The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_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.

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.

Well, misunderstandings are common in forums such as these, given the limitations of written language, our imperfection in expressing our ideas, and the limited time we have to write them.

I don’t have the time to go delve into an in-depth discussion on the ideal size of the state, except to say that I disagree with your premise, to wit: a lesser state is necessarily ideal. It is not that simple. One can easily come up with examples where a lesser state is not ideal (e.g., simple cases of public goods, externalities, information asymmetries). The question is one of degree, and it is, IMHO, a case by case issue and dangerous to generalize to all cases. I am by no means a radical redistributionist; but I don’t see some redistribution as inimical to freedom, particularly when said redistribution can, in theory at least, significantly increase the economic freedom and social mobility/freedom of recipients for a relatively minor incremental loss of economic freedom to the well-off.

It is a complex issue, and in my experience, resists pigeonholing into one sweeping ideology or the other.

Let me also add that I don't agree that economic freedom necessarily always Trump's other values. Society is well advised to weight the value and outcome tradeoffs carefully, but is also well advised to avoid dogmatic ideological solutions to complex problems.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

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

.


While I don't agree with Notorius' Anarchist assumptions, he's on the right track. Guy said that America and the U.K. are countries is which there is an unequal distribution of income, worse, in fact, than anywher else in the western world. Now he's throwing econometric academic quibbles into the mix in an attempt to muddy the water. Well, I'll restate my core premise: In a free, market driven, economically free society, there is no such thing as "unequal distribution of income" since there is no initial "distribution" in the first place. The term "unequal" when attached to "distribution of income" has nothing whatever to do with eocnomics or econometrics but everything to do with an ideology. Guy has not attempted to answer in detail any of my major points on this score, as of yet.

For there to be an unequal distribution of income, there must be some entity doing the distributing and seeing to it that it is unequal. Who might this be?

Now, in a market society, income, or wealth, is created at various points throughout the economy according to the dictates of the Market (you and me) through productive economic activity and either saved for future consumption or used on present consumption, but it is not distributed. Distribution of income is just the old Marxist foil for redistribution, the coin of the realm of both the leftist interventionist state, the socialist welfare state, and a collectivist police state such as Cuba. If America and the U.K. can be criticized for having unequal distribution of income, then either there is little or no market economy in these countries, and the state is doing the unequal distributing, or the concept is nonsense.

Money flows in a market society to where it can be used more efficiently from places where it is being used less effieciently and from where the market decides it shouldn't be to where it decides it should, but it is not "distributed".

[_harmony]

How did the conversation devolve into a discussion of free market economics, when it started out talking about women?

[_Notoriuswun]

I don’t have the time to go delve into an in-depth discussion on the ideal size of the state, except to say that I disagree with your premise, to wit: a lesser state is necessarily ideal. It is not that simple. One can easily come up with examples where a lesser state is not ideal (e.g., simple cases of public goods, externalities, information asymmetries). The question is one of degree, and it is, IMHO, a case by case issue and dangerous to generalize to all cases. I am by no means a radical redistributionist; but I don’t see some redistribution as inimical to freedom, particularly when said redistribution can, in theory at least, significantly increase the economic freedom and social mobility/freedom of recipients for a relatively minor incremental loss of economic freedom to the well-off.

Let me also add that I don't agree that economic freedom necessarily always Trump's other values. Society is well advised to weight the value and outcome tradeoffs carefully, but is also well advised to avoid dogmatic ideological solutions to complex problems.

But you are missing the larger point that economic freedom essentially equates to greater civil freedom. Do you ever wonder why the government has any business in so many areas of your life? If you stop and think about it, the government can now dictate what you say! Freedom of speech is no longer even a concept in our society. When the state gives rights to the left and right, it also requires obediance to its laws...which have become bigger and bigger over the last 50 years. Coggins is right when he calls it a Nanny State. And don't even get me started on habeas corpus...

We now have policies which are intended to be fair, but in reality create racism and bias. Examples include affirmative action, and political correctness. Which seeks (unrealistically) to treat everyone in a fair way. Our society has become one in which the right person for the job also has to have the right color skin and be the right sex...it is no longer the "right person for the job" - which creates a great amount of inefficiency.

[_guy sajer]

I don’t have the time to go delve into an in-depth discussion on the ideal size of the state, except to say that I disagree with your premise, to wit: a lesser state is necessarily ideal. It is not that simple. One can easily come up with examples where a lesser state is not ideal (e.g., simple cases of public goods, externalities, information asymmetries). The question is one of degree, and it is, IMHO, a case by case issue and dangerous to generalize to all cases. I am by no means a radical redistributionist; but I don’t see some redistribution as inimical to freedom, particularly when said redistribution can, in theory at least, significantly increase the economic freedom and social mobility/freedom of recipients for a relatively minor incremental loss of economic freedom to the well-off.

Let me also add that I don't agree that economic freedom necessarily always Trump's other values. Society is well advised to weight the value and outcome tradeoffs carefully, but is also well advised to avoid dogmatic ideological solutions to complex problems.

But you are missing the larger point that economic freedom essentially equates to greater civil freedom. Do you ever wonder why the government has any business in so many areas of your life? If you stop and think about it, the government can now dictate what you say! Freedom of speech is no longer even a concept in our society. When the state gives rights to the left and right, it also requires obediance to its laws...which have become bigger and bigger over the last 50 years. Coggins is right when he calls it a Nanny State. And don't even get me started on habeas corpus...

We now have policies which are intended to be fair, but in reality create racism and bias. Examples include affirmative action, and political correctness. Which seeks (unrealistically) to treat everyone in a fair way. Our society has become one in which the right person for the job also has to have the right color skin and be the right sex...it is no longer the "right person for the job" - which creates a great amount of inefficiency.

