teachings are not all at least relatively libertarian in their political philosophy. They err by equating libertarianism (where nature's rules are enforced) with libertinism (where the political regime dictates that anything does, and uses the resources of all to mitigate nature's punishment of folly.)

We live in the apogee of politics, which is also the apogee of "anything does." We live when rulers' only morality is "might makes right," and where democracy means to rulers that "I'm in charge today, I might not be tomorrow, so strip mine everything in sight today for me and mine and the Devil take the hindmost."

Christians should understand this, but often seem not to.

Anonymous kfg July 26, 2014 11:58 AM  

"But being held responsible for your mistakes is merely a function of whether there is someone able to bring you to account."

When I picked up a hot soldering iron from the wrong end, it was the laws of nature that held me accountable.

And I have not done so a second time.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 26, 2014 11:59 AM  

Granted. But who has to clean it up? And How much effort are the rest of us obliged to put into that, or to watch over you to keep you from making those mistakes?

Anonymous Roundtine July 26, 2014 12:03 PM  

Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Democracy doesn't work because there cannot be limited suffrage. Whenever power is limited to a small group, there is accountability. When everyone is accountable, no one is accountable. There is always a politician willing to increase voting rights in order to buy votes, so universal suffrage is always the end point.

Democracy assumes that every person is equal in their ability to decide complex political, economic, geopolitical, and military situations. It slices political power into tiny slices, leveling power across the people such that the people with the most power are the bureaucrats who operate the political machine or the opinion makers in the media and academy. This equality in voting also leads people to believe they should be equal in other ways, such as income and status. They abuse their political power and attempt to use the State to coerce others into raising their status or income (whether or not they were poor or low status to begin with).

Democracy evolves into the exact opposite of liberty. It leads to people believing they have the right (because they have the power) to decide the private actions of every individual. The ideal state is as small as possible, unable to restrict private actions. You may have no vote in a monarchy, but while the King has near total control over government, you are the King of your home, your family and your business.

As for someone forcing others to account, in a free society there is no one who forces you to account. Nature punishes you for your mistakes. People use their vote to avoid these costs, but the costs do not disappear, they are just shifted to other people—the costs are socialized. Once the costs get high enough, the democracy/society collapses. Then the full cost falls back on those who created them.

Anonymous Carlotta July 26, 2014 12:03 PM  


I think you are mistaken. The transfer of resources from men to women is the consequences of Feminists' objectives, not the primary objective.

@Sarah V

I disagree. That is one of the primary, if not the primary objects. They cannot get the best provider or refuse to be worthy of one. So they seek large groups and government enforcement to raid these providers.

They seek freedom from reality and consequences, while demanding provision and protection from those who owe them nothing.

Without being able to do so, they would have been seen by all the small band of ugly, demonicly inspired and mentally unstable rejects who unsatiably covet that they are.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 12:11 PM  

@MrGreenMan

Not just groupthing. Groupthink enacted into law through voting. Legalized immorality. Then legalized persecution of morality using the new standard. Slippery slope has become a cliff.

Anonymous Carlotta July 26, 2014 12:15 PM  

Exactly.

My Grandmother and Mother would both tell you that being a slut or getting knocked up equalled poverty, hard knock life for Mother and child and life long loneliness and toil only relieved by catching a low rated man. No matter how high rated the women was before. This equalled chastity that was only thrown away in desperation.

My generation. In high school I over heard three morons planning to get knocked up because their parents would not let them do what they wanted. They discussed the free housing, medical, dental, food stamps and cars they would be given if they did so and how they could screw and party as much as they wanted. They wouldn't have to work, would get free daycare and could even get free college. They were 16. I told them they were morons who would live in the ghetto for the rest of their lives.

This was at a premier Catholic high school and the girls were white from well off families. Two got knocked up and did the plan. One didn't.

Don't ever think that any of this would have happened if they could not have traded one provider for another.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 12:16 PM  

@ Roundtine

Very nicely stated

Anonymous Carlotta July 26, 2014 12:16 PM  

Sorry. My above comment was in agreement with David.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 12:18 PM  

OT, but oh my, Chimps prefer African and Indian music not Western or Japanese music.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 12:26 PM  

@ David

"I argue that a society saturated with political "order" cannot be ruled by Christian morality."

True. Christian morality reduces need for political saturation. How did we get to political saturation? Rejection of Christian morality. Thus they will never be compatible until absolute power is consolidated unto the righteous incorruptible king.

Blogger Bard July 26, 2014 12:28 PM  

Gotta go be productive folks. Great exchange. God bless you all.

Anonymous Azimus July 26, 2014 12:43 PM  

There is a paradox with (non-feminist) women and governing - the "maternal instincts" - nurturing, sheltering, supporting, providing, etc are essential to creating civilized people that strengthen a civilized society. However, those instincts do not scale successfully beyond the most basic units of society (nuclear family, extended family, and possibly neighborhood). What is essential to raising four right-thinking and civilized children, when scaled up 10,000 or even 1,000 children creates a nightmare of fat, weak, lazy wimps, implicitly taught to whine and cry their way to success, and to immediately shut down when faced with set-backs. Or worse a society of thieving murderous thugs who understand they won't be punished if they concoct an emotional enough story.

