Curt Doolittle comments
Last night. Invited to a talk about the enfranchisement of women.
Me, Keith Preston, Sean Gabb
Of course this conversation degenerates quickly to ‘arguing what I understand rather than arguing the subject matter’.
I give my usual:
Enfranchisement is good, assuming that those with different interests have different houses, and that houses reflect demonstrated ability to contribute – not some artificial ‘right’ – so that the houses constitute a market between the classes.
I can’t summarize via this point:
That assuming the family continues to fall apart, and assuming that women retain the franchise, that the trend of single women and single mothers will increase, and that this group will increasingly vote asymmetrically, forming, for all intents and purposes a block, which will continue to determine the direction of policy over that of men, and that policy will continue leftward.
I can’t make these points:
– It makes use of information across the classes. This is a good thing.
– Enfranchisement increases political discourse – and that is not a good thing. Because it is largely a pursuit of power over others. And for every positive attempt at seizure of power we must produce a negative attempt to prevent seizure of power. Whereas under the monarchies all effort must be achieved through market (non-state) means. So, Enfranchisement creates opportunity for political status and power by immoral means, distracting people from opportunity and status by moral means.
– Enfranchisement destroys civic society – the private production of commons.
KEITH PRESTON chimes in. Keith is well read. (very) Argues what he understands. Relied upon wisdom literature, rather than empirical data. I agree with it because it corresponds with the data. Smart guy.
SEAN GABB (UK) Argues what he understands, by shifting the question from what were the consequences of women voting, to what would happen if we took away their vote.
Sean brings up these points:
– We would get lying politicians anyway. True. Irrelevant, because we would get lying politicians who sought to bring different issues to play.
– No one is going to change whether women have the vote. True. Irrelevant, that is not what we were asked to discuss. If we were asked to discuss how we remove women from the vote I wouldn’t participate in the conversation.
– We are seeing a rightward move anyway. True. Irrelevant, (a) since this shift is due to the return of islamism from its 100 year old defeat (after 1400 years of defeating the west consistently). And the question is, had we chosen a different method of enfranchisement, it’s not clear we would be in this position in the first place; and (b) men voting (at least in america) this circumstance would never have occurred. Which is a purely empirical question. (c) I acknowledge that british men are feminized more so than american men and that the data on british elections shows that. It does not show that in america.
– You americans got a ‘trump’. and he’s not legitimate. (bizarre) False. Irrelevant. Legitimacy is a moral claim, not a scientific one. As we say, the purpose of political power is power. Once one has power and can act upon it, moral opinion has no bearing. only the institutional imitations on that power do.
– Women voting or not wouldn’t have changed much. (bizarre) False. Because the accumulated presentation of candidates for office, selection of candidates for office, policies that were put forward, over the past 100 years, in the states, would have dramatically shifted many of our elections, since the past century has largely consisted of policies under which parties auction off privileges (rents). I mean, the entire socio, economic, and political, and consequently, worldwide power shifts that have occurred by the enfranchisement of women in the USA are profound, and most of the propaganda (puritan anglos, and jews in general) has been a catastrophe for western civilization. Education, the academy, family, policy, propaganda … all these changes occur because of women enfranchised. How do you price that? You don’t ‘wave it away’ by saying islamic invasion disproves it….
While Sean is talking I search JSTOR, Pew and SSRN for gender differences in voting patterns. Find the material I’m looking for. But I realize this is a waste of my time. We are not having an adult discussion of empirical evidence, incentives, and institutional means. We are not trash talking for the sake of humor. We are instead talking nonsense.
This is why I am increasingly reluctant to have unstructured conversations. You wanna ‘talk stupid shit’ then you’re welcome to. But I don’t have an interest in correcting people who say stupid things any more than I have to already, in the context of my work.
Sean Gabb Responds
The points I made are these:
First, since there is no evil that has unambiguously come out of giving women the vote, there is not only no need to take their vote away, there is a need not to take it away;
Second, the problem is not that women want leftists in power, but that supposed anti-leftists – eg Donald Trump – make promises that get them elected by both men and women, and then break these promises, and this is a problem that has nothing to do with letting women vote;
Third, women are not a group with interests hostile to those of their menfolk in the traditional populations of England and America.
All this being do, discussing whether women should vote is a diversion from the actual problems that we face. I regret that Curt didn’t seem to understand my rather Tory-empiricist line of argument.
I don’t understand much of this article, but I have long felt that universal suffrage is a bad thing. Instead of ‘one-man-one vote’, it should be ‘one-taxpayer-one-vote’. As soon as you allow recipients of government hand-outs the right to vote themselves more of other people’s money, you are on a slippery slope downhill.
I agree with you, there. A person who is not a net taxpayer shouldn’t have a right to decide how those taxes are spent. They ought to be free to persuade and influence through speech, just like everyone else, but no right to enforce their preferences on those who actually have to pay for it.
