Most people care a lot about equality. References to it abound in national mottoes and constitutions. But what do people really mean when they talk about equality?
Surely they know people are unequal in countless ways already: strength, intelligence, looks, height, gender, age, and so on. It is impossible to equalize people in these areas, outside of science fiction. So the only way people can be equal in a meaningful way is if they are held to the same standard.
But some people don’t like that. In particular, it bothers them a great deal that some are rich and others are poor. Others demand that people they perceive as inferior be treated differently.
I once saw a very interesting video of an experiment with monkeys. There were two monkeys in separate cages but close enough to see each other. They had tokens in their cages, and the trainers had taught the monkeys to hand them the tokens in exchange for a cucumber slice. But then they started giving one monkey grapes instead of cucumbers. Monkeys like cucumbers, but they love grapes. The other monkey began throwing back the cucumber slices at the trainers when it was not getting “equal pay for equal work.”
It appears that primates have a kind of instinct for fairness. People are similar, except that they become angry in response to things they merely *perceive* as unfair. Social justice has become the new catchphrase for this group, though they most shy away from explaining how it differs from regular justice.
Imagine your boss calls you to his office and tells you you’ve been doing great work this year and so decides to give you a bonus of $5,000. You walk out of the office feeling amazing. A coworker notices and asks what you’re so happy about. You tell him about the bonus and he replies, “Oh, I got $10,000 and so did everyone else.” You would probably instantly become angry. But why? You’re still richer than you were before. Why would it upset you that others are doing better? Their greater success did not cause your lesser success. You’d probably be angry because you’d say to yourself you’re just as good as them and so deserve the same – even if this wasn’t true.
The easiest way to be unhappy is to compare yourself to other people. This is why many religions teach that envy is a sin.
Communist countries, too, tried to eliminate envy by making everyone equal. There was an inherent contradiction in this. If you put a group in charge of equalizing people, you have created a new form of inequality. There are many jokes about this from the USSR:
In the US, the rich become powerful, but in the USSR, the powerful become rich.
In capitalism, man exploits man, but in socialism, it’s the other way around.
One joke I particularly like is the story of a bunch of triumphant Bolsheviks rejoicing in the streets after they hear of the revolution. They ask an old woman why she isn’t rejoicing, that soon there will be no more rich people. The old woman says “I thought the point of the revolution was that there would be no more *poor* people.”
Although it often rubs us the wrong way when we see someone doing better than us, it’s important to resist the urge to bring them down. When people are free to be the best they can be, the result is better goods and services for everyone.
Finally, it’s important to realize that money and power always find each other, no matter how hard we try to keep them apart. The only answer to this is for people to believe that there should be strict limits on the government’s power and that people should be free to live as they want. Aristotle said justice consists of“treating equals equally, and unequals unequally.” Anything else is unjust and stupid.
Freedom does not guarantee happiness, but forced equality guarantees misery.
“Social justice has become the new catchphrase for this group, though they most shy away from explaining how it differs from regular justice.”
I doesn’t, it’s a subset of justice.
Its more a negation of justice, a pretext for committing injustice against individuals in the name of the collective.
What’s your definition?
I have mine.
(you can scroll down to “In Brief” if you wish)
1947 The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities. It gives urgency to the elimination of sinful inequalities.
What are sinful inequalities?
I believe sinful inequalities are “Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race.”
Note that the specific role of government in addressing these disparities is not dictated here.
Those who believe that if the government enforces a level playing field, human ingenuity will create the proverbial tide lifting all boats, can certainly subscribe to this part of the Catechism.
Define ‘excessive’.
Lazarus begging outside Dives’ mansion.
Again, it doesn’t say the government should take Dives’ mansion and give it to Lazarus, or split the mansion between the two of them.
Maybe Dives could get Lazarus a job, or if Lazarus is too addled to get gainful employment, maybe the community could help him on a voluntary basis.
There are all sorts of solutions, once it’s seen as a problem in need of a solution.
A “government first” approach is in no way dictated here.
That’s an extremely arbitrary line. Both I and a poor man today live better than both Lazarus and Dives. Is that ‘excessive’ or acceptable? How about the difference between myself and Elon Musk, despite being many magnitudes more than the comparison between me and the poor man?
“Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race.”
There are a lot of people in the human race. I am a middle class american. There is excessive economic and social disparity between an average Somalian and I. Is it sinful? How do I atone for this sin? There is also excessive social and economic disparity between your average wall street banker and I. Are the bankers then sinful? Do they owe me something?
I don’t think so.
Much of the disparities can be traced to bad government. For example, if governments (in Somalia and elsewhere) suddenly became less kill-y, more supportive of free enterprise, fair and honest in their tax and judicial systems, etc., then at least some of these disparities can be addressed.
And if rich countries allow law-abiding, hard-working, assimilationist Somalians to migrate in search of work, even more disparities are addressed.
And socialism doesn’t even have to come into it.
Libertarians offer what seems a perfectly reasonable answer to the problem of scandalous inequalities – free up human ingenuity and don’t hobble it with intrusive government.
But if libertarians say scandalous inequality isn’t even a problem, then that gives aid and comfort to the progressives who posit a binary choice between arbitrary government and…Somalia.
You seem to be avoiding the fact that we’re not addressing the idea of government intervention, we’re addressing the faulty premise of the social justice concept itself. Whether capitalism is valid in this interpretation of social justice is irrelevant to the flimsiness of it as a concept.
I agree with all of that. If governments got out of the way of the somolians, many would be able to close the gap. My problem is with the sin part. Since at the moment things are how they are, Are we all committing a sin due to the disparate state of world economics? I don’t like the idea that I’m perpetually in a state of sin due to the work I have put in to provide for my self and my family.
But if libertarians say scandalous inequality isn’t even a problem
Because libertarian philosophy does not hold material inequality to be a problem (individual libertarians may hold values otherwise however). It’s not ‘providing aid and comfort’ to have a coherent philosophy.
“I don’t like the idea that I’m perpetually in a state of sin due to the work I have put in to provide for my self and my family.”
Of course not, the idea is shocking to decency, so it’s a good thing the Church doesn’t teach such an idea.
I’d say that if one family is wealthier than another because, over generations, one family has been more hard-working and thrifty than the other, than that’s not an “excessive” disparity.
If one family is poorer because bandits and governments keep stealing their stuff and the laws don’t let them live to their full potential, then yes, the disparity is excessive.
But that’s a line you personally have drawn. If I ask good Pope Francis what he thinks is excessive, I wonder what his answer will be?
I mean, I get that Catholicism is 50% legalese arguments, but to outsiders the arbitrariness of it is obvious.
…and the answer isn’t to keep a tab of which group owes what to whom, but to create conditions where the wrongful conditions leading to these disparities are overcome.
Like making the government less kill-y and thieving, etc.
I think the Pope is some kind of Peronist, but he hasn’t yet excommunicated Catholics who aren’t.
if one family is wealthier than another because, over generations, one family has been more hard-working and thrifty than the other, than that’s not an “excessive” disparity.
But, that doesn’t really have much to do with excessive. Excessive is strictly a function of amount. Whether the reason for that amount is just or not seems a distinct question. A concern with “excessive wealth disparities” wouldn’t have much concern about whether that disparity came from hard work or invention or from state cronyism.
If one family is poorer because bandits and governments keep stealing their stuff and the laws don’t let them live to their full potential, then yes, the disparity is excessive.
It seems odd to say that it’s the disparity that is excessive. The sin, the problem, is the theft. If the disparity is problem, the “socially just” thing (and the behavior of the philosophy’s adherents bears this out) would be to say that the family not subject to stealing should be robbed to create equality (and to check their ‘not robbed’ privilege).
“to say that the family not subject to stealing should be robbed”
Yes, people advocate that in the name of “social justice” – you should see what people advocate in the name of “liberalism” (to take an example at random).
See these 35 reasons I’m a liberal, including
“…I believe we have the right to own guns, but our Second Amendment says “well regulated” for a reason
“I believe in a living wage
“I believe you don’t create wealth by giving rich people more money
“I believe welfare helps the poor, it doesn’t punish the rich”
I believe I want to punch someone square in the face after reading that.
Liberals, amirite?