So yes maternal instincts and the inclinations of how things should run are beneficial and essential for civilization, but you cannot command a division the same way you command a squad. It doesn't scale, and that is a big reason why we have the problems we do.

Anonymous Don July 26, 2014 12:45 PM  

Well my civilization was certainly worth universal sufferage. What did Western Civ. do for us anyway? Buncha racist bastards.

I'm going to line up for my mandated voluntary euthenasia early before all the good spots are taken.

Anonymous Dark July 26, 2014 12:59 PM  

Our civilization still excise as long as we remember and practice it so lets not be to defeatist

Blogger automatthew July 26, 2014 1:33 PM  

Democracy is the serpent saying, "Ye shall be as kings".

Anonymous Francis July 26, 2014 1:48 PM  

"Liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."

I like this definition. Succinct. Broad enough to be useful.

But everything still comes down to what constitutes the "authority".

The question then becomes who is fit to be or constitute the "authority". Clearly the answer is the most powerful and that which can impose their authority. What's absolutely clear also is that it is impossible today for one man or one family to be able to impose their authority. It's all about coalitions.

Women have proven they are not only capable of being part of the ruling coalition, but they have demonstrated the ability to fundamentally change the nature of the coalition.

They only argument against women being a legitimate part of the franchise is that they can't properly understand what they do? But they understand. They better than men understand the requirements and needs of a large, complex population in which white men, black women, gays, old people, educated arabs, poor heterosexuals all have different needs. That society isn't going away. Its here. Anyone thinking this society can be governed and kept functioning without the wisdom of women is simply blind to the necessities of the future. And they probably don't know how to play well with others.

Anonymous 11B July 26, 2014 2:08 PM  

Economic growth and rising incomes are accompanied by a greater incentive for women to engage in labour market activities as the opportunity cost of staying at home increases. We hypothesize that government spending decreases the cost of performing household chores such as, but not limited to, child rearing and child care so that couples decide to engage further in the labour market and chose a higher tax rate to finance more government spending.

And to finance their demographic replacement as their governments beaver away at importing the third world. What's the opportunity cost of entering the labor market when your sole child will become a stranger in his own land?

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 2:20 PM  

And they probably don't know how to play well with others.

And when it all falls to shit, will you play well with those remaining?

Go away, fudge packer.

Blogger RC July 26, 2014 2:28 PM  

"They only argument against women being a legitimate part of the franchise is that they can't properly understand what they do?" - Francis

I could name ten arguments against women's suffrage, but the most compelling is that their participation destroys the society. This is not even arguable at this point. Now, if you believe the year 2014 superior to 1914 from a societal perspective, then you should indeed celebrate. But for those of us who believe Western civilization to have been good from a historical perspective and, therefore, worth preserving, giving the franchise to women was an unmitigated disaster. And stay tuned as it plunges into the abyss.

Anonymous kfg July 26, 2014 2:31 PM  

" . . . stay tuned as it plunges into the abyss."

Oddly enough, that's what it did in 1914.

Blogger RC July 26, 2014 2:38 PM  

Indeed it did. Are you trying to be a smart ass or are you trying to make a point?

Blogger John Wright July 26, 2014 3:10 PM  

"Every culture or society has coercive qualities. The question is who is doing the coercion and toward what end"

Wow. What an incredibly stupid and insightful comment. It is right up there with "one man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter" or, better yet, "freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength."

The leper bell of the diseased man coming to rob you of your freedom is his inability to define the term. As if there were no difference between a yeomen under Queen Victoria and a serf under Czar Ivan the Terrible; no difference between being a citizen of Athens as opposed to Sparta.

Of course, I suppose one must know at least an iota of history to know these differences. History is not the forte of the liberty lepers.

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... July 26, 2014 3:17 PM  

“women do seem to largely prefer a society based on coercion (the state) vs one based on voluntary association (the market)”

Men and women equally hold the position that, given how individuals (refer to the monopolists of the late 1800’s) had been granted carte blanche authority, complements of the “market”, empowering government to regulate is decidedly the lesser of two evils.


“the US as a nation began as a Republic, not a democracy. and it also began with many white men not being allowed to vote, much less women or minorities.”

The “elites” of that time period created a system that squarely benefitted their political and economic designs, with measures in place to maintain their dominance. Correctly, those who were denied opportunities to advance worked in concert to secure the franchise through their right of freedom of association.


“The correlation of female suffrage and increased state spending was undeniable.”

One can also infer that this increase in expenditures was due to males who desired various social services.


“Freedom is the opportunity to make good choices.”

Define “good”. What are the metrics involved? How do reasonable people develop that criteria?


“'freedom' is the ability to make your own decisions about how you will live your own life.”