I can tell without even listening to the talk that “Curt Doolittle” is an American. One need only read the egocentric screed above to realise this. Reference is made to “empirical data”. Are we in a laboratory? Being a simple English yokel, I will stick to holding opinions.
I do not believe women should have the vote, but I think that ship has already sailed and we will have to grin and bear it. [No, Dr Doolittle I don’t have any empirical data to back up this opinion, very sorry].
I disagree with the first two of Dr. Gabb’s three points. Assuming that we accept the premise that we are locked into a process of civilisational decline (I accept that’s an assumption based on an opinionated premise), giving votes to women has harmed Western civilisation – irreparably so. I do not mean to suggest women are to blame for everything, only that they are a factor. I think to exclude the factor from the causes of this civilisational decline is unrealistic and can only be motivated by tact. I do appreciate the need for tact on this and the matter of certain ethnic groups – not least due to the state of the law – but there does come a point when you just have to find a way to tell the truth (or the truth as you see it).
Regarding Trump, he has only been in power for six months. It’s too early to draw firm conclusions. We must remember the limitations on a president imposed by the U.S. constitution. A shrewd president picks his battles. I think a bit of Realpolitik also needs to enter the picture. The purpose of electing Trump was not to save America, but to change the mood music. We have come out of our mini-ivory towers in cyberspace and recognise how politics works in practice.
[quote]Third, women are not a group with interests hostile to those of their menfolk in the traditional populations of England and America.[/quote]
Yes, but only when healthy, normative men are in control of society and their interests are represented by the elite. At present, I do not believe that is the case. It cannot be the case so long as women are accepted as the equals of men. The fundamental point is that women are not, cannot be, equal to men. Unless and until this is accepted, men and women are just competing classes rather than complementary sexes.
Back to Dr Doolittle:
quote. I acknowledge that british men are feminized [sic] more so than american men and that the data on british elections shows that.[/quote]
There’s that data again! The words “empirical data” are like an amulet, protecting the speaker/writer (in this case, Dr Doolittle) by giving his arguments that bit of oomph.
I myself have been poring over some data and I’ve discovered that American men on average have shorter penises. Indeed, according to the study I have in front of me now, their manly organs are shorter by a full half-inch on average. I will spare the doctor’s blushes by withholding the source of this important empirical data.
“Research has shown… ” is a favourite phrase of advertisers which I find annoying, as it is so meaningless. “Clinically proven…” is another. I am intrigued as to what research has been done on relative penis-length. Nobody has ever sought my opinion. Can anybody be trusted to tell the truth if asked anyway?
On a more serious note, would you care to expand on why women are not, and cannot be, equal to men? And why giving women the vote is a bad thing?
I believe that in America, women became more economically powerful after WWII, when they had been ‘drafted’ to work in the factories and thus had money to spend. If they are earning money and paying taxes, why should they not have a say in how their taxes are spent?
I think that things are a bit more complicated than simply how men and women compare in their contribution to the economy. I acknowledge that women can do much the same work as men, but are men not stronger and more intelligent on average? Here I do rely on empirical data, in case Dr Doolittle is looking in. Of course, I appreciate it does not follow that men and women should not be treated as equals. Social policy does not have to (and probably shouldn’t) rest only on naturalistic truths.
The problem of course is that these issues aren’t just about empirical data (sorry, Dr. Doolittle). They also concern the type of society we want. For instance, if we rely on Dr. Doolittle, then we can conclude (among other things) that women could routinely serve in combat units of the Army. The empirical data would show that their physical performance is some way below that of men, but the performance is good enough in its own right. A woman can hold a rifle just as well as a man, and since they can cope adequately, so why not just start letting women serve alongside men as a matter of routine in all combat roles? After all, the empirical data says their performance is not a million miles away from the men’s, and since we have a shortage in recruitment, it’s not a significant lowering of standards. I hope I don’t need to spell out the problems that this type of thinking causes. In the military alone, they’re too numerous for this blog anyway. By positioning women in roles that are designed for men, you don’t make women equal, you merely highlight their innate inequality.
That’s what a reliance on empirical data does for you. It could be that women can pay taxes, etc. OK, but I think there’s more to this issue than that. It seems to me [note to Dr. Doolittle: now we’re getting into my opinions again] that men and women are supposed to perform complementary roles in society and this would best be served if they did not compete for the same roles. Women are supposed to be getting pregnant from their late teens and early 20s onward, and then looking after the children that they have. That is what they have been built to do. Men are supposed to be the providers, hence their greater physical strengths and higher intelligence.
Granting women the vote was the beginning of a process that unravelled this social equation, with wide and damaging ramifications that it would seem are impolitic to highlight in polite company. By equalising women in principle, even though they are not and cannot be equal in reality, we have created a position that cannot be sustained without lies and deception and the levelling-down (and emasculation) of men. We are fighting Nature and there can only be one outcome.
I’m not sure what else there is to say. I think you’d have to agree that women are not equal to men – I regard that as an obvious, if impolitic, fact – but I accept that this should not inexorably lead to the conclusion that my opinions are right from a social policy point-of-view. I acknowledge that a reasonable person might come to conclusions that differ sharply to mine, albeit on the same facts. But now you know what I think.
