Category: Uncategorized

From Chase Me Ladies, I’m in the Cavalry: “My favourite liberal is Hildebrando Pascoal, a Brazilian poltician from the forest state of Acre. He was barred from Congress for “failings in parliamentary decorum” for murdering people with a saw. He was also involved in illegal land deals, cocaine trafficking, dissolving a boy in acid, murdering a doctor, and murdering the local bishop…. If this is their idea of a liberal, you can imagine what their young conservatives are like.”

From the Corner: No commentator I heard noticed that the Baroness Thatcher curtsied to the coffin – a gesture which protocol reserves at state funerals to the corpses of royalty.

You have to love the Iron Lady. She’s everything Hilary Clinton wants to be, and will never ever even come close to approximating.

Leo writes: 1) What is wrong with women working? Vox, you seem to be taking it as God-given fact that women working outside of the home is a Bad Thing. I disagree completely – it adds to GNP, it gives employers more people to choose from. As well as the fact that women, as individuals, have the right to decide what they want to do. You’ve included this as a bad thing, a negative consequence, but you’ve not said *why*.

Did you miss the bit about falling real wages? An extreme example might help you understand. The USA doubles the size of the work force by importing Chinese workers. Is this good for the economy? Or will it accomplish very little, except cutting wages in half? If it’s so good, I’m sure we can find 100 million volunteers to move into the country.

Now, women should have the right to decide what they want to do, but as matters stand, the increase in inflation, the fall in real wages and the rise in taxes means that two incomes are required where once one sufficed. It’s still a choice, to be sure. Do you want a lower standard of living, or do you want to farm your children out to day care and government schools while you go work. I’d go with the former, but it’s hard to blame those who choose the latter. Unfortunately, the latter tends to increase stress on the family, leading to divorce, etc. The greatest irony, is that women are mostly working to pay for the Social Security benefits of the 65+ men who used to work, but thanks to the entitlement designed to help widows and orphans, are now collecting a check and playing golf.

2) I consider no-fault divorce laws to be a good thing. People get married by mistake; people get married young and then mature into different, incompatible people. Why should these couples be required by law to stay together- I know the fundamentalists’ reason for saying this, but how can you argue the viewpoint as a libertarian?

As Larry pointed out, why should a marriage contract be any less binding than a fitness club membership? The right to make private contracts, sans third party involvement, is sacrosanct to libertarians. The government should not concern itself with recognizing marriage or divorce in any way. It did not do so for thousands of years and there is no need or benefit for it to do so now. Quite the contrary, as is being demonstrated in Denmark, Holland and Massachusetts.

That was fun, but we’re approaching tenderizing expired equine time. And while I appreciate both Discordia and Bartholomew taking the time to compose reasoned critiques – I didn’t bother posting the various emails and blog posts that didn’t address my points specifically – in the end, I have to say that this riposte to my assault on suffrage was probably the most salient.

A picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words.

This was rather amusing, especially since in one aside, Eris mentioned that I was explaining how casual correlations are useless for the benefit of my “slower readers”. Now, read some of his objections to my response and see if Eris shouldn’t perhaps consider in which group he belongs.

He writes: [on selection bias] I see a similar problem with Vox’s argument. Even if I assume that people in the 1920’s predicted that illegitimacy, divorce, and homosexuality went up, I don’t know if they predicted other things that didn’t happen. And did they predict falling wages? If so, Vox didn’t mention it.

They did not predict falling wages, but then, I haven’t read a single anti-suffragist document focused on the economic aspects, as opposed to the social, so that’s hardly surprising. Indeed, I don’t know that I’ve ever read anything specifically linking the entry of women into the work force with falling real wages even after the fact; I’m under no illusion that I’m the first to make such a link, but let’s face it, real wages and century-old political debates are common subjects for popular reading these days. As for other predictions, those happend to be the ones that I recall. I’m sure there were others, but not so many that their success rate is not astounding eighty plus years on.

Let me see if I’m following Vox’s logic: Women are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. Per Vox, Democrats support the various issues that cause those social ills. Ergo, we should curtail women’s voting rights because they vote Democratic. Going a step further, we should also deny the vote to any group that is predominately Democratic – and if you read Vox’s posts, you’ll know that he does not rule out disenfranchising other groups. The conclusion that I draw from all this is that Vox thinks voting should be restricted to a specific elite consisting of people who agree with him. And he calls himself a libertarian.

No, Vox thinks that voting should be restricted to an elite capable of thinking beyond their immediate personal interest and willing to avoid the temptation to vote themselves largesse taken by force from others. There is plenty of room for disagreement within those bounds. If voting is not restricted to this relatively broad elite, demagogues will purchase the favor of the short-sighted mob using the powerful mechanisms of government and a very much smaller oligarchical elite will impose its rule. Choose your poison.

I call myself a libertarian I support the concept of my rights ending where yours begin. This is antithetically opposed to democracy, which can be rightly equated to two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for lunch. I’d much rather be free to live my life free of government control of my behavior, speech and property than be permitted to vote while being forced to endure countless violations of individual liberty. In case this is hard to follow, I will spell it out. Voting is not freedom. Voting is an act, freedom is the ability to act as one wills. Voting was mandatory in the Soviet Union, was the Soviet Union therefore free?