And when outside forces limit those choices one deems desirable through the iron fist of their own will, the franchise serves as the least path of resistance to ensure that those decisions will be carried forward.


‘Instead, democracy beyond the scale of a very small town (where anonymity plays no role in rule-making) simply turns into factions layering self-serving rule after self-serving rule on everyone.”

Considering the complexity and interconnectedness of today’s society, people are unable to properly regulate themselves without an arbitrator. Besides, even in those small towns of yesteryear, there were factions who gamed the system for their own designs at the expense of their neighbors.


“This would be a place like the USA prior to the 1850's (unless you were chattel.)”



Men of distinction--small farmers, shopkeepers, merchants--who amassed property were denied opportunities to expand their fortunes because of arbitrary laws created by the elites. To that end, they employed their freedom of association to put in place measures that would hold their fellow citizens accountable. The means? The franchise.


“It leads to people believing they have the right (because they have the power) to decide the private actions of every individual.”

Indeed, when those private actions collectively limit the power of individuals to make their own decisions.


“A society saturated with rules becomes arbitrary and essentially lawless...”

And a society saturated without rules becomes arbitrary and essentially lawless. Please refer to the Gilded Age as my evidence.


“The more a society is governed by political law, the more power will be arrogated by those wielding it.”


Conversely, the less a society is governed by political law, the more power will be sought by individuals who are unwilling to instill order on their own behalf.



In the end, women have the right to vote. Not going to change anytime soon.

Anonymous Carlotta July 26, 2014 3:31 PM  

Wow Francis. That was a whole lot of words to tell us that when you are scared you run to Mommy.

Better not inconvenience one of those wise women, they abort babies for less offence.

Pray tell, give three examples of civilizations that flourished under the wisdom and/or the diversity you are so fond of?

Thanks.

Anonymous Carlotta July 26, 2014 3:32 PM  


In the end, women have the right to vote. Not going to change anytime soon.

Johnny, the Muslims and their sharia law beg to differ.

Anonymous StanTR July 26, 2014 3:45 PM  

"Johnny, the Muslims and their sharia law beg to differ"
Are you suggesting that due to Muslim influence in the U,S. the constitution will be amended and the women's franchise removed?????

Is want some of what you are smoking.

Johnny is right. It's not happening.

Anonymous Francis July 26, 2014 3:48 PM  

"Pray tell, give three examples of civilizations that flourished under the wisdom and/or the diversity you are so fond of?"

US. Canada. Germany.

Anonymous 11B July 26, 2014 3:53 PM  

US. Canada. Germany.

Francis, those are good examples. But weren't those three nations also flourishing prior to women's suffrage? The lack of women's suffrage didn't seem to prevent the mass of immigrants heading towards Canada and the US, nor prevent Germany from becoming the dominate economy of Europe with the best social safety net in the world.

Anonymous ck July 26, 2014 4:03 PM  

Don't red states have more land?

California as a counterexample, moron."

I would add New York State as another counterexample with lots of cheap land for sale that ends up being ridiculously expensive once you factor in the property taxes, even for ag land.

Anonymous kfg July 26, 2014 4:06 PM  

@RC - " . . .are you trying to make a point?"

Well, unless you are trying to blame it on Norway, I don't see the strong connection to women's suffrage.

I suppose what I am doing is trying to ascertain the nature of your argument, noting that I have said nothing about your premise.

Anonymous Sigyn July 26, 2014 4:20 PM  

In the end, women have the right to vote. Not going to change anytime soon.

No, honey, women have the privilege of voting in the current government. That may or may not change as soon as the form of government changes.

That is, of course, if you assume that anyone's vote matters anymore. Which is a poor assumption.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus July 26, 2014 4:30 PM  

Sigyn: "That is, of course, if you assume that anyone's vote matters anymore."

Voting still counts, but you have to be on the Supreme Court. Five votes it's constitutional, four votes it isn't.

Re: restricted franchise: I think a state of three hundred million people that has only nine voters that matter on any important topic has already achieved it.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 4:30 PM  

While it is not clear whether or not Glub was correct about how long "Empires" last, can we use the behavior of the elites as an indication that they think the merry go round is about the end? That is, they seem to be in all out milk the system for all they can get mode.

Anonymous Sigyn July 26, 2014 4:36 PM  

They better than men understand the requirements and needs of a large, complex population in which white men, black women, gays, old people, educated arabs, poor heterosexuals all have different needs.

And strangely enough, all those different needs have the exact same solution: government programs!

Anyone thinking this society can be governed and kept functioning without the wisdom of women is simply blind to the necessities of the future.

Society absolutely needs wise women--women who spend their time building up their houses and families, not tearing them down with their own hands. I mean, look what's happened just since no-fault divorce came into play and unwed motherhood was destigmatized! It's about time some women got wise to the whole feminism scam.

But I'll bet that wasn't what you meant.

Anonymous dc.sunsets July 26, 2014 4:58 PM  

Johnny, you are very confused about the origin of order in society.

Proudhon pointed out that liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.

