Can We Redistribute Sex Like We Redistribute Wealth?
Can we redistribute sex the way we redistribute wealth?
George Mason economist and libertarian Robin Hanson seems to think so.
He proposed that men should start threatening women with violence if their sex demands are not met. The horrifying idea arose in response to a Toronto terrorist attack on women that was sparked by anger over being an involuntary celibate or “incel.”
Why did Prof. Hanson say this? To establish that he is uncaring and misogynistic? To establish that libertarians are uncaring and misogynistic?
Surely he’s not serious. He seems to be drawing the analogy to make this libertarian case: Just as women should not be threatened with violence for not giving sex they don’t want to give, the rich should not be threatened with fines or imprisonment for not giving money they don’t want to give via taxes.*
But the sense is lost in translation.
The redistribution of wealth leaves the rich with less money, but women cannot be left with less sex if they’re forced to give sex to men. And taxes don’t damage in the way that killing and rape do.
In fact the happiest nations on earth are consistently those Nordic peoples who redistribute wealth the most. But the happiest countries would never be those where women are violently forced to give sex they don’t want to give.
Why did Prof. Hanson propose that women should be threatened with violence to make his point?
It’s the sort of thing that happens when people lack empathy. Having no experience with it, they don’t know how to spark empathy in others. And as it is libertarians are the most empathy-challenged of any political persuasion. These poor souls seek to create understanding and compassion for the rich and their tax burden yet have no idea how to do it. And so they can end up sounding like creepy misogynists.
* I’ll leave aside for the moment that economies collapse under libertarian policy which leaves most people with no money to spend and a downward spiral in sales and profits. (That’s why the World Bank and International Monetary Fund quit forcing the countries “aided” to live by libertarian ideals.)
Posted on May 7, 2018, in politics/class inequality and tagged “incel, involuntary celibate, libertarians, libertarians and empathy, redistribute sex, Robin Hanson, Toronto terrorist. Bookmark the permalink. 70 Comments.
With sex, consent of two parties are involved.
With money, the consent of just one is necessary.
Thus, sex cannot be “redistributed” and “shared” like money.
Coming to the point on economics, yes, no person having accumulated money through hard work will ever want the Government to come and take it away.
Redistributing money with the consent of only one party is generally called “theft”.
I’m curious what you think about situations — which are largely universal —- where a company can’t make any money without the workers, but management has much more control over how people are paid and they give all the increase in profit to themselves while failing to let their workers share in the profits. Do you think that is theft? Because that’s pretty much the situation we have that has caused most people in America to have about the same income that they had in the 1970s whereas the top 1% have seen their income skyrocket in a redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the top. That’s why many feel we need to redistribute downward.
I agree with you that the analogy of wealth redistribution and sex redistribution are not compatible. The wealthy aren’t threatened with violence or threats of rape if they don’t redistribute their money, they just have less money. They aren’t left as a shell of a human being after part of their bodies were robbed of them. The comparison is absurd, one is about money, and the other is about women having autonomy over their own bodies taken from them. Incels have this idea about women, about the purpose that they serve and when their own sexual needs aren’t met, women are who they lash out at. They blame “Chads” and they blame loose women who won’t give them the time of day rather than own up to their own life choices. I also agree with you that anyone who would suggest sexual redistribution as if women are some sort of commodity lacks empathy. I understand that some people view taxes as invasive and the idea of anything socialist or that wealth could be redistributed is seen as a sort of assault, but to compare a loss of wealth to a woman being raped is ludicrous. A person being taxed is not the same as an incel demanding sex or they are going to cause mass violence. They are incomparable. It is also not entirely on a woman to give in to this sexual desire that apparently cannot be tamped down so that violence doesn’t occur. This is not a burden a woman must bear even if the original analogy wasn’t meant to be literal, but there are those that truly believe that women must bear this burden of sex even if, for them, it is unwanted.
I appreciate how you call out just how flawed Hanson’s argument is. Sex and income are not the same thing and have nothing to do with each other. Therefore, he should not be using sex and rape as a metaphor for the problems with increasing taxes on the rich. There are plenty of ways to make sure that your message gets heard. Comparing tax rates to raping women is not a way to do this. You bring up a great point when you wrote that “taxes don’t damage in the way that killing and rape do.” It works to further drive home the point that sex and rape should not be a comparison tool for a politician’s tax plan. You end by talking about the lack of empathy in Hanson’s comments. I think this is a great point because most politicians have not led normal lives for decades and simply lack the ability to empathize with the common American.
“taxes don’t damage in the way that killing and rape do.”