Whenever someone says ‘The second amendment says WELL REGULATED!’ my eye starts twitching. It is literally the most wrong argument you can make against the second amendment and they use it all. the. time. I had to stop reading when I got to that point.
Look, progressives offer *their* answer to excessive economic and social disparity, and libertarians have a rebuttal – “your methods won’t alleviate the disparity, our methods do a better job.”
But you can’t say that if you’re denying that these disparities are a problem.
So if it’s a contest between progs saying “these disparities are wrong, let’s make the government bigger,” and libertarians saying “these disparities don’t matter,” guess who wins?
But you can’t say that if you’re denying that these disparities are a problem.
Concern about inequality is not the same as concern for prosperity. Libertarians argue for systems that promote prosperity, not ones that produce equality. How that prosperity is distributed is not the central position.
Again, the key word is “excessive.”
See above.
Ah, but if it’s that vague, you can’t say definitively that it’s anti-libertarian!
Based on anti-libertarian application of that vagueness in practice, I believe I can, yes.
I believe that sinful inequalities are “Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race.”
“I don’t like the idea that I’m perpetually in a state of sin due to the work I have put in to provide for my self and my family.”
“Of course not, the idea is shocking to decency, so it’s a good thing the Church doesn’t teach such an idea.”
Can you square all of that for me. It seems contradictory.
sure (and note the last paragraph) –
“2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: “If any one will not work, let him not eat.” Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish. Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.
“2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.
“Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community.”
Excessive economic and social disparity
Well, you can drive a whole dumptruck through that. What counts, and who says?
I note, also, that justice and injustice don’t require the government to deliver them. Proggy assholes beating up a guy in a Trump hats is unjust, but is “social justice”. Kicking a male student out of college because last year’s drunken hookup now regrets it is unjust, but is “social justice”. Hence, social justice is a pretext for delivering injustice to individuals.
“Well, you can drive a whole dumptruck through that. What counts, and who says?”
Ah, but if it’s that vague, you can’t say definitively that it’s anti-libertarian!
I know that’s in part me trying to be clever, but I have a serious point – if you’re criticizing the doctrine for being ambiguous, that at least suggests it may be flexible enough to accommodate Hayek’s insights, despite what Hayek himself may say.
Since this is a libertarian site, not a Catholic one, I’d assume probably Hayek’s.
Wait… *looks around*
I must be lost again.
*shakes fist*
Get on our lawn!
Lost, huh?
*scrapes bottom of 55 gallon drum of lube*
Right, but be mindful that you have some Catholics in the audience.
To repeat myself from another thread, “social justice” is a term hijacked by the Left – like “liberal.”
It’s vague and arbitrary nature makes it a very easy word to hijack.
Which term, “social justice” or “liberal”?
The first primarily, the second somewhat.
“The first primarily, the second somewhat.”
I, too, think both terms are vague without more precise definition.
As for “liberal” – I could make the point that the same word is used to mean “financially generous,” but maybe that’s just being too clever.
But I *will* say that the definition of liberalism was disputed even in the 19th century, when many liberals wanted to fight against conservatism and reaction even if that meant getting the state’s help.
An example of illiberal liberalism – this author argues that the German liberals were cheerleaders of Bismarck’s persecution of the Catholic Church (“Kulturkampf”).
We also have Jews and (maybe) Bhuddists.
Who I am catering to again?
As a jedi, I’m not sure where I stand on this issue.
The Left has stolen the term ‘social justice’ from the Catholic Church, which has used the term since the turn of the 20th Century. But, the Left has also polluted the true meaning of ‘social justice’.
If you tell a Leftist that ‘social justice’ is actually a term invented by the Catholic Church and that it doesn’t mean what they want it to mean, they are repulsed. That’s a good way to end this Leftist ‘social justice’ nonsense- just tell them that they are behaving like good Catholics. They’ll drop it in a heartbeat
So, a “real” Social Justice Warrior’s proper role is as a Crusader, hanging out at Krak de Chevaliers?
That’s gonna leave a Bern.
In my experience, it leads to the decision that Catholics are not so bad, as Christians go. Especially Jesuits, who trend just left of Marx, and are very nearly atheists.