For the best exposition of why you are incorrect, that the state is both a necessary and sufficient monopolist arbiter of conflict in society, please consider reading Hoppe's excellent essay: https://mises.org/daily/858/The-Democratic-Leviathan

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... July 26, 2014 5:14 PM  

“Johnny, the Muslims and their sharia law beg to differ.”

Honey, American Muslims generally disagree.

defence.pk/threads/american-muslims-say-they-reject-separate-%C2%91sharia%C2%92-law-system.156043


“That may or may not change as soon as the form of government changes.”

Assuming that America a) undergoes a revolution of epic proportions and b) that revolution results in the implementation of the “old ways” of life, i.e. Judeo-Christian, male dominated, minority "jackbooting".


“Voting still counts, but you have to be on the Supreme Court. Five votes it's constitutional, four votes it isn't.”


Part and parcel to the checks and balances. Congress, in response,
may pass laws to overturn their decisions. Were you asleep in civics class?


“an we use the behavior of the elites as an indication that they think the merry go round is about the end?”

The paradigm used to judge how empires rose and fell in the past is outdated, given the facts that Americans today enjoy liberty guaranteed through some form of written document, have access to technology, and have access to information. Unless there is 50% unemployment, mass invasions by roving violent bands of vibrants pillaging and plundering the suburbs, and banksters losing their stranglehold, the “collapse” of America is nothing but a pipe dream.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 5:16 PM  

Johnny the Dickhead says:

Honey, American Muslims generally disagree.

defence.pk/threads/american-muslims-say-they-reject-separate-%C2%91sharia%C2%92-law-system.156043


Doesn't Islam claim it is permissible to lie to the infidel.

Anonymous Anonymous Cowherd July 26, 2014 5:23 PM  

However, those instincts do not scale successfully beyond the most basic units of society (nuclear family, extended family, and possibly neighborhood)

It takes a village to raise a child when you try to get a city to raise the child then . . . .

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... July 26, 2014 5:36 PM  

Hoppe is a fraud. Indeed, the armchair philosophical warrior patently refuses to indulge the reader as to what is “natural” about the “natural order” of a social system he himself created. His ideal is a concoction of his own theoretical considerations that conveniently discounts decades of historical truths. He criticizes communist and democratic ideologues for their intensive efforts to develop a “utopian world” from scratch...then proceeds to use their blueprint to construct his own “perfect place”! Hoppe envisions a society whose foundation is exclusively predicated on mutually agreed contracts, an honor system if you will--yet man has utterly demonstrated to repeatedly fall victim to their own internal failings of corruption and greed under this arrangement.

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... July 26, 2014 5:42 PM  

To the other septic tank...

Since it appears you are operating by the metric: "is it good for Christians", your tribalism automatically calls into question anything and everything you publicly claim.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 5:45 PM  

Well, Johnny the Dickhead, since I am neither a Christian (although I do find Christian cultures congenial) nor am I making any claims.

I was simply relaying the claims of Muslims as reported in the Koran and the Hadiths.

Go away fudge packer.

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... July 26, 2014 5:57 PM  

"Go away fudge packer."

My suspicions are confirmed. Clearly, you lack the requisite skills to debate if you are resorting to simple declarative sentences rife with junior high school language.


"since I am neither a Christian"

That fact gives me tremendous insight into your character, or lack thereof. I suggest you convert or face eternal damnation. I am simply relaying the claims as reported by the Dread Ilk.


"I was simply relaying the claims of Muslims as reported in the Koran"

As reported by YOUR confirmation bias on what was relayed by the Dread Ilk they believe is contained in that holy book.

Anonymous Sigyn July 26, 2014 6:02 PM  

Honey, American Muslims generally disagree.

Until they don't. See, for instance, Dearborn, MI.

“That may or may not change as soon as the form of government changes.”

Assuming that America a) undergoes a revolution of epic proportions and b) that revolution results in the implementation of the “old ways” of life, i.e. Judeo-Christian, male dominated, minority "jackbooting".


It wouldn't take anything THAT dramatic. Dissolution, formal or informal, would be most likely. Most empires go out with a whimper, not a bang.

“Voting still counts, but you have to be on the Supreme Court. Five votes it's constitutional, four votes it isn't.”


Part and parcel to the checks and balances. Congress, in response,
may pass laws to overturn their decisions.


They may, but they don't. I haven't seen them working very hard to overturn President Penandphone's executive orders.

The paradigm used to judge how empires rose and fell in the past is outdated, given the facts that Americans today enjoy liberty guaranteed through some form of written document, have access to technology, and have access to information.

So, because Constitution and Internet, elites don't pillage the government blind on their way out.

Unless there is 50% unemployment, mass invasions by roving violent bands of vibrants pillaging and plundering the suburbs, and banksters losing their stranglehold, the “collapse” of America is nothing but a pipe dream.

You must never have been to Detroit.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 6:22 PM  

"I was simply relaying the claims of Muslims as reported in the Koran"

As reported by YOUR confirmation bias on what was relayed by the Dread Ilk they believe is contained in that holy book.


