A Hong Kong Fairy Tale Save for later Reblogpost

TimBucks
@TimBucks

Send Private MessageSubscribe50

Mr. Molyneux is all about freedom….economic and political freedom. He’s a free market guy who doesn’t like government interference. Fair enough, I’m like that, too. However: The problem with Stefan Molyneux’s economic and political freedom philosophy is that it ignores biology, gender and evolution. It’s a male perspective. Not a female perspective. I maintain there are big differences between males and females that are profound in their implications for everything….including economic and political freedom. We need to stop the fairy tale that biology and ideas about freedom are not inter-twined.

Males tend to be more individualistic because men don’t get pregnant. Having babies come out of your body and then caring for them shapes your view of the world, to a much more emotional and inter-dependent view of reality…..collectivist. Nature constrains women. Men have a very different perspective on life, than do women. Men were the hunters in evolution. Freedom and independence is more natural for men. Biology does not constrain men as much as it constrains women. Females evolved as dependent on males, less able to compete economically, on their own. That’s why Mr. M’s philosophy can’t be humanly universal. Women are less driven than men, less aggressive, less intelligent on average, less competitively driven to get resources because men usually look after them. Men evolved to compete and acquire resources to please and attract female mammals, in order for males to be re-productively successful. Women did not evolve that way. No need to. Women get pregnant, many men want to sleep with her, so her job is to sort out among the men competing for her, which one will be the father of her children. This natural process makes women less economically competitive, with men. That means economic and political freedom is different for a man, than a woman.

Mr. Molyneux says that when you get democracy, you get open borders, you get a welfare state, you get political correctness. Not quite. Men in general don’t vote for those things. Women do. When women vote you get those things. They are not an outcome of democracy, they are an outcome of the female vote. Men don’t tend to vote for open borders, endless welfare expansion. Women do. Most Social Justice Warriors are women.

Nature itself disadvantages women, who can never fully economically compete with men as equals. This must be taken into account in political and economic ideas about freedom, but never is. That means that any political and economic freedom philosophy that says that the male perspective applies to the females in the population is wrong. The only way Mr. Molyneux’s economic freedom argument applies equally to women is, if most women don’t sexually reproduce. If women are sexually neutered and non-reproductive, then Mr. M’s ideas work for women as well as men….more or less. Then they can economically compete with men, on a more or less level and even economic playing field. But that of course is an insane economic solution to the problem of economic equality between the sexes, since it sets up social forces that annihilate the population. Of course, this very idea is more or less what Western Democracies are doing, right now. We have, through feminism, empowered women to try to evenly compete with men, economically. This is insanity of course and is causing the demographics of the West to go into a death/birthrate spiral. Pretending women are men disadvantages women, because in reality women as a group can never fully economically compete with men as equals to men as a group. This must be taken into account in political ideas, but never is.

So following Mr. M’s ideas to their natural logical end point, after pretending his ideas apply to both genders equally, this logic leads to the death of the civilization that embraces such freedom based ideas. There is nothing new about this idea he brings. That is more or less what we are doing in Western democracies right now, anyhow. And it’s killing us. No thank you.

Let’s get real: How will his ideas play out….for women? For example, what happens when you get rid of the welfare state? Men pay 70% of taxes, women benefit from 70% of taxes. If we reduce the size of government and if we reduce taxes, by first recognizing welfare for what it is, a form of theft….by the way I agree with that assessment….. then if we stop that theft….. then what happens to women, once when we stop stealing money from men and giving it to women? How will women survive? I’m not saying don’t do it. I’m saying, don’t lie about it, don’t lie by omission. Let’s be clear, how things will change if we do that. 

Also, there is a practical problem of implementation of economic freedom ideas: How can we bring in economic freedom and lower the size of government, if women vote?  The problem is, in a democracy, women are the majority of voters. They earn less money than men, because they get pregnant, because they have children. In a democracy, with women voting, it’s inevitable that women vote in political parties that go for Open Borders and the Welfare State. By nature women are dependent on men, because women have babies. If you want your society to have a genetic future, men will need to look after women, so women can have babies. Since women evolved to look after vulnerable children, they have the compassion instincts to care for the vulnerable….Open Borders. Plus women have the majority of the votes….Open Borders and Welfare…. So, as long as women vote, there will be no small government. The inevitable tendency of government size, when women vote, is to increase the size of government, which eventually breaks down the democracy.

Is there a way out of this?

I propose a way: Women did not evolve to compete with men as equals. They evolved first to make babies and have families. Then secondarily they evolved to economically compete with men, once they have had their babies. The way out of this conundrum is to recognize the contribution of women, to the genetic and economic future of a population. How so? The birth rate is in free fall in advanced democracies. We are economically unsustainable in the West, because feminism has pushed women into economic competition with men, as their primary focus during their 20s. This has lowered the birth rate to such a point that we have decided to bring in mass immigration, to make up for the shortfall of children, so we can have future taxpayers to look after old white people, who didn’t bother having enough children. While feminism pushed women to having fewer children, women voting exponentially increases the size of government, over time. We can’t afford this, much longer.