‘Catholics’ of the left who will tell you with a straight face that “the Pope is wrong” on various issues of religious significance…
Uh…you are not what you think you are?
FTFY
I despise envy and regret that the Tenth Commandment is as forgotten as the Tenth Amendment. But, that doesn’t mean you should take shit either.
A decade ago my wife got a promotion to department manager. She was handed the employee files and quickly learned that despite being the longest tenured employee in the department and underwriting twice the premium of anyone else – she still wasn’t close to the most highly compensated (even after the raise that came with the promotion). She resigned on the spot and left the building. The next day she was the highest paid employee in the department. I was damn proud of her.
Yer wife is full o’ WIN
Not yet 😉
On good nights!
Equality is only real it it comes from the barrel of a gun.
While Ms. Trump may want to be the new face of working motherhood, the reality of the policies she has devised for her father diverge starkly from her rhetoric. They offer very little to most parents, especially the ones who really need the support.
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump unveiled his daughter’s plan for six weeks of paid leave for women who give birth. When pressed, Ms. Trump made it clear that her policy was tailored specifically for coping with childbirth and was not meant for new fathers or parents who adopt.
Continue reading the main story
It’s a plan that is likely to hurt all working women more than help them.
Employers are already more hesitant to hire mothers than other candidates, male or female. Part of what they fear, fair or not, is investing in an employee who will then leave to care for her children for some unknown period, taking all her training and knowledge with her and requiring the company to spend resources hiring a replacement.
Their anxiety will be amplified if women are afforded time off from work for a new child and men aren’t. If only mothers get a paid leave benefit when their family welcomes a new child, the stigma falls squarely on one gender.
One size for everyone. Also, people who make more money and have higher tax liabilities benefit disproportionately from tax credits, and that’s wrong.
Didnt the left want paid leave for women? I think they are only whining because an icky republican proposed it.
It kind of amazes they develop awareness how it will hurt women more than help but it never occurred to them when proposing things like min wage and pay check fairness act along with this.
Also they yammer about 78 cents on the dollar and ignore that leaving to care for a kid may be a reason for disparity since they arent at work getting raises and promotions
Is this the original AmSoc, the AmSoc who stole the handle, or some third party who’s picked it up here?
I am asking said commenter to strongly consider a name change, please.
No no keep it! We can do the DirecTV/Cable bit!
“Hi! I’m American Socialist from Glibertarians!”
“AND AHM AMSOC FRUM REASHUN! FUCK YEW!” *Shits self on camera*
You don’t really think the actual AmSoc’s first post would make it past moderation do you?
Yes. And one of the key arguments against that has always been “Employers are already more hesitant to hire mothers than other candidates, male or female. Part of what they fear, fair or not, is investing in an employee who will then leave to care for her children for some unknown period, taking all her training and knowledge with her and requiring the company to spend resources hiring a replacement.”
But, you see, when Democrats were proposing this it was Social Justice, and the Republican arguments against it were dishonest and being made in bad faith, because they hate women. Now the Republicans are trying to co-opt the Social Justice position in order to further subjugate women, like they’ve always wanted to.
I was just reading Slate’s article on the Venezuelan coup. A lot of the comments were in the vein of, this is what happens when you evil right-wingers ignore poverty and income inequality. The poor people become more and more desperate, and vote in an ACTUAL socialist, not a democratic party mainstream hack, and then real shit hits the fan.
So basically extortion. Give the masses a social democracy built on a foundation of market economies, like western Europe, or the masses will force a communist on you. There is no option in which the masses simply accept that they aren’t rich because they suck.
Well that’s been the justification for the social welfare state since its conception. And “Pay off the plebs so they don’t revolt” goes back a lot further than that.
Also they get to avoid the whole ‘the system’s unsustainable anyway, so really we’re just arguing for a slow, painful death from cancer rather than a speedy one’ question.
This is why we need to abandon the notion of universal suffrage.
“I was just reading Slate’s article on the Venezuelan coup.”
Why do you hate yourself?
“Friedman has three categories for human equality: equality before God, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. He thinks the first is the Founders’ use, the second is compatible with liberty, and the third is socialism.”
