The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_Coggins7]

In all seriousness, there's a very dangerous problem involved in making laws to force people to 'be fair'. It's a completely artificial solution to the problem, which doesn't solve anything. Unfortunately modern Western legalislation is almost entirely fear based, predicated on threats of harm or deprivation. If you condition people like you condition an animal, you'll end up with a population of animals.

Good point.

[_truth dancer]

Since I started the thread... (smile) let me define feminism, (from various online dictionaries and wiki),

Feminism is a collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies largely motivated by or concerned with the liberation of women from subordination to men. In simple terms, feminism is a belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes, and a movement organized around the conviction that biological sex should not be the pre-determinant factor shaping a person's social identity or socio-political or economic rights.

Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
The movement organized around this belief.

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

noun
1. a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women
2. the movement aimed at equal rights for women

A movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality with men.

Please, in this discussion stick with the actual definition rather than coming up with your own personal definition.

Thank-you...

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

In all seriousness, there's a very dangerous problem involved in making laws to force people to 'be fair'. It's a completely artificial solution to the problem, which doesn't solve anything. Unfortunately modern Western legalislation is almost entirely fear based, predicated on threats of harm or deprivation. If you condition people like you condition an animal, you'll end up with a population of animals.

Yeah... better to make laws and rules that are explicity UNFAIR...better to make laws and rules that harm people, society, and the world... better to make laws and rules that purposely subjugate, demean, and degrade people than to try and create a world that at least attempts to bring a sense of equality to all.

:-(

To your point...

I don't think there is anything dangerous in giving equal rights to human beings regardless of their body parts, color of skin, color of hair, size of feet, or length of fingers.

;-)

~dancer~

[Guest]

I don't know a lot about Anarchism as a philosophy, and have never really been interested in it per se. However, from what you've said so far, let me just say that Marx' ultmate utopia was a stateless society; the absence of government entirely, so I'm not sure in what sense you meant that Anarchy is not a form of Communism when Marx, Engles, and thier disciples quite clearly taught that it was in fact, Communism in its ultimate or final form.



There are plenty of historical examples of empire succeding empire or new societies being genreated without first having gone through a anarchic phase. A prime example woud be the United States. There was a war of independence; a revolution, but war is not by definitiona anarchy and the development from the colonial phase through the end of the war and the emergence of an independent civlization was a long, developmental process, not a series of definite phases such as Anarchy followed by whatever in a predetermined sequence. In this sense, in fact, you sound not unlike traditonal Marxists with their idea of standardized, predictable phases of economic development through different "epochs", such as from primitive communism, to feudalism, to capitalism, to the Dictatorship of The Proletariat, to Communism.


Loran

Sorry about the "Capitalism". I meant to write Corporatism instead.

As far your claims that no empire has ever been established because of Anarchy (and then you point to the founding of this country no less!) indicates to me that you are at least partially ignorant on the subject. You see true Marxism has never been fully idealized. In Communist Russia, the state rushes in to usurp the control from the people - but it started out as a Marxist ideal. With anarchy, the same is essentially true. There has never been a modern society that has lived with anarchy...at least not for very long. Instead it is best to think of anarchy as simply no or less state - and the furtherment of that ideal - for terms of debate.

When examples are given of anarchy in action, the most cited examples are when mankind rises up against the state. Any form of protest then could be considered to be a form of anarchy - as the protesters are probaly trying to redress a clumsy state policy. The two examples that best illustrate this are in Communist China, and the US. Of course I am talking about:


Tianamen Square, and the Boston Tea Party...two of most public, dissected anarchistic actions of the last 200+ years. Of course this country was founded on anarchist ideals...we wouldn't have been able to leave Britain were it no for a higher degree of this in fact.

Lastly, if you read T. Jefferson (before he became president), he writes about alot of the same Libertarian ideals that we do today. It was only when he became so enamored of his power after becoming President that he became more of an advocate of teh state.

[_guy sajer]

1. There is no such thing in an economically free society as "distribution of income" This is a leftist trope.

The term "distribution of income" is a value-free statistical description of how income is . . . . well, distributed within the population. It takes on values given the context of the discussion, but itself it is a descriptive term, not a normative one.

Your statement makes as much sense as "there is no such thing in an economically free society as 'economic growth.' This is a leftist trope."

If you don't like the term "distribution," how about proposing an alternative that allows us to talk about how income or wealth is distri . . . er . . . allocated among the population?

Try Von Mises, Von Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, and Sowell on for size, as well as a littel dose of Bastiat. Claims like this of "extremism" are just, like the race card, a debate stopping mechanism and a way to buy yourself a little extra time in the arena of ideas. You either have a core philosophy of life or you do not.