That sounds plausible, until you actually look at the statistics. There are much more men killed in work incidents in the United States every year, than women who are murdered. Since taxes are the theft of work, more men are getting killed to give their pound of flesh to the government, than women who are getting killed for all other reasons. And that’s not getting into all the psychological issues and damage caused by work in order to pay taxes.
Men don’t have to take those jobs. The tax part is irrelevant.
“Men don’t have to take those jobs”
Well… wouldn’t it be nice to have a time machine and know ahead of time which is the job that is going to kill us. Let me know when you invent that.
” The tax part is irrelevant.”
How is it irrelevant that the government is forcibly taking the very thing that led to you being killed? That’s the entire argument. If they hadn’t taken it, you could be home in bed.
If those jobs are so horrible people shouldn’t take them.
The tax argument doesn’t immediately follow.
“If those jobs are so horrible people shouldn’t take them.”
I’ll accept that if we can stipulate that all the feminists complaining about the low pay, can stop whining and quit their jobs if they don’t like it. Nobody told you to go into low paying professions and generate a gender pay gap.
“The tax argument doesn’t immediately follow.”
I’ll accept that if we can stipulate that slavery is completely fine, since slavery is merely a 100% tax on the value of labour, instead of a 50% rate like in modern society. If theft of labour is morally acceptable, we should have no worries about going all in.
Well, you can choose not to take them if other jobs are available. When women are paid less than men across-the-board they can’t just refuse to accept jobs. Dangerous jobs aren’t the only option that men have.
Slaves had no say in having all of their money taken from them. Americans in our democracy vote on tax policy.
Using suggestions, theories, or ideas like the ones this professor used is the over all problem with society. There is a very fine line between what is acceptable and what should be left unsaid. When influential people talk in this type of manner it confuses people into reading false ideas of how society should be in general. The fact that anyone would suggest this type of behavior is upsetting and at the same time makes perfect sense when it comes to the history between men and women and the lack of rights women have had to fight for throughout history. When it comes to comparing wealth to sex there is not an equal distribution of either. People with a lot of money have it because they don’t spend it. People with out money have to spend every cent to stay alive. The problem is how people manage their money, not how much they have or lack. You can redistribute money, but if you give a million dollars back to a millionaire and a million dollars to a poor person who has never had anything in ten years one will still have money and the other will be back to being broke.
I was really surprised to read this title and then the post, it is simply astonishing to me that someone would even suggest this to the public let alone have these thoughts at all. First, that kind of comparison between sex/violence to show his views on redistribution of wealth is simply disturbing and has no empathy whatsoever, it will just anger people and second, I do not agree anyone should ever be punished for not giving enough sexual satisfaction but why is it women who are chosen to be punished in that kind of suggestion rather than men or both men and women or he could have simply said a partner or people. As if it is women’s duty to give sex, or be submissive and serve men.
This idea was really just odd and disturbing to think about in terms of wealth redistribution/taxing the rich. In terms of taxing the wealthy though I do not see why it is a question not to. They can afford it, their taxes could help so many people in need, our education systems, the military, health systems and their bank accounts would barely be dented by it. I don’t see how the top 1% of Americans can own 40% of the countries wealth while the bottom 80% of Americans own merely 7% of all the nations wealth and they have the nerve to complain about paying taxes. They may pay a large sum but it is nowhere as comparable as all of their wealth and for the lowest income Americans their taxes may not seem so great but are a large sum compared to their yearly income for them as well as they struggle to keep food on the table for themselves or support children.
The title itself is ridiculous, “Can We Redistribute Sex Like We Redistribute Wealth.” This comparison is already saying that guys cannot be anything without a woman in their life, it’s sort of like separation anxiety. This article shows no empathy towards women and their experiences. “The redistribution of wealth leaves the rich with less money, but women cannot be left with less sex if they’re forced to give sex to men. And taxes don’t damage in the way that killing and rape do.” Money is meant to come and go, we spend money on things we need and we work to earn money for those needs. When a women is raped and loses their virginity because of that, it will never be the same. It’s not like money where you can reset and make good amount of money, being raped or losing your virginity is a one time thing that can never be replaced. This wasn’t the right way to talk about a topic like this, I’m not opposing to stop having sex, I’m just saying we can’t really redistribute sex like redistributing wealth.
I assume you are criticizing your original article and not my critique of it.
After reading the article by Robin Hanson I was a bit shocked by his suggestion, serious or not, that we should violently coerce women to have sex with random men so avoid the incel problem. Violence or forced sexual activity is not acceptable for anyone. However, when thinking about the incel problem and the position these incel men take, I think that as a society we are missing some way to help these men overcome the social disorders they are suffering from.