Meh equality of opportunity is not compatible with freedom if you consider it in any way different than equality in liberty. Different family means different opportunity
Different family will offer different opportunity. That is true. What we are discussing here is governments role in creating a level playing field. What I believe Friedman meant was that governments role was to not create roadblocks to opportunity to those less fortunate, not to create barriers for those who are more so.
Yes – the 2nd category is what MLK and earlier civil rights activists were asking for. They won and that’s how I was educated in the 70’s and 80’s. Much to my surprise, that belief that people should have equal opportunity (not results) now makes me a horrid racist.
Well yeah, that would mean ending affirmative action and causing people to end up places thanks to their merits, you monster!
DC childcare workers required to have college degree. But hey, the subject of the story was given a scholarship so she could pursue the degree and return to working at her $12.75/hour job. And now she has the snazzy new title, “child-care teacher”!
Look, Commodious, they need to be properly indoctrinated to reinforce the indocrtination of the larvae. Don’t you get it?
Indoctrination of the Larvae.
Good death metal album title
Is it weird that every time I read your name I parse it as Standoff Land Attack Missile – Extended Range?
I already pay more than my mortgage for daycare. I can only imagine how much it would cost if all the teachers had to have degrees.
Well then, the clear next step is to nationalize the industry!
Perfect then CPS can run the daycares. It will make it so much easier for them to investigate when they find a single bruise or scratch on our child.
They were talking about this on the radio the other day. One guy says he pays 900 a month for daycare. Another guy had 2 or 3 kids and said he paid 2000 a month(!). 900 a month is just over 25% of my monthly net pay. 2000 is 2/3rds of it. And people wonder why no one is having kids.
$900 would be a dream. I’m paying $325 a week for 1 kid.
I’m paying $2,700/mo for two kids. That’s $32,400/year. So seriously, a relatively “good job” that pays $15/hour grosses $31,200/year…the math just doesn’t work out. Regulated daycare centers are not for regular people. State mandated ratios have basically priced regular people out of daycare centers and into (still regulated, but less so) home daycare.
$1300 a month for one kid. Just shy of my mortgage payment. I haven’t checked, because we’ve got to move into a bigger house before we crank out additional kids, but I don’t think they do volume pricing at our daycare.
12.75? FFS I know high school dropouts that make more than that. And in DC? You might as well be on unemployment.
I imagine you’d live a much more opulent lifestyle unemployed than you would earning that pittance.
This could also be laying the foundation for an attempt to require parenting classes.
The Guilds require higher dues from their Journeymen
Oh, what I wouldn’t pay to see this law enforced on a few politicians or bureaucrats who have the temerity to hire a babysitter.
If you care about inequality, and want to empower people to be in charge of the project of making it more equal, who do we put in charge of the project?
Government Almighty?
me
A robot?
Hitler?
I feel very unequal in the number of victorias secrets models I had sex with and I demand the government redistribute some to me
I think we’ve all had sex with an equal number of Victoria’s Secret models….
Yeah…then my alarm clock went off, dammit
You are still very close to the wold average. In fact, you are at the world median and mode!
As you stated, envy is at the root for the calls of equality. Maybe it’s the vice-president’s son getting the easy entry into the company, or the kid who got into college based on the family name, or person born into wealth and never had to work a day in their life. This perception that “I didn’t get a lucky break” seems to bother a lot of people.
But – among my extended family and friends – I have seen people who came from nothing and make it rich. And I’ve seen wealthy kids completely lose it all from drug use.
I really don’t worry about inherited wealth. It’s usually gone in 2 generations unless they are very smart and careful with their money.
It’s that middle generation in between that gets to live in luxury off someone else’s work! Can’t we all live in luxury of of someone else’s work?
/progic
Most of the rich kids I knew were doing their absolute best to redistribute that wealth as fast as humanly possible.
But they got to have fun doing it! It’s completely unfair that somebody might get away with living a life full of leisure AND enjoy a higher level of material well being!
