Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.
Theme: Sex Differences
-
“It’s worth noting that universal suffrage males gave women the vote, and in 193
—“It’s worth noting that universal suffrage males gave women the vote, and in 1932, it was men who supported FDR over Hoover (who women supported more). Voting used to be granted as a reward for responsibilities, as a consequence of it. Own land, pay taxes and part of the militia who keeps the country free against enemies foreign/domestic? You get to vote because of those responsibilities. Emphasis on voting as a reward for responsibilities solves the voting problem without the collateral damage.”—Steve Pender
-
“It’s worth noting that universal suffrage males gave women the vote, and in 193
—“It’s worth noting that universal suffrage males gave women the vote, and in 1932, it was men who supported FDR over Hoover (who women supported more). Voting used to be granted as a reward for responsibilities, as a consequence of it. Own land, pay taxes and part of the militia who keeps the country free against enemies foreign/domestic? You get to vote because of those responsibilities. Emphasis on voting as a reward for responsibilities solves the voting problem without the collateral damage.”—Steve Pender
-
“Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar”
“Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-empirical and the female emotional-faithful, just as marriage is a compromise between male and female – under which neither obtains their ideal, but both achieves the optimum possible. Otherwise we must go to war between the truthful and the faithful, and while the faithful can undermine, and resist, they poorly war, and this is not only because they are poorer, but because they are more feminine in composition and cognition.
-
“Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar”
“Deliver Each Unto God and Caesar” is a compromise between the male political-empirical and the female emotional-faithful, just as marriage is a compromise between male and female – under which neither obtains their ideal, but both achieves the optimum possible. Otherwise we must go to war between the truthful and the faithful, and while the faithful can undermine, and resist, they poorly war, and this is not only because they are poorer, but because they are more feminine in composition and cognition.
-
A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted
A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted, https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/a-difference-in-the-way-women-and-men-have-voted/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:45:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267255991890055168
-
A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted
A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted, https://t.co/W8BzQkfvck
-
A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted,
—“I would like to know if there has always been a difference in the way women and men have voted, or if the women’s lib movement in the 60’s marked the time when women moved to the left.”—Susan Bigs
Short answer: Men and women have different biological functions, abilities, instincts, intuitions, and incentives. We always follow our incentives. We always organize to promote our group’s incentives. The family is a compromise where in we share the same interests. The market for cmmons in the state, and the market for goods and services outside of the state, allow those already in the family to compromise in a market of mutual exchange. And allow the classes of families to cooperate on means even if we share different ends. The primary difference is between married women with children allied with husbands (conservatively), and unmarried, single mothers, and increasingly university indoctrinated women and men to vote left. For the first generation, women voted conservatively. It changed after that. It changed radically when the jewish marxists failed to create class warfare due to the failure of marxism and the success of european markets under rule of law, and when those marxists in the frankfurt school switched from to cultural marxism to undermine our culture, then the jewish postmodernists switched to identity politics to undermining cooperation between us, and then when jewish feminists switched to undermining cooperation with the genders. Birth control began it. The control over women over family spending and 70% of all spending and the influence of marketing to women increased promotion of it. The decline in economic necessity of husbands decreased it. The increase in entry of more women into the workforce, partly because of it increased it, the decline in births because of it also, the decline of marriages because of it, the decline in the duration of marriages because of it, and the decline in the two income household driving down average household wages did it. The increase in college debt -especially for women who took ‘gut’ courses (and mostly still do), provided incentive to the academy who promoted it. And the rest is history. In other words, men and women share the same interests in a famly, and historically, a married man, represented his family, if he and his family held property (and if he fought in the military when needed), then his vote was in the compromise interests of the family. Our failure was in maintaining one house of parliament/commons instead of continuing the practice of adding houses for the classes. Had women had their own house, and had labor had it’s own house, then the ‘evils’ of majoritarianism would not have destroyed our country and our demographics as a side effect of female differences in voting by demanding more resources from the state, and devoted resources to the reproduction of the underclasses, instead of the production of commons from which we had so long enjoyed the returns.
-
A Difference in The Way Women and Men Have Voted,
—“I would like to know if there has always been a difference in the way women and men have voted, or if the women’s lib movement in the 60’s marked the time when women moved to the left.”—Susan Bigs
Short answer: Men and women have different biological functions, abilities, instincts, intuitions, and incentives. We always follow our incentives. We always organize to promote our group’s incentives. The family is a compromise where in we share the same interests. The market for cmmons in the state, and the market for goods and services outside of the state, allow those already in the family to compromise in a market of mutual exchange. And allow the classes of families to cooperate on means even if we share different ends. The primary difference is between married women with children allied with husbands (conservatively), and unmarried, single mothers, and increasingly university indoctrinated women and men to vote left. For the first generation, women voted conservatively. It changed after that. It changed radically when the jewish marxists failed to create class warfare due to the failure of marxism and the success of european markets under rule of law, and when those marxists in the frankfurt school switched from to cultural marxism to undermine our culture, then the jewish postmodernists switched to identity politics to undermining cooperation between us, and then when jewish feminists switched to undermining cooperation with the genders. Birth control began it. The control over women over family spending and 70% of all spending and the influence of marketing to women increased promotion of it. The decline in economic necessity of husbands decreased it. The increase in entry of more women into the workforce, partly because of it increased it, the decline in births because of it also, the decline of marriages because of it, the decline in the duration of marriages because of it, and the decline in the two income household driving down average household wages did it. The increase in college debt -especially for women who took ‘gut’ courses (and mostly still do), provided incentive to the academy who promoted it. And the rest is history. In other words, men and women share the same interests in a famly, and historically, a married man, represented his family, if he and his family held property (and if he fought in the military when needed), then his vote was in the compromise interests of the family. Our failure was in maintaining one house of parliament/commons instead of continuing the practice of adding houses for the classes. Had women had their own house, and had labor had it’s own house, then the ‘evils’ of majoritarianism would not have destroyed our country and our demographics as a side effect of female differences in voting by demanding more resources from the state, and devoted resources to the reproduction of the underclasses, instead of the production of commons from which we had so long enjoyed the returns.
-
Friendship-Fulfillment Marriage
Friendship-Fulfillment Marriage https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/friendship-fulfillment-marriage/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:42:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267255235724148736