Feminism has a lot to do with the coming crash of the West that Mr. M mentions. Feminists pushed women to avoid having kids in their 20s and focus on school and work instead. Many women follow the feminist plan  because they can make a lot of money in their 20s….so why not? The why not, is that feminists are crashing the populations of the West by doing so. This population crash makes the economics of pension plans and the unfunded liabilities Mr. Molyneux talked about, it makes them unsustainable….because we don’t have enough future people to pay the bills.

Part of the way we get around that, is to recognize women’s economic contribution which they make to the future economy, by having a lot of children. Remember, the natural replacement rate in a population is that every woman needs to have on average 2.1 children per woman, just to keep the population level at it’s current level, just to keep the unfunded liabilities funded, that Mr. M mentioned.

I propose that women don’t all need to have a lot of children. Most don’t need to have many. A small percentage of women should be given the option of having a lot of children. This would create a future work force to pay the bills down the road. This would mean those women who have a lot of kids, they would be foregoing having a career themselves, and making a lot of money for themselves. That would be a big sacrifice, these women would be making.

I think we should reward those women who keep the population going. Modern women now have an economic choice: be a Mother….or have a Career. Being a Mother often means foregoing a lot of money a high value woman could have made, in a career. The career choice for modern women, is where the money is. Is it any wonder most chose to make a lot of money and forego having children? Women like money too. We make Motherhood very unattractive for modern women, while making career and avoiding having a family very attractive for women. The problem with this is, of course, when we do that, the society falls apart….like it is in the West.

We can fix this two ways: Either we immediately take the vote away from women and just have men be responsible for women. That’s how the West got into it’s current mess: We gave women the vote. Women evolved slightly different than men. Women have a short breeding window, they evolved to make babies in their 20s, not economically compete with men. That’s why feminism won’t work. It’s entirely out of alignment with nature. When women are dependent on men they tend to have more children. Taking the vote away from women would close down the borders and end the welfare state, because it is mostly women who vote for open borders and endlessly expanding welfare. Taking the vote away from women would increase the birth rate. 

Or…..we could keep things as they are and simply pay Mothers and Fathers who have a lot of kids in the advanced West, to keep the population going. Women who want a lot of kids should be rewarded for giving up a career. Their economic contribution would be making a lot of babies. This is in line with nature and evolution and biology and is what many women want. Many want to be looked after. They want security. They want family. They do not necessarily want to spend their lives in economic competition with men…..a game they are bound to lose. 

Even if you want to run a society on Mr. Molyneux’s ideas, you have to be clear on the implications of those ideas, for women….because the implications of those ideas are quite profound for women, and potentially not always positive. They would restructure society in a profound way, potentially good, potentially bad, depending on how they are arranged.

Men dominated the invention of political ideas, so most political philosophy tends to have a heavily male perspective….like Mr. Molyneux’s ideas surely do. This is a false perspective in a sense. The reason his ideas have a false perspective is that, in the big picture of both genders, his ideas do not take into account the biology of half the population….the female half. They only take into account the biology of half of the population….the male half. My contention: Philosophy is not gender-neutral. Far from it.

My guess on the future, is the West will eventually crash. Mr. M is right on that. The West is economically unsustainable, due to women voting, which pushes Open Borders and the endlessly expanding size of government….at the same time as crashing demographics brought on by feminism. The demographic population pyramid is wrecked. The children we didn’t abort, we avoided having. We followed the feminist plan. Feminism wrecked the family, then wrecked the economy, then wrecked the country. That’s because our economic and political system is out of alignment with nature itself, which says men lead, men protect and provide for women, who concentrate on family. That’s the lesson we will soon learn the hard way, when the West goes through it’s hard crash….coming soon.

Of course re-arranging economics so that women have children when it is biologically normal for them to do so, will only delay the inevitable. If women are allowed to continue to vote, they will keep voting for the very things which wreck the country right now. Inevitably as this carries on, society will have to face up to the ultimate question on democracy: Should women vote? Or is democracy and universal suffrage itself unsustainable as a political form, due to evolved differences between the genders?

According to Forbes Magazine, The United States has hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities. That’s “trillions” with a “T”….not with a “b”…. We can’t pay our bills. Not a chance. Link below. Democracy will fail soon. I think it’s failing because of feminism and women working and women voting. We should stop exporting democracy as we have it presently configured, because it doesn’t work. Feminists wrecked it. We men let them. It’s on us. It’s on us men. Women can only exist in a world we men create for them, or allow to be created. I blame men, for the simple reason that men supported feminism. Men supported women voting. Western men were weak fools. That’s why democracy will crash. Slowly, the reasons why women voting wrecks a country, are coming out. But let’s not blame women. That would be a mistake, bigger than the mistake of letting women vote in the first place. In truth, our leading men let this happen. Especially male corporate leaders who supported feminism, for their own selfish reasons. Corporate male leaders are to blame. They wanted to exploit female labor cheaply, to make more money for themselves. Shame on corporate men. You ended American democracy, by supporting feminism. It’s just a matter of time now.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/10/10/your-pension-is-a-lie-theres-210-trillion-of-liabilities-our-government-cant-fulfill/#556e1ca365b1