As Good as It Gets had one of the most astute observations I’ve ever seen in a film – what bothers us isn’t that we have it so bad, but that other people have it so good. I know that’s true in my case. My life is entirely comfortable. My job isn’t lucrative, but it’s enough to support a comfortably middle class lifestyle and, frankly, it’s easy. My house is pretty small, but it’s in a nice neighborhood and my kids go to excellent schools. So why do I frequently feel like a pauper? Because my sister and her husband make more money than I do and they’re building a huge half-million dollar house in a fancy new development. If they weren’t, my circumstances wouldn’t be any different but I’d feel better about myself.
Envy is utterly corrosive and so easy to fall into.
So stop it.
If you have enough room why pay the electric bill and upkeep on a half million dollar house? Who is going to vacuum a 5K sq foot house? If you had it you would just start envying people with still bigger ones. Don’t you have anything better to do? Get your priorities straight. If you have enough time, money and energy left over to spend on a house two or three or four times as big you have now then you need to get a hobby, one that will benefit others.
Take up boat building, beekeeping, furniture making, welding….something. Build a boat for the kids or grandchildren. build a Dining table set or bookshelves for a family member. The envy will evaporate and be replaced with a feeling of accomplishment and good will from others.
* I am not really fussing at you, you seem to understand this. It is general advice.
A Latina maid with big titties?
This man knows what is best in life.
Hah, that’s actually my wife’s point since she does most of the cleaning. That brings me to my other gripe, actually, which is the fact that almost no one builds reasonable new houses anymore, at least not in any areas you’d want to live in. Everything is 2500+ sq ft and $400K and up. I don’t need that much house, I just want more than 1300 in order to have a decent-sized kitchen with plenty of counter space and cabinets, and living room with space for a second couch.
I’d feel better about myself.
I think you hit on one of the biggest of the issues around envy. Quite often, we measure ourselves by our success. When other people enjoy things we don’t have, it’s hard not to judge ourselves by our failure to attain them. That’s why the reference to the $5 k bonus in the article would hurt. If it were purely a lottery I’d feel a lot less envy than in the case of a bonus. It would leave me feeling less valued than my co-workers.
The cognitive bias of relative deprivation is a bitch, no?
It isn’t even the deprivation, though, is it? It’s the feeling that you’re less a success for your failure to attain those things.
Easily the most miserable people I have known have been people who inherited wealth and have never had to work for anything.
Your childhood lays your expectations and tempers your character. People who think it is somehow an advantage growing up with every whim met and every luxury taken for granted are sorely misguided. These people spend adulthood in a constant state of fear that they will lose their wealth, have no appreciation for what they have since they’ve always had it, feel deeply guilty for being so wealthy despite never having done anything for anyone, and, at root, are extremely, extremely bored with life and its constant petty anxieties and lack of anything better than the usual underwear models on the French Riviera.
I’m going to go out on a limb and posit that the bootstrappers likely outnumber the silver spoons by orders of magnitude. The latter just tend to be much more visible, and hence a lot of people’s lament about missing their lucky break.
Thatcher had something to say about this.
“He would rather have the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich.”
They focus on “gaps” between the rich and poor. Then they employ zero sum game thinking for economics and this is the result.
She was awesome – just a spectacular beat-down in open debate.
I rest my case. Prime Ministers Question Time – the greatest non-contact sport.
PM’s question time was mentioned in the AM links thread. But to pile on, it makes US presidential debates look like an elementary school debate over democracy.
OT: Man tears up Quran at a school board meeting in Mississauga:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/video-man-tears-apart-quran-as-protesters-disrupt-154521825.html
Oh noes!
As an American after reading this I now know how Superman feels when he visits Earth-29.
According to the OHRC, “The Code has primacy – or takes precedence – over all other provincial laws in Ontario. Where a law con icts with the Code, the Code will prevail.”
Can you say, ‘you’re fucked’?
Milton Friedman is undoubtedly my favorite libertarian thinker. This debate on equality is one of my favorites. A younger Thomas Sowell makes an appearance DESTROYING Frances Fox Piven just to further engorge my liberty boner
I watched that episode of Free to Choose about a week ago.
My son said “What does she keep on and on and on about Chile for?”
“Well, son, in the 1970s Milton Friedman went to Chile and started throwing babies out of helicopters in order to overthrow the perfect socialist utopia.”