Silly dickhead.

I can look it up for myself.

I wonder what those same verses will say in an English translation of the Koran and Hadiths?

Anonymous Sigyn July 26, 2014 6:55 PM  

I wonder what those same verses will say in an English translation of the Koran and Hadiths?

It'll say, "Not All Muslims Are Like That."

Anonymous Sigyn July 26, 2014 6:58 PM  

I missed this one:

Women have proven they are not only capable of being part of the ruling coalition, but they have demonstrated the ability to fundamentally change the nature of the coalition.

Yes. That's the problem: not just the ability, but the compulsion. Haven't you ever heard the saying that "common sense is anything but"?

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 7:08 PM  

It'll say, "Not All Muslims Are Like That."

You might be right, especially if it is a PC translation.

However, it does not require all of them to be like that to distrust the results of surveys such as Dickhead quoted.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 26, 2014 7:09 PM  

"Democracy assumes that every person is equal in their ability to decide complex political, economic, geopolitical, and military situations."

Not quite: what it assumes is that this ability is sufficiently widely distributed that over a large enough participating group its accumulative effect will amount to an adequate average, and -- this is the critical bit -- that a universal distribution of this franchise among adults is a safer way to avoid or slow the franchise's corruption than any system ostensibly meant to select for this ability. The Second Amendment is based on something of the same presumption, in its own way: the most effective control of people or governments being criminal or tyrannical with firearms is a generally armed citizenry, rather than a comparatively tiny armed enforcement group who can themselves become tyrannically corrupt with greater speed and ease (due to "inner ring" secrecy and smaller size).

Robert Heinlein's quotes come to mind: "Democracy is the assumption that a million men are wiser than one men. How's that again? I missed something," and "Autocracy is the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"

All that said, it should not need saying -- but probably does -- that there is no Western nation in the world I know of which is actually a democracy: most are constitutional republics with democratically elected legislative representatives ruled in practice by bureaucracies and most influenced by well-financed private advocacies. The important thing about what we call "democracies" was originally the point that the people who held legislative and executive power were regularly replaced, and replaced by vote of the people rather than appointing their own successors. As government agencies, non-elected judiciaries, and empire-building bureaucracies have become more and more involved in how government actually functions, the actual effect of voting decisions by the public becomes less and less important, with an increasing sense of disenfranchisement and disengagement. Once this disenfranchisement coincides with a sufficiently high level of civic and economic distress, bad things will happen.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 7:19 PM  

Once this disenfranchisement coincides with a sufficiently high level of civic and economic distress, bad things will happen.

Can you be a bit more explicit about that?

Anonymous Sigyn July 26, 2014 7:28 PM  

Can you be a bit more explicit about that?

Old Testament, real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Anonymous Stephen J. July 26, 2014 7:46 PM  

I'm thinking primarily of the French Revolution. The ancien regime was able to stumble along despite the generally bad state of, well, the state for quite a while, but it was the combination of inflation on survival staples (the price of bread) and fear that the state would use foreign forces to suppress dissent (the sighting of Prussian mercenaries in the city) that triggered the civic unrest which ultimately culminated in the Terror and the abolishment of the monarchy.

I honestly don't know if something like this could happen in Washington DC, or that any effects of anything that happened in DC would necessarily ripple out to the rest of the country the way things did in Paris in the 1790s. But I think the similar point is the key threshold: at some point people will lose the default willingness to take federal government directives as valid. How close things are to that point or what would be required to get there, I can't say.

Blogger Rseven Rocket July 26, 2014 7:51 PM  

Notice that Francis does not mention any ancient civilization

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 7:52 PM  

I'm thinking primarily of the French Revolution.

I'm with you. I have often used the French Revolution as an example of what can happen when the Elites are so out of touch with their subjects. However, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the unpleasantness in Istanbul/Constantinople is also a useful example.

Blogger Rseven Rocket July 26, 2014 7:54 PM  

By extending the franchise to those who are easily manipulated, you just shift the oligarchy to people in the media academia and the civil-service. People who are unfit to rule.

Blogger Rseven Rocket July 26, 2014 8:00 PM  

Assuming that America a) undergoes a revolution of epic proportions and b) that revolution results i

Rebellions are a lot easier when the Empire fails to pay the army and police.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 8:03 PM  

What if you were allowed to vote only because it didn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you voted the elites always got their way? What if the concept of one person/one vote was just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance?

From here: http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/what-if-democracy-is-a-fraud/

Blogger Rseven Rocket July 26, 2014 8:04 PM  

The paradigm used to judge how empires rose and fell in the past is outdated, given the facts that Americans today enjoy liberty guaranteed through some form of written document, have access to technology, and have access to information.

Oddly enough, the Late Roman Literati made the same argument as well.

It never ends well for the palace eunuchs...

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 8:10 PM  

Oddly enough, the Late Roman Literati made the same argument as well.

Plus ça change ...

It never ends well for the palace eunuchs...

