By Tom Rhodes, 11/14/2012
A fellow and prominent libertarian noted that he got the point I was making in a previous article but that my arguments were weakened because it was “misogynistic.” Saying that I was implying; “a tendency of women to want greater government involvement in our lives,” and this implication made my entire point less valid. His assertion is politically correct but intellectually dishonest, and illustrates the effect of Political Correctness on discussions in our country, even in the LP. Right now if any man makes any comment on the difference in the sexes and how they behave, even when such comments are historically and observably factual, is considered misogynistic if it doesn’t favor the female. But if something is said, like noting the propensity of men to take risks compared to women, and the adverse effects some risky behaviors have on society, nobody says that such an argument appeals to Misandry and is thus less valid. I find it interesting that this double standard is palpable even among supposedly rational libertarians.
Make no bones about it, what I meant in that previous discussion was an overt direct observation that women in their private lives and historically in their US voting patterns, when given a choice, choose security offered by some authority or person in power over liberty and the accompanying risks. Women have shown that they are far more willing to support use the force by the government to limit liberty not based on any individuals abuse of a right, but on the possibility that a right might be abused. The feel it’s better that everybody’s freedom and liberty are restricted because some individual at some future time might misbehave. Yes this is a stereo type, but that doesn’t make it false. The stereotype that says men lack emotional empathy does not apply to all men, but it is not false for men as a group compared to women.
There is evolutionary evidence for these differences. From an evolutionary and historic perspective the burden of child bearing, nursing, etc. puts women in the unenviable position of requiring somebody to provide for her and her offspring during this period where she is venerable and less physically able to provide for herself. Historically women have needed to sacrifice their individual liberty to a provider and protector, be it a working man, or now the government. Modern technology has mitigated much of the rationale for these decisions, but the evolutionary wiring and disposition is much slower to change, so the attitudes and actions are yet to adjust to differing circumstances and will take many generations to do so.
The problem is that on a historic level Liberty and Freedom for massive amounts of a population is a relatively new and short lived phenomenon, and has yet to prove to be historically sustainable. Factually it is relatively easy to prove that protecting individual’s natural rights, applying the rule of law equally, and allowing people to live with the results of their life choices will provide the highest standard of living for the most people in a society; but emotionally the fact that this system allows some people to suffer for their bad life choices or even bad luck is not palatable to women as a group.
We see this in the socialized feminine idea that a hospital by law must treat anybody in an emergency regardless of ability to pay. Individuals having insurance and a more competitive less monopolized health care industry, would be a higher priorities for our society and individuals would voluntarily make better decisions if they experienced the or witnessed the result of somebody who failed to acquire insurance was allowed to die, it’s a harsh but effective lesson. In the nanny state those lessons never need to be learned. This is not a calloused or heartless position, but a principled rational position that would lead to more people not less being responsible, and voluntary charities being able to cope with the fewer people in actual need of charity.
It is not to say that only women or all women think this way; massive numbers of males, raised without strong father figures, have adopted this line of thought because it is all they’ve been exposed to. There is a biblical/libertarian doctrine that is emotionally bothersome to most women. The idea that; “If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” It can be seen in Aesop's fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper. The wisdom of this is lost because as a society we’ve adopted the idea that just because the Grasshopper made poor life choices doesn’t mean he should suffer, the Ant is so rich he can afford to feed the Grasshopper. In fact it isn’t “fair” that the Ant has massive food supplies while the Grasshopper has none. This is an emotional and primarily feminine response to seeing suffering. They would rather sacrifice their and everybody else’s property rights so that they don’t have to experience the emotional turmoil of seeing others suffer. The consequences of this can be seen in the history of our first colonists, most of whom died of starvation, because they discarded the wisdom of 2 Thessalonians 3:10. We learned this lesson the hard way at Plymouth Rock.
As you know the historical norm for mankind has been for most of humanity to live in poverty with a few people in power living in relative luxury. We are seeing a condition where those in power or seeking power are taking advantage of the fact that women as a rule think with emotions over logic. Marx, and those promoting socialism and communism saw this as an essential tool and woman’s suffrage was among the first things enacted when they came to power.
The overregulation of our lives is often referred to as the “Nanny State” not the “Daddy State.” That stereotype is not invalid. If you’re willing to look at history with an open mind, you will see the steady decline of libertarian ideas and policies in the USA is directly related to woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in politics. One of the often voiced fears of woman’s suffrage was that the influence of the woman’s vote would lead to outlawing liquor and instill prohibition; they were right.
John Lott has demonstrated a strong correlative link between women's suffrage and increased per capita state expenditures. The average increase in voter turnouts of 26 and 33 percent that occurred 25 and 45 years after the enactment of women's suffrage in a US state mirror the 24 and 31 percent increases in state spending over the same periods of time. He also concluded: "The two consistent results were: allowing female suffrage resulted in a more liberal tilt in congressional voting for both houses, and the extent of that shift was mirrored by the increase in turnout due to female suffrage. The effects are quite large." Click Here for details.
Although this is a politically incorrect observation, it’s clear that the timeline of our countries move towards the Nanny State parallels woman’s suffrage and the increase in women’s participation in US politics. The fact is if we look at our rights we see that since women received the "right" to vote the results is a massive loss of everybody’s other rights:
1. The right to life is under siege, not just for the unborn, but for disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already. In many parts of the country you can’t even eat what you want (but these restrictions are for your own good)
3. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
4. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
5. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
6. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
7. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an "enemy combatant" by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
8. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family "courts", the tax "courts" and the immigration "courts", none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
9. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 8.
10. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.
“We The People” was an insult to the Ruling Class. People wanting power have been working over 200 years to re-concentrate control in the USA. Because women think emotionally more than rationally, this has been and is a tool, through “democratic” processes, to remove individual property and other rights for our own good. I’m not saying there is any grand conspiracy to re-establish centralized power, but just playing on women’s emotions is an effective tool that those seeking power or already in power, effectively use; thus the slow march to tyranny is enabled by women’s suffrage and political participation. The need for a husband has been replaced by government, thus fewer marriages and women vote increasingly to give more power to government not individuals, as this makes them more secure and less dependent upon any individual. When you value security over liberty, you will lose liberty. This is a historic fact, and so is the fact that in general women value their security over their liberty.
This article will be attacked on emotional not rational grounds, women, and feminized men will respond emotionally and not look at it rationally. It will not be effective in changing the attitudes of feminine thinkers as this is a dialectic article. Feminine thinkers respond to and are generally convinced by rhetoric not dialectic discussions. This is evidenced by the feminine response to further restrict gun rights after a heinous crime like the mass murder in Aurora Colorado, ignoring the less emotional but thousands of times more frequent use of firearms by people to stop crime without even firing a shot, rational cost benefit analysis was not and is not used in looking at firearms. To Feminine thinkers it is more important to “feel” safe, than to have the responsibility for their own self protection. This places the burden of protection on their provider not themselves, hence they want to grant their provider more power. More people that assume and grant the government the role of provider and protector, the less freedom everybody will have. Thus we see the slow march towards tyranny in the USA directly parallels women’s suffrage and their increased power in politics.