Feminism Is Socialism with Panties? (Rand rant 8mins in)

RandQuoter · 4 months

But stood by his facile comment nonetheless.

RandQuoter · 4 months

If the statement is "feminism is socialism with panties," it would only take a few small examples as a methodological individualist to disprove that massive generalization.

Also, I would have felt modestly placated if he had spent any time trying to understand attempts to change culture, perceptions of sex and gender, etc. and cheered that on, rather than standing by his asinine comment and thus encouraging people without much philosophical training to in the future dismiss anything which is categorized as "feminist."

SelfOwnership · 4 months

What if Larry David shows up?

dear_liza_jane · 7 months

Rothbard had a phase when the New Left was going strong when he was writing essays like All Power to the Soviets.

The term dialectical has a few different meanings, but is a sure way to sound very smart at cocktail parties. It can refer to an unfurling of an argument through conversation, or this principle of back and forth, compromise, synthesis, etc. can apply to the process of the history of freedom (in an abstract philosophically idealistic sense in the case of Hegel - "mind coming to know itself as mind") or a materialistic sense most famously through Marx, wherein history is the progress of class struggle.

Here dialectical refers to analyzing the parts in their relationship to the whole and the whole in relation to the parts. It's not only about looking at how the state oppresses us but how culture, economics work to reinforce the grip over us in a mutually-beneficial way. Here is the concept applied briefly to feminism via the market anarchists at C4SS.

anachrokate · 7 months

If one can get over the market language and the fact that this was pointed primarily at the right-libertarian crowd (if you'll allow the term) I think the general point is very anarchistic.

IgnatiousReilly · 7 months

Did anyone get back to you about that? Alabama here.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

It's about challenging culture, and if you aren't willing to challenge it without the state it's easy to see why people resort to using the state. Their critiques of culture are good and have merit, it's just the conclusion that libertarians should be somewhat skeptical of.

mechanicalhuman · 8 months

One of the problems of having health care through one's employer is that it makes one far more docile. If one has to stand up to the boss then one is taking an incredible risk compared to if one had health insurance via a mutual aid society of the days of yore or a private company.

Having it through the state is the same way. The IRS is used for political purposes sometimes in auditing dissidents selectively, and the state's health insurance monopoly could conceivably also be used to make people more submissive.

This is also just in general a problem of people not internalizing the full costs of their decisions. However, if they aren't responsible for their own costs people go bananas.

(The health care industry is absolutely riddled with people whose hands are in the cookie jar. That would need to be addressed too, but the main point of this post is the first paragraph.)

SelfOwnership · 8 months

I'm not advocating banning anything via the state.

My case is that our ability to demand (non-violators of the NAP) comes with the responsibility to choose good values, because there are values like sexism which are not strict violators of the NAP and so may be tolerated to some extent. My encouragement to you and everyone else is to use your power as part of the market forces to encourage people to consume other values.

Excuse the economic nature of how I just phrased all of that.

And as far as I'm concerned, there isn't a legitimate place anywhere for some values, violators of the NAP or not. With our freedom to choose comes a responsibility to be wise about what we choose to support. Otherwise, our world might suck.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

That's a good start, but I think we ought to be more critical as a culture which supports values like this. Not just respect everyone's right to choose... That's good in many regards, but I don't want to live in a world where people are actually demanding bad things be produced.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

Without government, we have even more responsibility to choose.

I still don't get what the disagreement is because I agree with this statement:

You cannot remove the actors from the system. What the market provides is necessarily in response to the (im)morality of the actors.

We're market forces! The market responds to market forces.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

When we say market we generally mean the aggregate of production and trade. What is profitable to produce depends upon what is demanded. If one is free to produce and trade whatever one wants without (government) oversight one must take responsibility into one's own hands to choose good things to support financially.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

I clearly am not going to defend all of those people because I don't agree with some of the ways they implement policy, and though I haven't seen feminists being transphobic, I wouldn't support that either. However, the bold stroke of this FAQ about what values one is supporting holds. Read the article linked to in the bolded text.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

That's essentially what my point is. Moral agents need to choose wisely which kind of values they are effectively demanding, because the market will deliver it either way.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

Why don't you read some of the writing on the topic linked to in the FAQ entry?

SelfOwnership · 8 months

Opposing the initiation of force isn't enough. If we have a free market which is amoral all it means is that goods will be supplied with the absence of overt libertarian-defined coercion.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

It's a useful tool for understanding how the world works and is one way in which freedom is limited even in the lack of the state. It's good stuff. The article linked to in the block text is a good intro as to why I think this is.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

It ought to be.

SelfOwnership · 8 months

Gender feminists who are out to just hurt men.

How much feminist theory have you read? If you listen to what these people are saying and actually hear them they would feel less of a desire to use the state for their ends.

Read the article cited in the big paragraphs. It addresses this in depth by a senior fellow at the Mises Institute.

SelfOwnership

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login