No I don't. I understand and agree fully that economic freedom essentially equates to greater civil freedom.

Beyond this point, I find your assertions in this post to be exaggerated and hyperbolic. "Freedom of speech is no longer even a concept in our society." This is a gross, gross overstatement, and quite honestly, it marks you as an ideologue as opposed to a thoughtful commentator, whether this is actually the case, I don't know.

In any case, we've hijacked this thread, so I'm cutting off the debate on my end and letting this thread get back to its regularly scheduled programming. I get the sense anyway that I'm arguing with an ideologue, and my experience teaches me that this is a waste of time. If I"m wrong, I'm happy to concede the point, but you'll have to do better than this to convince me otherwise.

[_Notoriuswun]

No I don't. I understand and agree fully that economic freedom essentially equates to greater civil freedom.

Beyond this point, I find your assertions in this post to be exaggerated and hyperbolic. "Freedom of speech is no longer even a concept in our society." This is a gross, gross overstatement, and quite honestly, it marks you as an ideologue as opposed to a thoughtful commentator, whether this is actually the case, I don't know.

In any case, we've hijacked this thread, so I'm cutting off the debate on my end and letting this thread get back to its regularly scheduled programming. I get the sense anyway that I'm arguing with an ideologue, and my experience teaches me that this is a waste of time. If I"m wrong, I'm happy to concede the point, but you'll have to do better than this to convince me otherwise.

All Libertarians are essentially idealouges...but all political entities start out this way.

Because of political correctness, I can't say or do certain things for fear of offending someone. Don't ask me exactly what these things are, as the list is very long. At least we don't live in the UK however, where they can't even refer to their coffee as black anymore.

I will give you a valid example of how a reduced state would help both the left and the right.

In GA, most of the residents are in favor of a statue of the ten commandments, but, because of federal govt intervention, they are no longer able to display it.

In CA, gay marriage laws, and medical marijunia laws are not recognized by the federal govt, and thus these civil rights are denied to gays and potheads alike.

If you haven't yet figured it out, I am more of a minarchist than anything else...I believe that a govt is essential for some duties, but (in its present state) it resembles something out of an Orwell novel. I believe that the people should be free to rule themselves, and that state laws should supercede federal ones. People would end up naturally migrating to those areas in where they had the most rights.

I can see you are no longer interested in debating something you can not hope to win - as you never really tried to present a valid argument in the first place.


ps threadstarter - I am sorry if we hijacked this thread - economics and politics are things I am very passionate about, as one can plainly see.

[_ajax18]

Equality huh?

1. Men pay for dates. If a guy waits on women to ask him out, he'll never date nor marry anyone. You and I both know it.
2. Men are expected to be the money earners. Women work if they choose, but aren't really expected too.
3. Affirmative action provides women special advantages to enter into fields where they are underrepresented. However men are given no such favors to enter fields where they are underrepresented, namely in acadmeia. It's similar to what the blacks do in sports. Whites have all but been pushed out because in most sports blacks are simply superior in their genetic talent. Yet you'll never see a quota that says we should have x number of white players on the basketball team so that young white people retain their interest in sports and the healthy benefits that come from such. No, all we really hear is blacks continuing to beat the drum about, "Why are there enough black coaches now, and then why don't we own the teams?"
4. Women have sole discretion to keep a child or to abort the child. The father has absolutely no say. Heck according this Anna Nicole case, if Mom decides she'd like another man to raise the child, it doesn't matter if you're the child's biological father or not. Fathers rights have been trampled in the name of best interest of the woman (often guised as best interest of the child) to the point that men do abandon the family. Family court is an absolute joke and no sane thinking person could believe that fathers have any rights in it whatsoever. Then they wonder why men are scared of marriage.
5. Women demand equal prize money at Wimbledon. Guess what, women playing tennis isn't what's selling the tickets. Can the Chip and Dales dancers demand equal money to Playboy playmates. Of course not, who would even ask. In this we let the market decide.
6. Can men take off as much time as a woman when they have a child? No of course they can't. So now they want equal pay from an employer that they really haven't given equal work. So basically the men that work there have to pick up the slack and hence the money she is collecting is really from their work. This sounds like subjugation of men to me.

I don't see feminists addressing any of the issues that are unfair to men. Until they do, I can only assume that equality for them is nothing more than a euphemism of female empowerment and subjugation of men and they won't be satisfied until the woman gets her way on every single issue. I once saw a movie where all the men had died and the women lived in this vast lesbian conspiracy. It just amazes me that anybody would get along in such a world. I worked under one high ranking female boss and I hope to never have to do so again. She bred an environment of such hatred and mistrust that nobody would speak to one another. It was catty, nasty drama, every stinking day, until the day I was let go for the simple reason that some of the girls there decided they didn't like me anymore, and I refused to date that fat chick who was shaped like an egg.

I think Conan had the best solution. When she turned into a witch, he threw her into the fire without hesitation, and found something better when he found Valeria.

Better than us men huh Notorius. That's what your worlds gonna be is a few years. Enjoy!

[_Notoriuswun]

Better than us men huh Notorius. That's what your worlds gonna be is a few years. Enjoy!

I was being mostly glib, but women would have taken over the world long ago if they weren't so busy cutting each others throats =)

[_beastie]

Mill addresses the many issues and problems occurring in a society that does not allow for equality including how inequality of sexes affects men, how it affects women, how it affects culture, the world, and the ever evolving consciousness of humankind.

I believe that not utilizing the talents of half their population (the female half) may be one reason why the Islamic world has been left behind in terms of scientific and social progress.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Men are the ones that do not understand the equal right admendment actually...Equal rights for everyone which many times men are NOT treated fairly under the law in many states BELIEVE IT OR NOT....And yet men are the ones who fight so hard against having equals rights funny is it not????