It doesn't start out well for them either.

Blogger Rseven Rocket July 26, 2014 8:18 PM  

It never ends well for the palace eunuchs...

t doesn't start out well for them either.

*rimshot*

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 8:42 PM  

Vox has often pointed out that people mistakenly expect current trends to continue into the future.

For example, the African population explosion.

As people know there is an Ebola outbreak in Africa currently affecting three countries and at least one individual has died of Ebola in Nigeria. This is very likely to get out of hand.

This is especially since at least one nurse subscribes to this theory:

FREETOWN (Reuters) - Police were guarding an Ebola treatment center in Sierra Leone on Saturday, the day after thousands marched on the clinic following allegations by a former nurse the deadly virus was invented to conceal "cannibalistic rituals" there, a regional police chief said.

Given that Ebola spreads by contact with the bodily fluids of infected people I imagine that cannibalism is the last thing on the minds of medical staff, but when you are dumb, these explanations don't appeal all that much.

Blogger David July 26, 2014 10:02 PM  

Johnny, you criticize Hoppe's approach? He starts with axiom and reasons outward. He points out that history is a lousy "proof" since its record (whichever one you choose, given there is considerable disagreement about lots of it) can be used to justify or rationalize all sorts of competing theories.

The bottom line is that your notion that we need a monopolist "decider" to arbitrate all disagreements ***including disagreements between its members and the general public*** is as absurd as expecting the 3 wolves and a sheep voting on lunch to "make sense" to the sheep. Whether hereditary monarchy, elective "democracy," or appointed theocracy, the "deciders" are superior in a monopoly system and, as with our current 9 robed lawyers, there's no appeal to reason above the monopolists. The chief fool can claim an unapportioned tax isn't unconstitutional, despite clear language to the contrary, and voila! Up is down and reason be damned.

This is better than the market? Then why entrust food production, the raising of our young, and every other essential element of society to any voluntary sphere? Shouldn't we just go with a 5 year plan for all of it, just like the Soviets did?

Oh, you haven't read Mises' "Socialism," published in 1922? You haven't read Hayek's work on the pretense of knowledge? You aren't familiar with the fact that today's dominant economic schools of thought (statist apologists, rationalizers and camp followers to a man) really don't consider where capital formation occurs--they just have a nice letter for it in their arcane mathematical representations (a lot like those climate computer models predicting our slow roasting)?

I have noticed a number of folks who sometimes comment on VD's blog are heavy on what amounts to "ad hominem" attacks on whatever one cares to cite, and then endlessly claim that they're "nailing it."

Your critique of Hoppe falls into that category; he criticizes theories that contain absurdities and offers an alternative that doesn't. You equate both approaches as some sort of pulling it out of their asses. If you can't see the difference, I'm not sure how to help you.

Blogger David July 26, 2014 10:08 PM  

Women appear to me to have a rosier view of the state, and thus appear to see it as a somewhat maternal institution, kind of like an elderly schoolmarm with a ruler to whack the back of your hand if you get out of line.

It seems to never occur to many of them (and many men, too) that every edict, every rule, is backed by men with guns, itchy trigger fingers, and a host of folks working on "the same team" who have no wish to sully the reputation of the political system by admitting their enforcer ranks are stuffed with sadists on power trips.

Not long ago a man was stopped for primary enforcement of seat belt laws. One thing led to another and by the time it ended, the cop had pulled his gun and shot the guy to death.

Procedure was "followed," maybe a little "retraining" was done, and other than the guy who was dead and his loved ones, all was fine and dandy.

Which warm-and-fuzzy women who campaigned for primary enforcement imagined that someday a man would begin the encounter with a cop that cost the man his life, all over a stupid seat belt?

Blogger David July 26, 2014 10:15 PM  

Before someone asks "when was someone killed over not wearing a seat belt," http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/05/14/seatbelt-laws-can-be-deadly/

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... July 26, 2014 10:22 PM  

“See, for instance, Dearborn, MI.”

If one takes seriously freedom of association, then the Muslims there may put forth whatever system. Except...Muslims have revitalized portions of an otherwise severely distressed and deindustrialized city while simultaneously adhering to this advice--"It is the sacred and religious duty of every Mohammedan here to be a good citizen of America and to learn the language of the country, without which we cannot understand each other rightly," Dr. Mufti Mohammad Sadiq, the first imam of the area's first mosque, told the Detroit News in 1921.

Sharia law in Dearborn is a figment of your imagination. Not enough to do at home?


“It wouldn't take anything THAT dramatic.”


Indeed, the imminent factors for the destruction of the American empire are noticeably absent.


“I haven't seen them working very hard to overturn President Penandphone's executive orders.”

Your homeschooling is showing. The Supreme Court has only overturned two executive orders--conservatives historically point out that it is the responsibility of Congress, not the judicial branch, to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it.


“elites don't pillage the government blind on their way out.”



Talk to Laguna Beach Fogey, our resident bankster, regarding your concern.