I’ve finally gotten the chance to listen to the discussion in its entirety. As it’s late now, I’ll only make a quick point and perhaps I’ll have more to say at a later time.
I have to agree with Sean in this dispute. Curt speaks a lot about relying on the data and the necessity of putting empiricism above appeals to morality, but has himself failed to take all of the data into consideration.
Singles of both sexes are more likely to vote left. Significantly more so, as a matter of fact. Furthermore, if only the white population of the US is taken into consideration, the voting patterns of men and women are extremely close, certainly nothing approaching societal breakdown.
Consider this, ethic minorities are more likely, statistically speaking, to vote for leftist candidates. So are singles, so are women, and doubly so for single mothers. Broken families with single mothers is a much more common state of affairs amongst minority households than white households.
But group them all together and yes, the numbers can make it seem as though the problem is female voters.
In reality, the problem is distinct nations share the same borders and compete for control of the government, and broken households become dependent on the state for economic support.
The problem is that these ‘broken households [who are] dependent on the state for economic support’ are allowed to vote themselves more of said state support. This is a one-way ratchet. No government is going to get elected on a platform of reducing such state support if half the voters are in receipt of it. The way to get elected, and to stay in power, is to promise MORE of such state support, thereby increasing the size of one’s client vote. I do not know what the answer is, but if we carry on in this fashion, sooner or later the economy will collapse under the weight of all the demands made upon it.
I think the primary problem is that Western countries have a system of government that is designed for homogeneous societies, but these countries no longer have homogeneous societies. Some of them, as a matter of fact, have never had particularly homogeneous societies. Instead, the present democratic system of government was imposed upon them by those societies that have historically enjoyed a great deal of homogeneity and in which democratic institutions arose quite naturally.
Furthermore, there are two convergent forces at work as a result of this situation. First, minority groups are incentivized to do whatever they can to break the prevailing homogeneity, whatever its form. Second, elites attempt to create a new homogeneity to keep the system together. These two trends need not be convergent, they might just as easily have ended up in firm opposition to one another. Instead, in our present civilization, they have dovetailed.
This has happened because the elite in the United States had already committed itself to the imposition of a new ideology – a civic religion, a secular heresy, whatever you’d like to call it. However, homogeneous societies create a firm foundation into which historical and cultural institutions are rooted, and the two reinforce and strengthen one another. So it seems to me that the elite made common cause with ethnic minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, indeed with minorities of every stripe in resolving to break the prevailing homogeneity as a means of re-molding the culture, worldview, and values of the societies over which they govern.
Each individual minority, of whatever category, may only seek to break the prevailing homogeneity as a means of advancing its own particular group interests, or simply as a means of self-preservation. The elite, however, does so as a first step toward the imposition of a new, self-serving homogeneity – an ideological, cultural monopoly.
I don’t think that the Neo-liberals of the ruling class care much for ethnic minorities, or for religious minorities, or for those with non-traditional sexual preferences, or whatever else. Nor do they care much for ethnic majorities, religious majorities, or those with traditional sexual preferences. I think they have formed common cause with minorities as opposed to majorities out of convenience, and not out of any principle. At any rate, they see themselves as the elect, superior, chosen few with an historical mission. Everyone else can be grouped into one of two categories – those who are useful and those who are not.
For the Jacobins of France or the Nazis of the Third Reich, ethnic homogeneity was a useful instrument and was brutally imposed by the state. For the Neo-liberals of the United States and the Anglosphere in general, and for the Neo-liberal satraps presently imposing Washington’s will in other European countries, ethnic homogeneity is an impediment, because it reinforces historical and cultural institutions which preserve traditional modes of behavior, traditional value schemas, and traditional ways of perceiving the world.
These traditions are wholly incompatible with the Neoliberal agenda – an agenda which seeks a One World government by the replication and expansion of ostensibly democratic institutions – institutions which require a certain homogeneity of values in order to function. So what we, in our individual societies view as homogeneity, they, standing atop the Tower of Babel, see as heterogeneous blemishes that must be smeared together under their thumb.
Creating new houses of parliament for each sex will not solve the problem. It may, in fact, further the agenda of the elites. Why not a parliament for each ethnic group? Why not a parliament for each sexual orientation? One for each living generation? My estimation is that such would further intensify the demographic conflicts in society, and give further impetus to the Neoliberal ideology as the only remaining social adhesive, the primary goal of the Neoliberal elite, such that no reasonable person who wanted to avoid unimaginable societal conflict could stand in opposition to the tenants of their imposed faith.
The solution, as I see it, is not necessarily to take the vote away from anyone, but to confine the scope of electoral decision making, insofar as possible, so that one group’s electoral preferences are not imposed upon any other group. That can be done by following the basic libertarian prescription of decentralization, secession, and self-determination. Free trade is fine, free movement of the “labor force” is not.