Note how he stops talking about homosexuality and illegitimacy at this point. I think the points about welfare are supposed to be about illegitimacy, but since out-of-wedlock births are not the only circumstances under which one would have cause to go on welfare, that point is a bit – dare I say it? – disingenuous.

It is disingenuous to posit a strong link between welfare and illegitimacy? That’s an interesting point of view that would amuse many a social scientist. As I stated explicitly in my response to him, I was not writing a complete causal chain but merely demonstrating that it was more than mere post hoc propter hoc. The homosexuality aspect opens the door to a lengthy debate of its own, which was why I left it for the nonce, but those who understand that I subscribe to a Paglian view of homosexuality, (on the secular side), will grasp the essence of the link with divorce and illegitimacy.

I must be misreading this. He seems to be arguing that the mere fact that women are allowed to vote is contributing to divorce, but more than that, to these eyes, he’s saying that women shouldn’t be able to work either.

First, the combination of my train of logic with the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiment suffices to make the suffrage-divorce link beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not saying that women shouldn’t be able to work, only that barring the burden of government spending partially created by women’s suffrage, more women would be able to choose to stay home with their children should they so desire. I am quite confident that most would.

At this point, I’m starting to question Vox’s libertarian cred. In my opinion, women should be allowed to vote and work, even if it does increase divorce, because people in a free society should be free to make mistakes. Vox, on the other hand, seems to be saying that the government should curtail freedoms to prevent people from making bad decisions. Now honestly, which of us sounds like the starry-eyed libertarian and which sounds like the big government, para-socialistic left-liberal?

This is only because Eris is still operating under the misconception that the universal vote is conducive to human freedom. He equates voting with freedom, which I have already demonstrated is obviously fallacious. A connection between universal suffrage and freedom has never been proved anywhere, indeed, everyone from the Founding Fathers to the Algerian Army to the present administrators of the Iraqi Occupation believes precisely the opposite. Vox is saying that the voting franchise should be curtailed in order to prevent people from exerting control over other people, which in the long run will also be to their benefit, but more importantly will benefit those who only want to live their lives as they see fit, in freedom.

Which of us sounds as if he knows whereof he speaks? That question, dear reader, I leave to you.

From the Declaration of Sentiments: “He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women – the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.”

So, one of the first things women wanted to do upon getting the vote they were demanding was change the divorce laws. This was declared publicly by the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. It took 72 years, but women got the vote in 1920. Only 49 years later, the first no-fault divorce law was signed by Ronald Reagan in California. Women now initiate 75-80 percent of all American divorces and I don’t think anyone would argue the fact that the divorce courts are significantly biased towards women.

Probably a complete coincidence. Thanks for the tip, Bufelda, I’d forgotten about that.

From Debka: After the provisional government was installed in Baghdad, a senior Arab statesman confided elatedly to DEBKA-Net-Weekly : ”Bush has returned to the old political fundamentalism of the Middle East. It is good for us and it is good for him. ”It is a Middle East every Arab leader knows, a Middle East in which we also function best. I am certain that Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and Syrian president Bashar Assad will support the new president, Ghazi al-Yawar, and trust him not to neglect their interests in Iraq.”

Democracy

Sounds good, you see,

To strike that common note.

And yet, you know,

I told you so –

They’d never let them vote!

KS writes: You must live in a different universe than I. You are so wrong. You must have some kind of brain disease to even think up the crap you wrote in The Cowardice of His Convictions. Perhaps you should visit your doctor for a check up.

My dear Ms S,

That’s quite the eloquent rebuttal. I’m really going to have to rethink my position based on your exquisite reasoning and stunning grasp of the salient facts.

Kisses,

Vox

UPDATE – actually, KS is all right. She emailed back this: “Thanks for your thanks, just trying to help.”

AS writes: Your argument so far seems to be a pragmatic one: Women gaining the right to vote has lead to illegitimacy, divorce, abortion, etc. This from the king of ideals. I can’t find it right now, but I remember you made a post saying that people should stop their pragmatic view of the world and start standing up for their ideals. Isn’t your argument against women’s suffrage a perfect example of pragmatism? I would say that every adult who has proved a minimal interest in being a good citizen–namely, not being convicted of a felony and registering to vote–has the right to vote. It is immoral to deny citizens the right to vote for their representatives at all levels of government.

If I had ever stated that I believed voting was a fundamental human right, I would certainly be guilty of sacrificing principle for pragmatism. But I never have, nor do I believe it to be a fundamental human right. Most people should not be permitted a voice in government; they should, on the other hand, be permitted to live their lives in peace without the constant threat of government intervention. History suggests that universal democracy is strongly susceptible to collectivization and thus directly at odds with human liberty and freedom.

I have long been leery of democracy, in part because so many great thinkers that I admired despised it so. The fact that its self-professed champions don’t actually trust it either but feel the need to hedge it about with judicial and structural limitations proves that the common equation of freedom and democracy is incorrect. I find it very easy to choose between the two, without any sacrifice of principle required.