If I’d have said that he would have said something like “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few heads”
Watching that witch squirm while Sowell destroys her is one of my favorites of all time.
Really, who would be stupid enough to debate against Sowell?
Someone who exists in an echo chamber does not realize that strong arguments against the prevailing noise exist and are therefore confident that their superior knowledge will crush all those unenlightened rubes out there.
By the time they’ve met reality, it’s too late.
Fuck, that woman is stupid. I wouldn’t be surprised if her bullshit “economic license” terminology gets dredged up by the left’s periodic buzzword recycling program sometime soon.
Why is it the people who push equality arent ones themselves who do the walk?
You cannot have upward mobility, the ability to better yourself and rise up in wealth, status, or intelligence without allowing inequality. To strive for equality in anything except standing before the law is to oppress. Misery, poverty, and oppression are baked into equality. There is no way around it. The only way anyone could think that is a good thing is if they are profoundly stupid, evil or ignorant of the nature of the world.
ignorant of the nature of the world
I think that is probably true for most who believe in the mantra of equality for all.
I know the saying about attributing to malice and all that, but I’m beginning to think a fair number of these people understand and don’t care. They want bullet sponges for the coming revolution.
I would like to think that there aren’t that many malicious people in the world. I would like to think progs are mostly misguided and naive and their leadership may be evil, but the masses swallowing the bullshit are basically decent people. Maybe Im just projecting.
Exactly. Equality means were all equally fucked.
+1 Chavistan Utopia
+2
That is beautiful.
I’m waiting for my 6 weeks’ paid childless leave. I feel I should be rewarded for not contributing to the shitfest that is the human population.
Your failure to counteract the burgeoning tide of derp by not bringing up any new members properly has been noted, and your punishment is pending.
*turns to page 58 of the selfish libertarian pick up guide*
So, you wanna get together and not make babies?
In your case, shouldn’t you be focused on making more heroic mulattos?
There’s enough of me to go around.
*turns to page 96 of the selfish libertarian pick up guide*
Are you a bald, hairy-chested, lumberjack bear?
2 outta three ain’t bad.
A/S/L?
Does 2 out of 3 work? I’ll let you figure out which 2
Bender’s got it.
Quiet Evolutionary Dead End, and pay for public schooling like the good little tax monkey you are.
That is “Tax Cattle”, thank you very much!
You’re goddamn right.
This is probably the biggest source of animosity I have towards breeders. 🙁
History is written by the breeders.
please don’t make me hear “Cannonball” in my head. its not humane.
You’re one of the reasons why the next generation won’t have any Libertarian Moments.
We’re going to revisit the issue when I’m ~35. It’s just not even on the radar right now.
But why can’t I get some paid leave to hang out with my dog? Or my man? Or my folks? Or anyone who isn’t my (nonexistent) kid?
Hon, at 35, you’ll probably be far less fertile (probably over 10x harder to conceive than in your early 20’s) than you are now, unless there’s some genetic history of late conceptions in your family.
Sadly, nature works best when all your equipment is still in warranty.
And if you wait into your 40s, it can get really expensive to overcome nature.
IVF aint cheap.
My mom had me when she was 32, and I came out alright. (I hear I was a pretty, um, substantial baby.) It’s possible we might revisit the idea before then, but we’re just… so not interested right now.
And if we get all the way to my 35 and decide we definitely do want kids, but one (or both) of us has fertility issues or something… Well, I’m not opposed to adopting, either.
Here endeth my “Annoying Grandparent” lecture.
There’s nothing bad at all about adoption, though that too can get complicated. Unless you’re a celebrity where you can basically fly anywhere you want in the world and abduct a fashion accessory on a whim.
You’re right, Number.6! I know adoption is pretty expensive, too, and there’s a mile of red tape to contend with, as well.
But if we really want kids… Well, I’m assuming we’ll be in a pretty solid financial situation in 6 years.
No need to be so formal ans call me “Number.6” – my friends call me “Your Serene Excellency”.
How about we call you VI?
Also, there’s the whole “dramatic increase in the chance your kid has Down’s Syndrome” thing.