If you read posts on incel sites, they are horrible, vile and disgusting. If you look deeper, you can see these guys are socially awkward, don’t know how to help themselves and are really frustrated – sexually and otherwise. They choose, what they believe to be, unattainable women and say they would deny having sex with someone less desirable. The truth is they wouldn’t know how to get any level of woman or what to do with them if they did. (which is why they don’t go to prostitutes or are ashamed if they do) These guys have horrible self-images and self-esteem. Their bragging about the violence they wish to inflict is no different than the men who brag about what they did to the woman they slept with the night before. It is their way of manning up and they have found other men who support them.
Bottom line, everyone just wants to be loved. While sex is not a basic need of people, being loved and accepted is. These incels do not feel loved or liked. They do not love or like themselves and have turned against women instead of looking inward. These guys need help. They need help with themselves, with intimacy, and with their attitudes towards women.
I believe there should be a fully legal, sexual surrogacy program, coupled with counseling where people can go to when they have these kinds of issues. It should be something that society should embrace, rather than look down upon. I know this wouldn’t solve the problem with all of the incels, but I think it would help most of them. We need to help them rather than bully, make fun of or discard them.
At first, I thought the professor was serious while reading this and was utterly appalled… reading further I realized that as this post suggests, he was making a statement. He was trying to say that rich people shouldn’t have to give away their money if they don’t want to. I wasn’t any less appalled… The thought that one could use this argument of using violence against women for unwanted sex (something which happens a lot in our world and society) and compare it to something so trivial. Someone’s body and the right to their being and dignity is not the same as someone’s right to riches (despite how they’ve earned it, or how much they may live in excess). One is about basic human rights and the other is about their right to be above others, which if you ask me is a right no one earns. All humans deserve basic equality and human rights.
The professor is both clueless and heartless.
Assuming Professor Hanson did make this analogy in order to help strengthen libertarian economic beliefs, it is a very irresponsible way to get his point across. Comments like this that make light of domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape work to dismiss these crimes of any validity. Rape and taxes are incredibly different with differing consequences and impacts. Comparing sexual violence to doing your part in providing for your community is disrespectful to survivors and diminishes the anguish that they must live with because of the crime that was done to them. In Hanson’s piece, “Two Types of Envy” he argues that “One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income” (Hanson). This argument implies that sex is a basic right and that it is necessary for life. This is just simply ridiculous when someone with a low income is facing real challenges like providing for a family or choosing between buying a winter coat or that month’s rent. Why is it that Hanson argues that some people deserve sex and others should be persuaded into giving it?
Assuming Professor Hanson did make this analogy in order to help strengthen libertarian economic beliefs, it is a very irresponsible way to get his point across.
It sure is!
“This argument implies that sex is a basic right and that it is necessary for life. ”
No nation or UN group has ever defined having income as a basic right. I don’t think any even defines food or shelter as a human right. Human rights are things you have intrinsically on a desert island until some tyrannical government thinks about taking them away. For food to be a right, it would mean that you can sit in your arse on a desert island and expect to eat. That’s not reality and it’s not how rights work. It also means that some entity would have to go and steal someone else’s food so that you can eat and have your right. That’s why the declaration of independence declares the right to seek happiness (or food) , not the right to take someone else’s food.
And that ladies and gentlemen is why the parallel between sex and food is right on target.
BTW sex is more essential to life than paying the rent. Without sex, life on Earth ends. The genes in your body that took 4 billion years of evolution become a dead end. Nothing ends if you don’t pay your rent.
I meant to type a “1)” before “robin Hanson is a libertarian.”
What Does You People Think,I Mean Like Really,Love Making is Not a Commodity, it’s Not a Part of Wealth or Assets,
To me, the ideology of incels is completely outrageous and illogical. Professor Hanson’s argument of redistribution of wealth is obliterated by BroadBlogs argument: “The redistribution of wealth leaves the rich with less money, but women cannot be left with less sex if they’re forced to give sex to men. And taxes don’t damage in the way that killing and rape do.” Money is an object that can be replaced and can be replaced easily by the wealthy. Sex is part of a person’s psyche and body and cannot be replaced. For example, rape victims are damaged physically directly after, but the real damage is psychologically and is often irreparable. Professor Hanson and incels seem to have an unreasonable desire to feel victimized. I briefly looked at Professor Hanson’s twitter feed and a majority of the posts were about disregard for male suffering. Patriarchial society has been in control for thousands of years and women have been an afterthought. Furthermore, incels have an unreasonable victim mentality because they are not willing to find a sexual partner less attractive to them or use prostitution to fulfill their sexual urges.