“By extending the franchise to those who are easily manipulated, you just shift the oligarchy to people in the media academia and the civil-service. People who are unfit to rule.”

Praytell, what criteria do you offer that will convince citizens who currently have the franchise to willingly give it up because they are “unfit to rule”.


“Oddly enough, the Late Roman Literati made the same argument as well.”

Cite your source.


“I wonder what those same verses will say in an English translation of the Koran and Hadiths?”

The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell." Moreover, according to Shari'ah, lying is not permitted except in specific cases which do not lead to loss of rights, bloodshed or slander of people’s honor, etc. but which concern saving lives, reconciling between people, or creating love between husband and wife. 


"Not All Muslims Are Like That."


Exactly.

Anonymous corvinus July 26, 2014 10:45 PM  

Vox has often pointed out that people mistakenly expect current trends to continue into the future.

For example, the African population explosion.

As people know there is an Ebola outbreak in Africa currently affecting three countries and at least one individual has died of Ebola in Nigeria. This is very likely to get out of hand.


Oh, don't be ridiculous. Famines and the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa were also "out of hand", but have always been successfully crushed by liberal do-gooders. As for Ebola outbreaks... they have never done anything more than kill a few hundred people at the most.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 26, 2014 10:48 PM  

Oh dear, Dickhead Johnny Rico quotes us one verse from the Quran in support of his claim but would be the first to quote conflicting verses from the Old or New Testament when it suits him.

Truly, dickheads never change.

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... July 26, 2014 11:00 PM  

I understand your love affair with Hoppe and your compulsion to come to his defense, white knight style. Hoppe gets caught in the same Venus fly trap that he claims had devoured his detractors--selling his economic brand of apriorism to social philosophy. That is, his theory is squarely rooted in the abstract, rather than the practical. As a result, Hoppe is relegated to the “state is bad, natural order is superior” mantra. One would think that this brand of scienthology would be summarily dismissed--Hoppe crafts a "reality" by fitting it into his preferred model even though the evidence to support that model is scant or nonexistent. In other words, his axiom is a mirage.


“He points out that history is a lousy "proof" since its record (whichever one you choose, given there is considerable disagreement about lots of it) can be used to justify or rationalize all sorts of competing theories.”

Well, using the logic inherent in this statement, the “America will collapse by 2033” is, in a nutshell, “bunk”.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 27, 2014 3:29 AM  

Major point; This is also an implicit argument against female suffrage, along with the numerous contradictions is an outcome. That outcome is what we are merely observing; complete economic and societal chaos/doom.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 27, 2014 3:34 AM  

OT: good news, housing nearby or I guess looking hopeful. I am praying some units are avialbe as soon as possible but Dear Lord, what good can be expected by all this intervention...

How so? Well, the medical community was shocked when my dr. found me sleeping in my car, all the sudden the case workers, social workers give a damn. We'll see if any good happens. In post america, we are free, free to be homeless and be perfectly content with it. This horrified the doc even more but what for?

So! The choices are a car, a mud hut and the burka.

So grand.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza July 27, 2014 3:36 AM  

Women think the system gives a damn about them and do have this irrational faith in the system that is set up against them. Very few women live in reality or express logical responses to failed policies.

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 3:50 AM  

"What is Freedom, then?" Rule by the best.

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 4:04 AM  

I never understood why those who believe in womens's suffrage wouldnt extend voting to other non-rational actors such as children, animals and plants. One could do this by watching behavioral patterns, maybe having two sunlight filters with politicians faces on them, and balancing them to emit the same amount of light, and seeing which one the plant grows towards. Surely a greater number of voters = better result? Although it is possible that they want to make sure witches get a place in the pool, and absent good methods of determining witches, town demons ghosts local spirits other rational actors that sadly lack a physical body would miss out.

Anonymous Sigyn July 27, 2014 4:28 AM  

Oh dear, Dickhead Johnny Rico quotes us one verse from the Quran in support of his claim but would be the first to quote conflicting verses from the Old or New Testament when it suits him.

Why not? Everything of mine he "responded" to, he took so laughably out of context that it's like he had read nothing of what went before--not even his own statements.

Standard trolling tactic. Yawn.

Anonymous Sigyn July 27, 2014 4:33 AM  

I never understood why those who believe in womens's suffrage wouldnt extend voting to other non-rational actors such as children, animals and plants.

Yeah! Or men who don't own land!

...What?

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 4:39 AM  

"Yeah! Or men who don't own land!" Sure why not? That's why the Roman Republic fell, after all.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus July 27, 2014 5:33 AM  

Porphyry: ""What is Freedom, then?" Rule by the best."

Of who?

Anonymous Carlotta July 27, 2014 5:56 AM  

Civilizations that flourished. Thanks.

Anonymous Sigyn July 27, 2014 7:20 AM  

Sure why not? That's why the Roman Republic fell, after all.

I was under the impression that the Republic fell because the Senate let the Julians consolidate power and make it hereditary, but...sure, let's go with that.