Anyone have a clue just what the hell this means?

Nice try, but the left is what it is and the people who are committed to it ideologically are who and what they are. The left has a long, well understood and documented history, and your own subjective impressions of both it and them change nothing.

Well, you talk about the Left as an abstract theory, I talk about it from extensive personal experience (and being a member of the left myself). I don't deny the existence of the loony left fringe; they are small in relative numbers but non-trivial in absolute numbers, but your caricatures are a pile of stereotypical steaming horse sh**. It's the kind of gross, overwrought generalization one expects to hear voiced among the loony right fringe, but has little place in the reality of the great majority of people it attempts to describe.

In any case, debate is futile, as I"m sure it'll lead to only more of the non-reflective, non-sensisical ramblings one finds on right wing talk radio or in extreme right wing polemics.

So, carry on Coggins. I swear to God, though, that somehow you are channeling Michael Savage. I don't quite know how you do it.

[_Notoriuswun]

1. There is no such thing in an economically free society as "distribution of income" This is a leftist trope.

The term "distribution of income" is a value-free statistical description of how income is . . . . well, distributed within the population. It takes on values given the context of the discussion, but itself it is a descriptive term, not a normative one.

Your statement makes as much sense as "there is no such thing in an economically free society as 'economic growth.' This is a leftist trope."

If you don't like the term "distribution," how about proposing an alternative that allows us to talk about how income or wealth is distri . . . er . . . allocated among the population?

Try Von Mises, Von Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, and Sowell on for size, as well as a littel dose of Bastiat. Claims like this of "extremism" are just, like the race card, a debate stopping mechanism and a way to buy yourself a little extra time in the arena of ideas. You either have a core philosophy of life or you do not.

Anyone have a clue just what the hell this means?

Nice try, but the left is what it is and the people who are committed to it ideologically are who and what they are. The left has a long, well understood and documented history, and your own subjective impressions of both it and them change nothing.

Well, you talk about the Left as an abstract theory, I talk about it from extensive personal experience (and being a member of the left myself). I don't deny the existence of the loony left fringe; they are small in relative numbers but non-trivial in absolute numbers, but your caricatures are a pile of stereotypical steaming horse sh**. It's the kind of gross, overwrought generalization one expects to hear voiced among the loony right fringe, but has little place in the reality of the great majority of people it attempts to describe.

In any case, debate is futile, as I"m sure it'll lead to only more of the non-reflective, non-sensisical ramblings one finds on right wing talk radio or in extreme right wing polemics.

So, carry on Coggins. I swear to God, though, that somehow you are channeling Michael Savage. I don't quite know how you do it.

No he is right...there is no such thing as an economically free society with a state that redistributes the wealth. Really there can only be free markets when there is no state - as the state will attempt to control the markets for its own benefit.

The fact that you don't recognize at least one of the names he mentioned tells me you are ignorant on the subject of economics and governence...they are some of the most influential writers for free markets in the history of mankind. I am just glad he didn't mention Ayn Rand ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi Loran...

What you are describing is the so called "moderate" Feminism,

You may describe it thusly but feminism is no more than believing in equality for both sexes.

Because some woman in the past have been extreme does not change the meaning of the word.

which, unfortunately, all but died after the late sixties.

Nonsense. As I have stated... virtually everyone I know considers themselves a feminist (with the exception of a few internet folks who still think men deserve rights not afforded to women). I know of no one who believes as you suggest nor have I heard anyone ever suggest anything close to what you suggest.

I think you are making up your own ridiculous idea to have something against which to fight.

Feminism means believing in equality. Period.

Code: Select all

 Its still out there, of course, but has no voice in the mainstream media or popular culture, which is dominated by "radical" Feminism, the ideology that licks up all the media and academic gravy. 

Again, who in the heck are you talking about? I have never heard such nonsense as you suggest fills the media.

~dancer~

To which Loran responds,

Okay, bye dancer

This is basically what happens when you "back [coggins] into the corner and turn the hose on." He goes into hiding. And why?

What you are describing is the so called "moderate" Feminism, which, unfortunately, all but died after the late sixties. Its still out there, of course, but has no voice in the mainstream media or popular culture, which is dominated by "radical" Feminism, the ideology that licks up all the media and academic gravy.

He has never, ever provided a single shred of evidence to support this. He expects us all to just believe that Katie Couric, Martha Stewart, Barbara Walters, Denise Austin, Tyra Banks, and any other number of women in the media are all part of some "radical Feminist" plot or "ideology." But where is the evidence? Where are his relevant examples? He does not provide them.

I can understand why he would say that "radical" (i.e., Third Wave) Feminism gets a certain amount of play in the Academy, but his view of the media seems quite "off" (or at least unsubstantiated) in my opinion.

[_guy sajer]

1. There is no such thing in an economically free society as "distribution of income" This is a leftist trope.

The term "distribution of income" is a value-free statistical description of how income is . . . . well, distributed within the population. It takes on values given the context of the discussion, but itself it is a descriptive term, not a normative one.

Your statement makes as much sense as "there is no such thing in an economically free society as 'economic growth.' This is a leftist trope."

If you don't like the term "distribution," how about proposing an alternative that allows us to talk about how income or wealth is distri . . . er . . . allocated among the population?

Try Von Mises, Von Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, and Sowell on for size, as well as a littel dose of Bastiat. Claims like this of "extremism" are just, like the race card, a debate stopping mechanism and a way to buy yourself a little extra time in the arena of ideas. You either have a core philosophy of life or you do not.

Anyone have a clue just what the hell this means?

Nice try, but the left is what it is and the people who are committed to it ideologically are who and what they are. The left has a long, well understood and documented history, and your own subjective impressions of both it and them change nothing.

Well, you talk about the Left as an abstract theory, I talk about it from extensive personal experience (and being a member of the left myself). I don't deny the existence of the loony left fringe; they are small in relative numbers but non-trivial in absolute numbers, but your caricatures are a pile of stereotypical steaming horse sh**. It's the kind of gross, overwrought generalization one expects to hear voiced among the loony right fringe, but has little place in the reality of the great majority of people it attempts to describe.

In any case, debate is futile, as I"m sure it'll lead to only more of the non-reflective, non-sensisical ramblings one finds on right wing talk radio or in extreme right wing polemics.

So, carry on Coggins. I swear to God, though, that somehow you are channeling Michael Savage. I don't quite know how you do it.

No he is right...there is no such thing as an economically free society with a state that redistributes the wealth. Really there can only be free markets when there is no state - as the state will attempt to control the markets for its own benefit.

The fact that you don't recognize at least one of the names he mentioned tells me you are ignorant on the subject of economics and governence...they are some of the most influential writers for free markets in the history of mankind. I am just glad he didn't mention Ayn Rand ;)

First, I know of Von Hayek, Friedman, and the like. That was not my frame of reference. It was the opaqueness of the point he was trying, badly, to make in the paragraph where he referenced these names. As for my ignorance of economics and governance, if you'd like, I'd be happy to cite for you my several publications in these areas.

Second, his quote does not mention “redistribution of income,” but “distribution of income,” a very different concept. Distribution is a term like “mean,” “median,” etc. that describes measurable characteristics of populations. It is non-sensical to say there can be no “distribution” of income in free society, as much as it would be to say that there can be no “average” income in free society. If you want to talk about "redistribution," that's another issue, though I still disagree with you.

Please, next time before you jump in to criticize, get your facts straight.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
1. There is no such thing in an economically free society as "distribution of income" This is a leftist trope.

The term "distribution of income" is a value-free statistical description of how income is . . . . well, distributed within the population. It takes on values given the context of the discussion, but itself it is a descriptive term, not a normative one.

Your statement makes as much sense as "there is no such thing in an economically free society as 'economic growth.' This is a leftist trope."

If you don't like the term "distribution," how about proposing an alternative that allows us to talk about how income or wealth is distri . . . er . . . allocated among the population?

Nice dodge, but no dice. The concept of "distribution of income" is a leftist nostrum derived from Marxian economic concepts and has no basis in the real world. Income in a market economy is not didtributed in the first place, and cannot be, as this would require a distributor. Now who, pray tell, might that be (and we know who it always is who redistributes wealth: a heavy handed authoritarian state seeking to ingratiate itself with the distributees. What we don't yet know, according to you, is who distributes in in the first instance, such that it needs redistributing by those who are so much wiser). You clearly weren't using the term in an econometric sense, but in a political one, as in "unequal income distribution", which, as I pointed out, is an incoherant concept in a market society.

Coggins7 wrote:

Try Von Mises, Von Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, and Sowell on for size, as well as a littel dose of Bastiat. Claims like this of "extremism" are just, like the race card, a debate stopping mechanism and a way to buy yourself a little extra time in the arena of ideas. You either have a core philosophy of life or you do not.

Anyone have a clue just what the hell this means?