I liked this piece a lot: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex. It very clearly expresses thoughts I had a while ago. I especially like one particular quote (though it comes from another article):
“In her shrewd essay ‘Men Explain Lolita to Me’, Rebecca Solnit reminds us that ‘you don’t get to have sex with someone unless they want to have sex with you,’ just as ‘you don’t get to share someone’s sandwich unless they want to share their sandwich with you.’ Not getting a bite of someone’s sandwich is ‘not a form of oppression, either’, Solnit says. But the analogy complicates as much as it elucidates. Suppose your child came home from primary school and told you that the other children share their sandwiches with each other, but not with her. And suppose further that your child is brown, or fat, or disabled, or doesn’t speak English very well, and that you suspect that this is the reason for her exclusion from the sandwich-sharing. Suddenly it hardly seems sufficient to say that none of the other children is obligated to share with your child, true as that might be.”
This sounds like you have overcome your hatred of women. I hope that you can overcome your hatred of yourself.
Plenty of women would like to be with super attractive men and aren’t able to. But I don’t think that should make us hate the other sex or hate ourselves.
I think a lot of illusions are tied up in all of this. We judge ourselves by our looks or how other people treat us and it’s all based on something that’s a shell, surface stuff that has no relationship to what’s really important and who we really are.
This post does not seem to have a full purpose or point in my opinion. It proposes the idea that women should be violently treated if they do not fulfill a mans sexual desires just as the wealthy class should not be forced to give up money via tax? Or is it that women should just simply be punished violently for not obeying their male partners sexual commands disregarding any analogy, metaphor, etc? With regards to the wealthy class not giving up money, we can see how the analogy would make some sense. Most wealthy class people happen to be men (no coincidence) and these are the people that assert the dominance and power over those less wealthy than they. Women, unfortunately, are not always the one to be the wealth holder and have it very hard for them because they must work way harder than the male counter part. To talk about it from a sexual aspect, however, is a bit extreme.
I assume you mean that the George Mason economist Robin Hanson’s post doesn’t make sense. I agree. It’s nuts.
Wow, to me, I feel like this is a really senseless thing to say. Its a lazy comparison. Yes, there might be a **brief** connection between the two, but that does not make it okay for someone to say something like this. Maybe the professor did it for a reaction, or he knew saying what he said would garner attention and people would listen to him more.
Regardless, my first issue is why does it need to be the man that has the power to commit violence if sex demands are not met? Why can’t a women have the right to those same demands? This shows he already views the man as the superior in a relationship between a man and a woman.
In terms of the actual redistribution of wealth, our 1% gap is only getting worst, and the gap will continue to grow if something does not change. For example, the Koch brothers will be receiving a $1.4 billion tax break this year due to the tax cuts and a new ‘estate tax’ law. This is for people who have a combined net worth of almost $100 billion. (From what we know of) They do not need these handouts, but when people like this professor try and make light of the situation, it definitely does not help us.
My sense of morality is based on harm. If it’s harming someone, don’t do it. And if both people are being harmed either way, Who is more harmed?
On the sex issue men can always get prostitutes, Or find someone to have sex with them — the guys who are incels typically have a double standard, They want to have sex with someone who’s more attractive than they are but don’t want to have sex with someone who is less attractive than they are.
On the tax issue wealthy people may be forced to pay taxes so that a hungry child can eat and not be forced to die, or get medical attention and not be forced to die. Most of the wealthy republican donors who are so upset about being forced to pay taxes are so wealthy that they won’t even notice a lack of funds. They will go on living their lives exactly as they had, Taxes or not, but a child will live and thrive.
This comparison between the redistribution of wealth and the redistribution of sex specifically targeting women is yet another classic example of the detachment men have from women. Often men in powerful roles have an open mic to say anything about women and offer degrading comparisons with no consequences. This shows the lack of knowledge and empathy for women and their experiences. One of the hardest things in this world is being a woman because as a woman you have to work twice as hard and be twice as good as a male counterpart because of the patriarchal society we live in. In this specific example, the wealthy should not be punished and pay more taxes such as women should not be punished for lot giving up sex but on what plane are those two different concepts acceptable for metaphor. Talking about sexual aspect of women should be up to the woman and not up to her partner or a male who does not understand then plight of women.
The topic of the article got me curious, it is an interesting way of thinking about redistribution.
I wasn’t surprised that it was a man scientist who came up with this ridiculous question. A woman should never be forced or even threatened by the man if she is not interested in having anything sexual with him. It is not the same and cant be the same as wealth or taxes. There are men who would be forcing women of course, but those are just uneducated criminals or just mentally unstable.