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 11:04 AM  

"I was under the impression that the Republic fell because the Senate let the Julians consolidate power and make it hereditary, but...sure, let's go with that." What predicated tyhe rise of the Julians? Landless mobs that were quite literally living off selling their votes. And the popularity of the larger amounts of free handouts, among self-same citizens, that emperors gave to their citizens compared with the senate. These men also would go cheaply to any man who would pay them as soldiers, becoming the fuel for civil wars and power grabs. So, I'm glad you seem amenable to attrributing the fall of the Roman republic to landless men.

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 11:06 AM  

"Of who?" of citizens, who else? And by best I mean what we would generally call highest, or dignifity x morality.

Blogger Robert What? July 27, 2014 11:36 AM  

As observed by others, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was one of the greatest errors in the history of the United States. Another lesser known one but equally as damaging was the 17th. Although neither one is going to be repealed at this point of course. At least not before a total collapse.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 27, 2014 11:42 AM  

Landless mobs that were quite literally living off selling their votes. And the popularity of the larger amounts of free handouts, among self-same citizens, that emperors gave to their citizens compared with the senate. These men also would go cheaply to any man who would pay them as soldiers, becoming the fuel for civil wars and power grabs. So, I'm glad you seem amenable to attrributing the fall of the Roman republic to landless men.

Deja vu!

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 11:44 AM  

"Although neither one is going to be repealed at this point of course. At least not before a total collapse." Dont forget the fourtreenth, and the damn Yankees, or incorporation by the courts

Anonymous The other skeptic July 27, 2014 11:45 AM  

Which emperor in Constantinople tried to rescind the EBT cards?

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 11:54 AM  

"Deja vu!" I dont think the mob was disenfranchised, it practically held all the long term power in the state, i.e. there was no other faction big enough to oppose it. That was the problem. Or were you talking about something else? This thread is somewhat convuluted, as lots of people have been dropping in and out.

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 12:01 PM  

"Which emperor in Constantinople tried to rescind the EBT cards?" idk I choose phone a friend. But I dont see what the point of that is, as the Byzantine empire was never a republic, unless you were replying to someone else...

Anonymous The other skeptic July 27, 2014 12:02 PM  

Or were you talking about something else?

I was referring to how things seem to be playing out the same today. We have free grain issue (EBT cards) and ruling elites using the mob to maintain power.

However, things would seem much more fragile today.

Anonymous Sigyn July 27, 2014 12:45 PM  

So, I'm glad you seem amenable to attrributing the fall of the Roman republic to landless men.

Sure. Likewise, I'm glad you seem amenable to acknowledging that men will destroy their society as cheerfully as women will and for the same reasons and in the same ways, so most men must also be "non-rational actors".

Which I'm fine with. His Lordship will need lots of field serfs.

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 1:00 PM  

"so most men [NONLANDED] must also be "non-rational actors" "Yeah except that you women vote for whatever makes you moist, which has slightly less correspondence to ability to rule than whoever hands out free bread. And then there are the men who actually have land, and they are pretty decent at choosing rulers for their own cities, but not ideal. (Apologies for the crudities, as you seem a feminine sort, but that's what you get when I'm talking about politics, even if you are respectably married.)

Anonymous Porphyry July 27, 2014 4:05 PM  

"However, things would seem much more fragile today. " I completely agree both parties seem to be the party of self deception while pandering to the stupidest least fit to rule people. Republicans, the party of stupid people who are not urbanized. Democrats the party of stupid minorities and stupid people that are urbanized.

Anonymous Luke July 28, 2014 1:12 AM  

If unmarried women have the vote in any numbers, the republic will eventually fall. That goes trebly for women with minor bastards. Married women, it doesn't matter much either way if they have the vote or not. For consistency, not to mention since they're not conscriptable, I favor not letting any women have the vote.

Neither should any male have the vote who receives welfare, is a homosexual, admitted socialist, Muslim, or the like.

Blogger Robert What? July 28, 2014 8:11 AM  

@MrGreenMan - Re: the 13th Amendment, one can argue that it was nullified by the 16th.

Blogger Robert What? July 28, 2014 8:17 AM  

@Porphyry -

Re: 14th Amendment. You mean popular suffrage as opposed to limiting it to landowners? Yes, that was a very unfortunate one as well.

Re: "incorporation by the courts", do you mean treating a corporation as a person? Doesn't that long predate the Constitution?

Anonymous Porphyry July 29, 2014 4:42 PM  

"Re: 14th Amendment. You mean popular suffrage as opposed to limiting it to landowners? Yes, that was a very unfortunate one as well."
---I was actually thinking of citizenship by birth, but that was a bad consequence as well.---
"Re: "incorporation by the courts", do you mean treating a corporation as a person? Doesn't that long predate the Constitution?"
---- No I meant making the states abide by the bill of rights, and using the feds to enforce that (this is bad because of more centralization)---

Anonymous Banjo July 30, 2014 4:29 PM  

Late but...
@Sigyn: Now tell him about the twinkie.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts