Never Enough: The Utility of Impossible Objectives
I have been reading the new book, , by William Voegeli at Claremont McKenna College, with great interest. His theme is that the advocates of the welfare state have never been able to give a coherent account of the proper size and scope of their ambitions. How much assistance to the poor is enough?
I think he is correct about the “Progressive” economic agenda. But I believe there is an even more insidious and destructive part of their agenda: their revision of what we might call the “sexual constitution.” The radical forms of feminism, as well as the destruction and redefinition of marriage, are part of restructuring the fundamental rules of engagement between women and men, and between adults and children. I have come to the conclusion that the Left’s inability to define limits is no accident.
My thesis is that the impossibility of achieving the agenda is precisely its appeal to the Left. In economics, it is impossible to eliminate all income differences in even a partially free market, since the huge variation in personality, abilities and behaviors that are normal among human beings are precisely the basis for differences in income. Yet, if the Radicals are able to create a moral urgency around “equality,” they will have justified an unlimited amount governmental power.
The feminists have insisted that any difference between men and women are the results of unjust discrimination and hence must be eradicated. The government must “do something,” to eliminate these differences. However, since men and women really are different, this moral imperative amounts to a blank check for the expansion of the state to intervene into virtually every aspect of life.
The latest incarnation of the sex radicals’ agenda requires elimination of all differences between same sex couples and opposite sex couples. The provincial government of Quebec issued a policy called the “Quebec Policy Against Homophobia,” which declared its opposition to all discrimination in the workplace, the school, the family and the sporting field. They also declare their determination to eliminate “heteronormativity,” the view that heterosexuality is normal. Since heterosexuality is normal, eliminating this view simply can’t be done. Hence, they’ve written themselves another conveniently blank check for unlimited intervention into civil society. See posts here, here,
and here.
I have had a difficult time getting my libertarian friends to see the menace in all this. Economists and political theorists have been arguing, quite correctly, against the irrationality of egalitarianism for some time now. But if I’m correct, this claim will never make a dent in the consciousness of any True Believer. The irrationality of their position is an essential part of its appeal.
Loading ...
“They also declare their determination to eliminate “heteronormativity,” the view that heterosexuality is normal”
You might want to get a dictionary. “Normative” means “ought to be,” more or less. Not normal. Heterosexuality is perfectly normal, but not one should feel he or she ought to be heterosexual. I think that’s what Quebec and other places are trying to get away from: the whole Straight Supremacy Campaign belief that being straight is better than being gay. Either is perfectly fine.
Yeah, that’s a very perceptive and novel idea: “the impossibility of achieving the agenda is precisely its appeal to the Left.” It explains a lot.
I think they have over-reached on trying to eliminate fixed-sex and achieving “Postgenderism.” It might be downfall for the whole Progressive mentality and lead to a restoration of sustainable organic civilization. But only if we stand up and put an end to Postgenderism. If we let our Libertarian friends have their way, and let the idea that people can be either sex and reproduce with either sex go unopposed, then they’ll use that possibility to confuse and frustrate everyone and continue their power grab, and if same-sex procreation and genetic engineering ever does become real, then they’ll be emboldened for even more paradise engineering.
Can I ask you again, Jennifer, to support a federal law limiting procreation to joining an egg of a woman and the sperm of a man? Without that law, Postgenderism will continue to influence the agenda away from reality and practical common sense.
Sean, why can’t we say people should be straight? Everyone should be straight, just like everyone should be smart, and honest, and be nice to old people. That doesn’t mean everyone is smart or honest or nice to old people, but the existence of dumb people doesn’t mean we have to toss out the norm and stop trying to make everyone smart, does it?
But everyone can’t be straight or smart. Some things people don’t have control over. Honest? Sure, everyone can be honest. We’ve got to stop puting value judgments on things people have no control over, like their race, their sexual orientation, their gender.
I don’t think people have control over being honest, it depends on how their character formed, the environment that their character formed in. No one chooses to be a dishonest person, or an honest person, it’s just becomes part of the content of their character. Character can be changed through willful practice, but the impetus and resolve to change one’s character must come from outside the person, and can’t themselves be willed into existence. If there is no impetus and no resolve that was previously instilled, merely wishing one were more honest won’t make one so. And we can sure judge people for the content of their character, even though it was not something they had control over. In fact, that judgment of honest people being better than dishonest people is crucial to the formation of more honest people. MLK dreamed that his children would be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He didn’t dream that they wouldn’t be judged.
We shouldn’t have different rights and rules for people based on their genetic heritage, but different rules and rights for men and women makes complete sense. Women shouldn’t be compelled to fight their country’s wars, men shouldn’t be allowed into women’s locker rooms, etc.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, John.
I think “be straight” is a reference to actions, not feelings.
Right, but people do what they feel like doing.
John Howard: “Sean, why can’t we say people should be straight?”
Because it makes no more sense than saying all people should be white, or male, or red head. People are who the good Lord made them. That is what they should be.
Wow, Mark, did you just repudiate sex changes? Even I am sympathetic to people who feel they need to live as the other sex to be happy. But I don’t think people have a right to procreate as either sex, only as the sex which they would be most likely able to procreate using their unmodified gametes, if they had them.
And no one ever does say that people should be male or white or red-headed. But it does make sense to say that people should be straight, just like it makes sense to say that people should be smart, healthy, honest, ethical, etc.
John Howard: “But it does make sense to say that people should be straight”
I assumed you meant straight versus gay. I guess you mean straight forward, or something
Well, sadly, a true free market wouldn’t work. Ideally there would be lots of competition and prices would be low and competitive, wages and benefits would be generous due to companies trying to attract the best workers, etc. But it wouldn’t, instead of lots of companies, there’d be a few conglomerations (akin to what’s going on now in fact) that own everybody else. Competition would be limited, because competition is good for consumers, not business. True capitalism doesn’t work for the same reason true communism doesn’t work; greed. Human nature doesn’t exactly allow any ideology to truly work.
One could point out that writing off disagreements with your thesis as irrational because they are “true believers” in “left-y-ism” suggests that you yourself are blinded by your own beliefs.
Greater income inequality has been associated with a large number of negative social outcomes for society as a whole including crime and homicide, poor health and obesity, drug use, mental illness and anxiety, and poor educational outcomes, including dropping out of school and even bullying. See
No man is an island, and not even the rich can fully insulate themselves from the negative effects of a radically economically unequal society, the kind that Dickens described and which the Tea Party seems to be willing to embrace. We would be well advised to take a pragmatic look at how greater or lesser income inequality effects society as a whole and what remedies might be possible. Both Japan and Scandinavia have much greater income inequality than the U.S., but reached that status by different means.
Returning back to the gender issues, I have previously posted information showing that same sex couples have comparatively stronger economic positions than heterosexual couples, who face both the opportunity and considerable burden of child bearing. From the standpoint of economics, more accommodation for same sex couples is like passing more tax cuts for the rich.
We also have the ultimate pragmatic consideration of how to address the inability of modern societies to maintain fertility levels at even the replacement level. See http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html For the most part, neither liberals nor laissez faire conservatives (libertarians) seem to be addressing this basic problem, though some on the right are beginning to waken to it.
Leo: “From the standpoint of economics, more accommodation for same sex couples is like passing more tax cuts for the rich. ”
A very ignorant thing to say. Allowing for same-sex marriage has always been shown to boost the local economy. Unlike the rich, same-sex couples would be spending money and supporting smaller businesses.