You can have a happy life if you force yourself on working but not someone else.
I loved this quote, “The redistribution of wealth leaves the rich with less money, but women cannot be left with less sex if they’re forced to give sex to men.” Wealth, taxes, laws, etc all that can be involved in science, calculation and forcing it to change. But it is just ridiculous to think the same way about women’s wish to have sex. this is not under science or men control
Can We Redistribute Sex Like We Redistribute Wealth?
I totally agree withe last comment above by K W which was posted on May 30,2018 at 11:56.
As a young female it is very frustrating to encounter something like this. Moreover to be compared to some sort of currency.
The world has a lot of issues on different levels and linking one with another never helps to solve either one. Sex is a physiological/chemical act and only then comes the rest. It is not about giving and being in debt or feeling pressured to give. It is a natural mutual desire between two, not a trade.Since society hasn’t found any other ways to attract the attention to economy the article above explains itself in many ways.Unfortunately, sex sells and as we know it usually includes females and people who are involving female crowd to deliver their economical message are the ones who are not women themselves or simply are not from this planet.
At the end of the day, we live in 21st century where people are becoming more self oriented/independent which has its own pros and cons.However, when it comes to sex, why the females are the ones who should in charge or be represented as they are?!
Unfortunately, Professor Hanson’s words play into the mindset that sexual acts are a “currency” women are supposed to give men — that sex is “debt” women must pay men, their “collectors”. As it stands, paying taxes is something ALL citizens of a nation must do, privileged or not; rich people are just demanded more because they have more to account for. Women, on the other hand, are not human flesh banks; they do not have millions of sex coins in their possession that they need to report to IRS. But it speaks volumes that women would be so easily disregarded as objects — worse that they’re used to represent an evidently privileged group in society — and having sexuality used against them. This misogynistic point of view, where women in one’s eyes can only have worth as sexual objects and otherwise incapable of offering anything else, remains prevalent even in these modern times.
As the author notes in this piece, libertarians tend to have viewpoints that diverge greatly from liberals, most especially in regards to their rejection of the idea the one person’s needs should always be addressed and met by others–an idea that has been assigned the colloquial term “negative liberty”.
I think when people have a very literal interpretation of a traditional ideology like libertarianism, they fail to realize that certain principles of said ideology cannot be as simply translated into every aspect of life, especially one as controversial and sensitive as sexual and marital abuse. For instance, I’ll cite a very disturbing line from his trashy thinkpiece:
“One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”
This passage is alarming for a number of reasons, but most especially because it equates inherent inequalities that perpetuate the cycle of poverty for many people with often justifiable involuntary celibacy. One thing that I’ve learned from the “incel” fiasco that has been around since the mass shooting at UCSB carried out by Elliot Roger is that incel culture comes from a background of entitlement to sex and to women’s bodies. Whereas allowing economic strife to prevail among the masses is what many would justly argue to be a lack of basic human regard. Incels may provide no valid justification for feeling that they deserve sex, or even why they believe that “sex inequality” is real in the context of involuntary celibacy.
Ok. But “the idea the one person’s needs should always be addressed and met by others” doesn’t fit any ideology but communism, which is very different from liberals.
And if you look at the most powerful libertarians, Like the Koch bros, who have tremendous effect on American policy these days, they don’t believe in the government being involved in pretty much any part of our lives. No public education (primary, early childhood, community and state colleges…), no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid… No environmental or consumer protections… No civil rights legislation…
The only people left with any freedom are the wealthy.
I tried to attach this to Huggy Bear’s response to me, but I don’t see how.
@Huggy Bear, you wrote: ” My parents (not single parent) taught us the importance of education and disciple. That is NOT luck. ”
It’s not luck, really? So you chose the womb you came from, and knew enough as a prior-to-zygote entity to select one with two people that would instill the value of education and discipline in you? Well, good for you.
I got parents that taught me the value of education and discipline too. But believe it or not, I don’t get any credit for picking them. I don’t get any credit for the fact that they made sure I did my homework. Or that they could afford to live in a good school district with good teachers and a low crime rate. Or that my dad was a mathematician and could tutor me in calculus. Or that I got plenty of food as a kid.
That was all luck.
And the biggest luck of all is that I didn’t develop a chronic disease like my brother and end up unable to hold a job. And that I didn’t develop brain cancer as a preschooler and die like my cousin.
Luck, luck, luck, luck, luck. All luck. Yes I work hard. I busted my behind in college and I push myself at work. But luck is still a million times more important, and there are tens of millions of people in this country that work harder than I ever have and are still financially wrecked – or dead.