Woof, yeah, that’s freaky. We waited until my wife was 34 and that topic came up. Our daughter’s fine–all the parts are present and where they belong, totally healthy, crazy smart and stubborn as hell–but when my wife was pregnant we definitely had the conversation about what to do if tests come back positive for Down’s. Not a fun place to be.
My parents were both in there late 30s when they had me and I turned out… wait a second…
I need to make a phone call.
I’m fucking old, so the decision is pretty much out of my hands at this point (which is a relief).
Just to rain on your parade, I had a friend when I was a kid whose parents were so old that one day we figured out that he was conceived when his mother was 49, in 1961.
He always commented that he was surprised he existed at all, let alone with the right number of all of his bits, all in the right place, and of the right size.
So, I dunno – you might not be out of the woods yet.
I worked with a gal a few years ago whose youngest son was turning 18 that year. She went on a weekend get-away with her boyfriend, and it was so awful that they ended up breaking up by the end of it.
Then she found out she was pregnant. She was 41 at the time. But she chose to look at it as a blessing because this would be her first girl–she had three sons from a previous marriage. Last I heard, the pregnancy was a little complicated, but the delivery went off without any problems or anything.
Early 60’s though – no amnio, no ultrasound, no diagnostics anyone nowadays considers ‘basic’ – pretty much 9 months of hoping the clump’o’cells has the right number of chromosomes.
Scary stuff.
Believe me, I’m still taking precautions. I estimate about 5 years until I’m free and clear.
My kids will decline the invitation to pay your Social Security and Medicare bills for barren oldsters.
That’s fine! I intend to provide for my own retirement and such. The idea that social security is going to be there for me when I get there is a pipe dream I’m not going to count on, much less expect for it to provide for my entire retirement.
I also go on the assumption that Social Security is just extra taxes going off into the void. That said, the government will always have to come up with some method of subsidizing the olds. Especially given the alarming lack of saving among current workers.
Yup. Whenever I fill in a “retirement calculator” I fill in $0 in “anticipate Soc Sec. if anything shows up, hurrah. If not, I will have planned correctly.
Well, we’ll see who’s estate gets raided and re-appropriated when all you have are mere serfs and orphans to defend your fiefdom while the rest of us have veritable armies of children at our disposal.
Libertopia/Somali not looking so good now, huh?
*whose
Lol! Reminds me of the ag-based businesses around here.
Every time I visit the in-laws in eastern Idaho, I get the overwhelming sense that a series of wars of succession are about to break out over which one of the 12 kids inherits the bank, dairy farm, etc. Mormons and whatnot
Have any states mandated m/paternity leave yet? Because that’s ripe for a law suit by some childless folks. If VA tried it, I’d look into suing ’em.
Washington “Democracy Dies in Darkness” Post
misapprehendsmaliciously and prejudicially slanders senator over Biblical exchange during hearing on SNAP benefits.It’s not a misquotation or an unnuanced reflection on some speck of Biblical arcana. It doesn’t just take his words out of context. It’s an absurd recalibration of the meaning and verbiage of his statement to be precisely the opposite of what he’d said. You don’t need to be a Christian to get a little irate over brazen baid faith in journalism. Fuck this author, Fuck the Post, and fuck the left for giving these assholes any credibility.
Link
The WaPo? Pinko propaganda rag. Shameless liars. As far as I am aware they have not printed a single story in good faith or objectivity since….hell, I dont even remember. I hear WaPo and I dismiss everything after that.
In local derp, it turns out that Steve Zimmer, current member of the Los Angeles School Board who ran for re-election in Feb, has been forced into a run-off on May 16. So yesterday who do I get at my door but some paid shill passing out flyers for him – not one word of which is about his ‘accomplishments’ because he has none, let’s be real, LAUSD is a shithole, but full of fearmongering about the Evil Out-of-State Corporations who want to take over our schools!!! (it probably hit DeVos too as EVVVVIILLL supporter of his opponent but I threw it out). Watching UTLA throw millions of dollars on this one jackass because they are apparently terrified that the gravy train will slow down with anyone else there is basically an admission of corruption to my mind. It’s disgusting and makes me want him out even more.
fearmongering about the Evil Out-of-State Corporations
Build the wall!