You said I was most probably getting my ideas from Michael Savage. I gave you a little smattering of those from whome I actually have derived much of my philosophy of econoics and political economy.


Coggins7 wrote:
Nice try, but the left is what it is and the people who are committed to it ideologically are who and what they are. The left has a long, well understood and documented history, and your own subjective impressions of both it and them change nothing.

Well, you talk about the Left as an abstract theory, I talk about it from extensive personal experience (and being a member of the left myself). I don't deny the existence of the loony left fringe; they are small in relative numbers but non-trivial in absolute numbers, but your caricatures are a pile of stereotypical steaming horse sh**. It's the kind of gross, overwrought generalization one expects to hear voiced among the loony right fringe, but has little place in the reality of the great majority of people it attempts to describe.

Another nice try, but agian, no dice. The problem with your analysis is that the ideas of the loony left fringe have now utterly colonized much of the mainstream Left and have become the dominant ideological freamwork within it. But this is moot to some extent, as much of what the "mainstream" Left has always believed was itself derived from radical roots. Mainstream "Liberalism" has always been a kind of domesticated Leftism; Marx, Marcuse, Gramsci, and Alinski Light. I'm not interested in your ancedotal characterizations of the people you work with and know. I'm only interested in their ideas and the merits of those. At least, that's all I'm interested in dabating if challegened, not whether the people you know are a bunch of "great guys". They may be, at least from your perspective, but we can't debate that.

[_Notoriuswun]

1. There is no such thing in an economically free society as "distribution of income" This is a leftist trope.

The term "distribution of income" is a value-free statistical description of how income is . . . . well, distributed within the population. It takes on values given the context of the discussion, but itself it is a descriptive term, not a normative one.

Your statement makes as much sense as "there is no such thing in an economically free society as 'economic growth.' This is a leftist trope."

If you don't like the term "distribution," how about proposing an alternative that allows us to talk about how income or wealth is distri . . . er . . . allocated among the population?

Try Von Mises, Von Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, and Sowell on for size, as well as a littel dose of Bastiat. Claims like this of "extremism" are just, like the race card, a debate stopping mechanism and a way to buy yourself a little extra time in the arena of ideas. You either have a core philosophy of life or you do not.

Anyone have a clue just what the hell this means?

Nice try, but the left is what it is and the people who are committed to it ideologically are who and what they are. The left has a long, well understood and documented history, and your own subjective impressions of both it and them change nothing.

Well, you talk about the Left as an abstract theory, I talk about it from extensive personal experience (and being a member of the left myself). I don't deny the existence of the loony left fringe; they are small in relative numbers but non-trivial in absolute numbers, but your caricatures are a pile of stereotypical steaming horse sh**. It's the kind of gross, overwrought generalization one expects to hear voiced among the loony right fringe, but has little place in the reality of the great majority of people it attempts to describe.

In any case, debate is futile, as I"m sure it'll lead to only more of the non-reflective, non-sensisical ramblings one finds on right wing talk radio or in extreme right wing polemics.

So, carry on Coggins. I swear to God, though, that somehow you are channeling Michael Savage. I don't quite know how you do it.

No he is right...there is no such thing as an economically free society with a state that redistributes the wealth. Really there can only be free markets when there is no state - as the state will attempt to control the markets for its own benefit.

The fact that you don't recognize at least one of the names he mentioned tells me you are ignorant on the subject of economics and governence...they are some of the most influential writers for free markets in the history of mankind. I am just glad he didn't mention Ayn Rand ;)

First, I know of Von Hayek, Friedman, and the like. That was not my frame of reference. It was the opaqueness of the point he was trying, badly, to make in the paragraph where he referenced these names. As for my ignorance of economics and governance, if you'd like, I'd be happy to cite for you my several publications in these areas.

Second, his quote does not mention “redistribution of income,” but “distribution of income,” a very different concept. Distribution is a term like “mean,” “median,” etc. that describes measurable characteristics of populations. It is non-sensical to say there can be no “distribution” of income in free society, as much as it would be to say that there can be no “average” income in free society. If you want to talk about "redistribution," that's another issue, though I still disagree with you.

Please, next time before you jump in to criticize, get your facts straight.

So you are essentially arguing semantics vice intent. I personally thought it was pretty clear what he was referring to. As far as your last point, at the time it seemed that you had no idea of who he was talking about, thus the "ignorant" reply.

I would be interested to hear how you think redistributionism is a valid societal policy. It is pretty clear that modern liberals (you) are fighting with the religious right (part of the republican electorate) over access to rights given by the state. Both not realizing that a lesser state would be ideal for both.