While I’ll admit there were times when I was almost seduced by libertarianism (largely because of its opposition to such things as the idiotic War on Drugs), I ended up being turned off it when I realized that its underlying philosophy essentially boiled down to: “Power in the hands of government – BAD! That same power in the hands of large, faceless corporations with even less accountability to those they screw over than the government – GOOD!” (or alternatively, “The government doesn’t have the right to tell you how to live your life, but your employer sure does!”). Right now in my country, we have a government that seems intent on giving us all the bad bits of libertarianism (ie unfettered freedom for the almighty MARKET (all praise its glorious name, and blessed be its infallible decisions!) to treat the majority of the population as little more than slaves) and none of the (few) good bits (such as getting the government to butt out of its subjects’ private lives). Usually the people who espouse that particularly ghastly ideology here describe themselves as “socially conservative and economically liberal” (blech), even though, when you think about it, social conservatism and economic liberalism are incompatible in a lot of ways.
Yeah you make good points. Countries that ago Libertarian tend to end up third world countries — most people are poor and there are a few rich.
I just read this article. I did not see where the author is advocating violence against women. Actually, he notes that often a threat of violence has moved society to address say income equality etc.
His piece seems to focus on the incel issue with men. These men, in a few instances, have used violence the result of their sexual frustration. Clearly most of society, including the author Robin Hanson, do NOT advocate such.
How can one redistribute sex? Simple. Create an incentive (subsidy) for women to have sex with these incels. Those women who wish to partake would receive $$$$ subsidies. It is strictly voluntary. No rape. No violence.
Of course this will (and should not) ever happen.
Frankly, in 2018 I cannot grasp why a man is not able to get sex (unless he is married). Outside of being married (read emasculated), a single man today has tons of opportunities for sex. Maybe the sex is not with the most attractive women. But, if you are that desperate to get laid, then don’t be so picky. Just find a woman who wants to have sex with you…..They are not hard to find.
Well we already have that financial incentive. It’s called prostitution. It’s just that most women aren’t interested in having sex for money. But like you said there’s no reason that a man can’t get sex. Prostitutes are already available.
Otherwise, his piece sounds like he is advocating terrorism toward women. Women risk being murdered or raped if they don’t give sex, even if they don’t want to have it.
Of course I actually don’t think he is serious. I think he is empathy-challenged. Trying to provoke empathy for rich people who get taxed so that the rest of us can get Social Security, Medicare, etc. Even though the billionaires who are funding this guy wouldn’t live their lives any differently if they got their tax money back. But those who would be without Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid would be suffering mightily.
Such an odd… and dangerous idea. You are rigor, the happiest countries are those ones were women are not forced to have sex if they don’ t want to. This means that they are respected and not considered sexual objects… hence, sex is just not merely sex… it is a whole complex issue which involves the place women are given in a specific society as well and among other things
What happens in Toronto was awful and the explanations behind it are as irrational as the attack itself. Such an extraordinary thing would’t be a pretext for such general statements, in any way…all the best to you, dear Georgia 😊👍
If women were forced to have sex can you imagine the trauma our mothers would be in? Or daughters and sisters? And potential spouses? With all the PTSD, this insane notion wouldn’t be good for men either.
I remember once coming upon an exceedingly creepy suggestion by some guy who said that male bosses had a perfect right to expect sex from their female employees, and that the only way those employees should be allowed to refuse it would be if their employment contracts specifically stated that they didn’t have to have sex with their boss! The guy who made this suggestion (some Norwegian incel-type called Eivind Berge, who, judging from other things I’ve heard about him, seems set to become the next Anders Breivik) did so on a blog not renowned for its feminist sympathies, and even the other commenters all thought he was nuts! While I don’t know if he was a libertarian, his suggestion does seem rather libertarian in nature in that it seems to assume all transactions between employers and workers are perfectly voluntary and consensual, and that no-one ever agrees to be exploited in the workplace because they’re too hungry and desperate to leave a bad job.
You make some really good points.
It’s a comment you wrote that I turned into a post. If you will comment on some much earlier post I’ll send you the draft I edited.(I don’t want to write it here because then everyone will see it as a comment just before I post it.)”
thanks, and no problem, will do
That feels like an incredibly irresponsible argument to make, even in theory. Money and bodies are not the same. And we are ‘forced’ to pay taxes as a sort of rent in exchange for being citizens of a certain country, and that country then provides its citizens with services, like protections, infrastructure, health care, education, etc etc.
Exactly. When you pay taxes you get a lot out of it. Countries that don’t pay taxes end up collapsing. That’s not good for anyone.