I wonder, what morality is it, precisely, that is offended by denying citizens the vote? And if it is a basic human right, why should residents who are not citizens be denied? If the will of the people is the foundation of all authority of government, does this same hypothetical morality not demand that anything that dilutes the will of the people – judicial review, constitutional restrictions or representative bodies – must be considered immoral as well?

Bartholomew leaps into the arena: Here’s my response to your unpalatable idea, as recently posted on my own blog. You will note that I have separated the two questions of a) has allowing women to vote led to harmful results? and b) should a group be banned from voting because its members tend to vote for things that lead to harmful results? I am concerned here mainly with the latter proposition.

Fair enough. We’ve mostly been dealing with (a). But (b) is another reasonable point for discussion.

Your recent comment about children is not valid: it is not discriminatory to deny them the vote because everyone was once a child and so subject to the same restriction.

No, it is perfectly valid. By this reasoning, we can discriminate freely against the elderly because almost everyone will be old one day. Furthermore, discrimination against children is justified on their inability to make responsible decisions, not the universal nature of childhood.

1. Democracies use constitutions and independent judiciaries to guard against mobocracy, rather than denial of the franchise to particular groups ofadults. While this may not be perfect, there is no evidence that there was less mobocracy in times when women or others were denied the franchise.

Sure there is. The Founders were concerned about a mob voting itself bread and circuses, while Joseph Schumpeter predicted the inevitable devolution of any universal democracy into socialist tyranny. An analysis of federal spending per capita easily illustrates this playing out right now.

Perhaps this is not spelt out in the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, but if Vox Days interpretation of those documents is correct that only means that the USA is not the very best example of democracy after all, and could learn from others (Im British, by the way).

The USA is not a democracy, never was, and was expressly designed not to be. In his first formal point, Bartholomew demonstrates that he has no understanding of the source of American rights and liberties.

2. If women as a whole can be denied the franchise because a majority of them support views of government he dislikes (leading to what he considers the social ills outlined above), then why not apply this rule to other groups should they show the same preferences? Answer: because if such a rule were applied to other groups it would be manifestly unfair, and in many examples would be racist.

First, it would indeed be very good sense to deny those groups who are determined to sabotage their self-interest. Precisely this reasoning is presently being used to deny the Iraqi people the right to self-determination; I don’t know any so-called “democrats” who actually favor allowing open elections in Iraq as I do. Are they racist too?

Second, women are a unique group in that they are provably biologically different. These biological differences have a direct effect on their ability to think and reason, as numerous scientific studies have proven that women have measurably different brains than men. There are spiritual (Christian), scientific (evolutionary), and psychosexual reasons that women are inordinately inclined to favor the “security” offered by Big Daddy government intervention. This is not true for any other group, except, possibly, the homosexual community, if one accepts the homosexual argument that their abnormality has a genetic base.

3. His argument is that he has judged certain ideas to be bad, and because a majority of women support those ideas they therefore should not be allowed to vote. So why shouldnt I call for religious conservatives to be disenfranchised on the grounds that they vote for what I consider bad ideas?

What are hate crimes for? I fully expect the openly religious to be disenfranchised in the future. They’re already being fined. We’ll be fortunate if it stops with only losing the vote.

Well, a) I would be supporting an undesirable principle of exclusion; b) I understand that without the accountability that only comes with a universal franchise even good ideas will not be implemented well; c) I have confidence that as long as democracy endures the good ideas will eventually triumph. Vox Day does not have that confidence about his own ideas, it seems, which is why he wants them imposed by banning people from voting. 4. If women were denied the vote, they would protest,as they did in many countries before they got the vote, and many men would support them. The civil strife would be overwhelming.

He sees exclusion as undesirable; neither I nor the Founding Fathers do. What accountability comes with a universal franchise? I obviously don’t have that confidence, as I believe that most people, given the chance to vote themselves largesse from others, will do so every single time. History would seem to support this very strongly. The civil strife would be as nothing as what is going to happen once the present system collapses under the weight of centralization. One of the many nice things about women is that they’re not prone to serious violence.

No doubt Vox Day, who is willing to contemplate the mass murder thousands of Palestinians for a greater good, would not shy away from quelling the complainants with brutal force. But thats not libertarianism. Or Christianity.

According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, 2,233 Palestinians have been killed in the present conflict since mid-2000, more than 1,000 since I wrote the offending article. Apparently Bartholomew was more upset by a suggestion that might actually help bring a final end to the conflict than he is by the actual “mass murder” of thousands of Palestinians. Or perhaps he believes that refraining from the intentional murder of children is hopelessly beyond those dusky savages now that the British Empire has laid down the White Man’s Burden. But I don’t have to contemplate anything; the world is witnessing it. As for a need for force, I’ll take my chances. Generally speaking, the ladies would rather talk than fight.

Universal suffrage is neither libertarian nor Christian. A perusal of either philosophy would demonstrate that, as would the fact that voting is mandatory in many totalitarian states. Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights tempers Article 21 (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. with Article 29 (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.