Monday, February 9, 2015

Is Laissez-Faire Fair?

One thing that mainstream libertarianism shares with liberalism is a naive notion that all constraints on human behavior are somehow unfair or mean or evil, and that if you let everyone do as he damn pleases in terms of sexual morality things would be much better. To be fair, most liberals believe that because they think degeneracy and the destruction of civilization is cool, while mainstream libertarians believe that as a matter of principle people should be free to behave sexually any way they like. They also believe that such liberty will sooner or later result in a spontaneous order of some sort that will be much better than what they have now. This is naive, of course.  That's why I'm saying 'mainstream libertarianism,' to distinguish them from more practical, sensible libertarians like myself.  I know that freedom only works when people understand freedom, and that the only people who understand freedom are here in the West, and even here, they're in a minority.

What W. F. Price says below concerns progressives/liberals, but it applies just as well to libertarians who have bought into the progressive/liberal paradigm. This is from: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2015/02/04/social-and-economic-liberalism-have-the-same-effect/

Social and economic liberalism have the same effect

by W.F. PRICE on FEBRUARY 4, 2015


One of the great curiosities of the modern era is the idea that so-called socially progressive policies are generally held to be good for the downtrodden. Nobody worth taking seriously ever thought so before, but it’s held to be a fact these days.

However, loosening the controls on social behavior has the same effect as loosening controls on the market: the strong gain at the expense of the weak.

When banks are deregulated, the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. When sexual mores are relaxed those with more sexual capital totally dominate the market. Furthermore, those better able to control themselves and live a disciplined family lifestyle with minimal pressure have an enormous advantage over those who give in to temptation. This is why marriage has collapsed for large segments of society. Socially progressive policies not only tolerating but promoting an “anything goes” form of sexuality victimize those who need some external controls on their behavior.

Same goes for feminist policies promoting “equal” relationships between husband and wife. For most people, these relationships simply don’t work. Most need clearly defined gender roles that take natural human tendencies into account. Without them they become confused, dissatisfied and demoralized.

So when I hear people say they believe in social justice, and use that as a justification for a laissez-faire attitude toward social mores, I tend to think they’re either cynical, evil bastards or hopeless fools. Social justice and social liberalism are inimical to each other. This doesn’t mean that people should be strictly controlled in all aspects of life, but rather that there should be some balance in the matter. While there will always be people who are by nature sexually ambitious or deviant, they shouldn’t be held up as examples to the masses.

Why progressives can’t see this was long a mystery to me. I thought that maybe it was because they live isolated lives, but I’m not sure that’s true, because a lot of urban liberals have conservative, small town roots, and plenty have experienced their share of family dysfunction.

Recently, I’ve come to see it as a matter of faith. A large segment of our population has a religious belief in what are called “progressive” values, nurtured by thousands of hours in front of the family altar: the TV set. What we are seeing in contemporary America is the fruits of a false religion. When progressives rail against religious fundamentalists, they are blind to the fact that they are as much religious fanatics as anyone. When they poke fun at Evangelical creationists, they ignore gaping holes in their own reasoning, and they react with all the fury of a zealot if one dares to gently point out how the facts contradict their beliefs.

What we are dealing with in the West is, above all, a crisis of faith. This is why people are so confused about simple truths, and so willing to believe black is white, up is down and two plus two equals five.
---------
Quibcag: Worshipping at the TV altar are Ranma and Akane, of  Ranma ½ (らんま½)

2 comments:

  1. Your right. Prime time TV does a lot to condition people and create social change...Probably for the worse, too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Says Mr. Price:

    "However, loosening the controls on social behavior has the same effect as loosening controls on the market: the strong gain at the expense of the weak.

    When banks are deregulated, the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. When sexual mores are relaxed those with more sexual capital totally dominate the market. Furthermore, those better able to control themselves and live a disciplined family lifestyle with minimal pressure have an enormous advantage over those who give in to temptation. This is why marriage has collapsed for large segments of society. Socially progressive policies not only tolerating but promoting an “anything goes” form of sexuality victimize those who need some external controls on their behavior.:

    =================
    In these assertions, Mr. Price - speaking to the support of politically-determined normative government controls on economic and social behavior, enforced at gunpoint - is full of bovine endproduct.

    When he speaks about banks being "deregulated," Mr Price doesn't seem to realize that the issue is not "deregulation" at all but rather nothing more than changes in the ways bankers are politically privileged by government thugs to undertake the pillage of the populace (see "fractional reserve banking," f'rinstance, which had been instituted under and long supported by the "regulation" up to which Mr. Price is sucking).

    As for the reason "why marriage has collapsed for large segments of society," how the hell does Mr. Price conjure that it's some LACK of politician-and-bureaucrat punishment imposed upon the sexually promiscuous causing (fecundative, child-rearing heterosexual) marriages to fail of initiation or fall apart so readily, rather than the great gaudy "welfare system" imposed by Progressive fiat as a kind of gummint largesse which has progressively debilitated the natural disincentives to busting up the nuclear family?

    If men know that their offspring will not suffer (too much) when they walk away from mommy's nagging, the rug-rats' whining, and the other noxious abuses that have always been the lot of the married man, both qualms of conscience and social opprobrium regarding such irresponsibility are lessened.

    Not to mention the fact that their "baby mommas," relatively assured of the various politically sweet sources of government material support, have little enough incentive to make of themselves any less insufferable than women have always been in the marital relationship.

    Nah, Mr. Price is an idiot, and should shut the hell up until he gets a better handle on reality.

    ReplyDelete