I think my high school economics teacher put it best when he said that although only a fool enjoys paying them, taxes are very much necessary for a functional society (another thing he taught us which I think is very true is that there are some services that the government simply does a better job of providing than private enterprise, and that the best-run economies are “mixed” ones ie ones in which both the government and free market are involved in the running of the economy).
One workaround I’ve seen a lot of libertarians suggest for keeping society running while abolishing most, if not all, taxation is private charity, which always makes me roll my eyes. Not only is charity alone woefully inadequate at helping all those in need and keeping society running, but I seriously doubt that the average libertarian, who seems to see selfishness as one of the supreme virtues, donates much to charity anyway! On a related note, one of the more peculiar creatures I’ve seen online (and surprisingly often too!) is the libertarian who also happens to be a Christian fundamentalist. This is particularly weird because these individuals tend to simultaneously believe that “the human heart is wicked in all things” (or somesuch codswallop), and that government is largely unnecessary because people in general can be relied upon to help the needy through charity (presumably through the goodness of their hearts that you’ve just said is non-existent!).. I always wonder how they manage to deal with that particular bit of cognitive dissonance!
Yes it does lack empathy. Look whose back for moment with the blogs ha
Good to hear from you. I guess we’re both taking a break. I’m down to about once a month or less.
But I do plan to post something by you in June 🙂
Yeah I haven’t posted in a while because I haven’t seen you post in awhile. Hmm, a post by me, that has me curios. I remember some stuff I brought up in the past that you like. I’m wondering there was a one in relation to gangland and clips I brought up and you like that. Is it that or something else I talked about before?
It’s a comment you wrote that I turned into a post. If you will comment on some much earlier post I’ll send you the draft I edited.(I don’t want to write it here because then everyone will see it as a comment just before I post it.)
I could also send you what you wrote about gangland — I don’t have time to do a lot of writing maybe you could read through the material and basically let me know what you would like to communicate and I can edit it and post it with you as author.
You’re mischaractising the argument as about the rich paying tax. Almost everybody pays tax. Working class people pay tax. They do it at the point of a gun, in that if you don’t pay you will be jailed. This is violence. And working to pay your tax is an imposition on the freedom of you’re bodily integrity. People are damaged by their work, not just through injuries, but through the wear and tear of time. We are conditioned to accept it, just like women in certain cultures are conditioned to give up sex on demand. That’s the philosophical argument, which you’ve not really interacted with. You’ve advocated here making it criminal for men to pay for sex with consenting women..
I’m not mischaracterizing the argument at all. I clarified that what you said IS his argument. And that this argument lacks empathy.
Yes, we all pay taxes. But being forced to pay taxes doesn’t come close to the violence and hurt of experiencing sexual assault. If you were raped that would be far, far worse than paying taxes.
And there’s a big difference between selling sex and sexual assault — so long as the seller is freely selling.
Of course, this point comes up every time libertarianism is discussed. The law and courts protect property rights for citizens. The police enforce those laws. Every citizen benefits. Further, the roads, the air and water without poisons and chemicals, communication standards, and so forth – all run by the government and funded by taxes.
And there’s no realistic way to refuse. You can’t say, “I live in Kansas but I want no part in this. So I won’t pay taxes, and in turn I won’t use any American roads, do business inside US borders, breathe the air here, drink the water, accept police protection, communicate by phone, radio, or internet, or buy or consume any food whose safety has been guaranteed by the FDA.”
Now we must discuss and debate what the government handles and what it does not. I have plenty of problems with US law and US government activities. But the argument that taxes are violence is ludicrous.
The law and courts protect property rights for citizens. The police enforce those laws.
Interestingly, these seem to be among the few government functions that libertarians, as a whole, are happy to leave in the hands of government. After all, their precious “property rights” (about the only thing they seem to hold sacred) can’t be protected in the absence of a functional police force (or as a certain Kim Stanley Robinson put it, “That’s libertarians for you – anarchists who want police protection from their slaves”)!
Before I start, I want to mention that there are genuinely awesome libertarian socialist and libertarian communist (also called anarcho-communist) political philosophies out there and their adherents. But when most people in the US think of libertarianism, they think of capitalist libertarianism (also called anarcho-capitalism) and aren’t even aware the other kind exists.
I have one tiny bit of empathy for capitalist libertarians. I was raised with an oppressive religious background and it was drilled into me that all of my selfishness was part of human nature but morally abhorrent and despised by God. Capitalist libertarianism was the first philosophy I encountered that said it was okay to have and act upon self-interest. I loved the idea that I didn’t need to hate myself every waking moment for wanting good food and sex and vacations and books and games. So for a while capitalist libertarianism was my salvation.
