Saturday, August 19, 2006

Finally, someone who gets it!

I am the first to admit I'm not the best at articulating the ideas I'm trying to get across. Lucky for me, Justine Nicholas has already done the work. Her essay, The New Feminisim, is a brief but wonderful introduction to libertarian feminism. I am linking it here with the hope that some of my readers - particularly the lefty feminists - will consider the ideas Nicholas presents. I pasted a snippet below, but the entire essay is a must-read.

To comply with legislation, companies and other organizations hired many women for low- and lower-middle-level positions from which they were never promoted. Consequently, women still don’t have anything like the "old boy’s network" to help them advance.

As the political and legal landscape I’ve described was taking shape, a few companies decided, on their own accord, to adapt more female-friendly policies such as child care leave. They realized that by excluding "the 51% minority," they were denying themselves some very valuable workers. What smart executive doesn’t want the best and brightest people available working with, or for, him or her? Eventually, I think, most companies would have had to come to such a realization, for the growth in areas such as high technology would outpace universities’ ability to turn out qualified male graduates.

What we ended up with, instead, were lots of companies hiring "token" females and a loss of opportunities for women – particularly poor single mothers – to rise out of poverty. The only alternative for many of them, under the circumstances I’ve described, is government handouts. And, as we’ve seen, it’s hard to devise a better way to keep people "in their place."

And one more point I must add:
The fact of the matter is that legislators (Even today, most are still male.) wouldn’t have such power over us if governments didn’t gain the wherewithal to pass or abolish laws regulating our private lives. They wouldn’t be able to exert such control over us if they didn’t have the symbiotic relationships that they have with the medical establishment.
Now ladies, I know many of you just love the FDA so much. But the reality is that we wouldn't have to fight for over-the-counter access to emergency contraception if we didn't give the state this power in the first place.

I just love this post. The posters on Feministe seem just the opposite.
I agree with the vast majority of what you said however I think that the FDA does serve a good purpose though. If there was no vetting system for all the various drugs and medications the market would be flooded with snake oil cures and many products that do more harm than good. For instance, there are some products that alleviate symptoms for a while but in the end they cause long term damage and the patient might actually be worse off.

Maybe I'm libertarian-lite....

Libertarian lite is fine. I am between Republican and Libertarian. About 3/4 Libertarian.

Republican is way too uptight but Libertarian sometimes has the problems you mentioned
I can understand being libertarian-lite. I probably fall into that category on some issues too.

If I remember correctly the three things Adam Smith though that government could fund were 1) roads and highways, 2) education in-part (not completely free), and 3) a strong military. There could be one more, but I let a friend borrow the book where this is referenced and it looks like I'm not getting it back. My point is that the father of free market theory himself can be considered libertarian-lite.

I initially thought the idea of eliminating the FDA was crazy. Then I asked myself why I accpet without question that the FDA has my best interests in mind. I now think that private companies could offer protection against harmful drugs better than the FDA.

Most consumers don't know how to research a new drug themselves. But let's say company X comes up with a new drug and wants to sell it. X will pay company Y, a research company, to determine whether they believe the drug is safe. Company Y gives the drug its approval, which is listed right on the package "certified by company Y" or something like that. Consumers know not to by a drug that is not certified by company Y, or one of its respected competitors, company Z. Companies would do this because in each case, it would be in their best interests.

What you said is interesting. We already have many private vetting agencies and they work just fine. The quality of an orginization is based upon the quality of its people.

This is where culture becomes so important. A culture of excellence & competance will produce superior results. This is a no brainer but gets lost among much of the noise today.

I have always been a fan of the Roman and British Imperial periods. The adhearence to professionalism is important wheather you are a soldier a scientist, a politician or a drummer.

The left in this country is encouraging us to sink into a sea of fear and over sensitive emotion with emotive self gratification for its own sake. Fear of giving offense has almost ground us into complete inaction, unless it is the cause dejour. The ability to intellegently debate is being suppressed as either harsh, offensive, insensitive, or too much trouble. An itellegent debate can have opposing sides but can only be debated if the parties have some abilty to restrain the urge to run teary eyed to the bathroom everytime something slightly threatening to their world view is presented.

I am a Libertarian because it is more free but also is more competitive and brings out the best in all of us. Also because I am something of an adrenaline junkie and feel imprisoned by the strong disaproval of the nanny left to strong expressions of free choice and individuality
These days, I think the right wing is more like what you describe, Steve. No flexibility. No room to stray from the party line. No room for internal debate like there is among liberals.

And the right has its own nanny-statism, only it's directed toward corporations, not individuals. How does libertarianism address corporate welfare?
Libertarian thought detests corporate welfare. It dislikes government of all forms but feels a little is a nessasary evil.

Corporations above a certain size become like a government. Group think in the left is hidden while it is open in the right and therefore so easy to see. Libertarians are more like pre Teddy Roosevelt liberals.

A company like GM might as well be a government. However small and medium sized business free of the shackles of government regulation function the best.

I am a libertarian not a member of the right. Yes the right has its own group think but like I said it is more visible.
Interesting post. I suspect we don;t agree about some things, though I do agree with your view that, say, when the AFL CIO polls on gender related issues, focusing on legal change alone is not only stupid but insidious.Protectionism all over again.

Republican views, though, seem to me straightforwardly anti-woman. And, by that I mean anti-women of all classes, races, gender, religions, sexual orientations etc. Democrats, of course, are just imitation republicans at this point, which is sad.

Anyway, its blog day 2006 and I posted your site among those that I am new to reading. . . .
Thanks for reading, Bibliochef. Don't worry about me getting all Republican on you, though. They scare me too!
I've been to the Lew Rockwell site. Justine Nicholas's piece does seem interesting (FYI, Justine is a male-to-female transsexual). But a lot of those commentators are plain loopy. This one Tricia Shore woman was a classic conservative crazy, sniping in one piece about how feminists don't want women staying at home. Tricia, honey, feminists don't penalize women for staying at home with the kids. Lots of of stay at home moms are feminists. Get out of the 1970s. They've also got Pat Buchanan there, and some other goofballs. The only one I respect is Karen Kwiatkowski.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?