But over time I realized that the biggest factor in economic success in a capitalist society is luck, and using luck to determine who thrives and who starves is immoral.
All libertarians agree to the individual right to private property. The dispute is over ownership of the means of production – the factory, the restaurant, the hotel, the hospital. Capitalist libertarians believe one person or group can own those things and derive profit (means to obtain additional shares in means of production). Socialist libertarians do not, they believe all people working on some form of production have an equal say in the distribution of profit from it, the organization of labor, and so forth.
Ok, but economies tend to collapse under the system where its been tried. Because the wealth moves to the top 1% (as is happening here as we have become more and more libertarian since the Reagan revolution). Also see Pinochet in Chile or the World Bank and IMF pressuring countries to take on libertarian policies — and seeing their economies subsequently collapse.
Why does this happen? With no redistribution of wealth the powerful become even more powerful and can force people to take no more than subsistence wages (in the US it’s called union busting and “Right to work [for less]”) leaving workers with little money in their pockets. Sales and profits fall and the spiral continues downward.
Also the disbelief in public education means we have no educated workforce and difficulty with entrepreneurship since people aren’t educated enough to create their own successful businesses.
I agree with all that you wrote. I’m not defending capitalist libertarianism.
I was just expressing empathy for some people who might be drawn to it for the same reasons that I was.
“But over time I realized that the biggest factor in economic success in a capitalist society is luck, and using luck to determine who thrives and who starves is immoral.”
This is totally false.
You would have me believe that education, talent, skill, intelligence, business savvy, etc are all irrelevant to success?
You mean the education I was lucky enough that my parents paid for, the talent I was lucky enough to inherit from my parents, the skill I learned from people I was lucky enough to meet, the intelligence I was lucky enough to inherit from my parents, the business savvy I learned from meeting the right mentors, and above all the tremendous luck that had me born in a middle class section of the United States instead of a poverty zone are irrelevant?
If there are ten factors that influence economic success, luck is the first nine and hard work is the tenth. The libertarian and conservative fantasy is that the overwhelming majority of people struggling with money failed at hard work. The reality is that the overwhelming majority failed at luck.
Mike, luck is not a thing. It’s nothing. When you say luck is the cause of something, it’s a lazy way of saying you haven’t put in the energy to find the real cause. If luck was a cause of anything, I would ask you to produce evidence of the existence of this mechanism so we could examine it, and see how it works. But we can’t, because it’s shorthand for “I’m too lazy to understand”.
“If there are ten factors that influence economic success, luck is the first nine and hard work is the tenth.”
You people on left believe in the victimization crap. I went to several top-tier universities, including Vanderbilt. That was NOT luck. As a high school student I spent many hours reading and doing my homework. My parents (not single parent) taught us the importance of education and disciple. That is NOT luck.
In college and graduate school I did the same. Lots of study. I had NO mentor. Yet, I was able to do well in life. I am Black and have earned my way with savvy, persistence, intelligence, great education, and hard work.
I am neither special nor lucky. This is happening every day in America.
So, is every American in college lucky? What about Asian-Americans who have the highest SAT scores (so much so that Harvard penalizes them on admissions) and highest annual incomes? Are they luck too?
Are the immigrants, including illegals, lucky too when they come to America and within one generation or less become middle class? NO they are highly motivated, study hard, work hard, and sacrifice. IT IS NOT LUCK!
The main way that luck figures in is that rich people have a difficult time failing and people in poverty can have a difficult time succeeding.
George W. Bush had several businesses fail but his rich and powerful father had connections that helped him get back on his feet every time. And he never would have been president without his father having been president. Donald Trump inherited millions of dollars which helped him greatly to succeed.
But children who are so poor that they are hungry and lack medical care have a difficult time attending or focusing in school. They may be sick a lot or lack eyeglasses to read. A local teacher said that he can always tell the hungry students because they have such a hard time focusing. It’s not their fault they don’t have food. And if you don’t have food at a very young age your brain never forms properly.
Studies have found that when poor children get food and medical care they are much more likely to graduate from high school and go to college and get good jobs. The ones who don’t are more likely to have children at a young age and continue the cycle of poverty or turn to crime which costs the rest of us a lot of money in police, courts and prisons. For every dollar we spend on early childhood education we save $7 on the other end.
But libertarians don’t believe in making sure that poor children have food and medical care or even public education.
Countries that go libertarian find their economies collapsing.
The expertise of economists clearly does not extend to sexuality. Maybe this guy is a closet intel.
Ha! Maybe 😉