Mailvox: why do what you do

Angelbeast expresses a degree of annoyance:

Forgive me for venting my frustration on you, but I’m finding you very long on pointing out the problems, but short on issuing forth viable solutions. If there are no viable solutions, why waste the time to vent? Why not just broker deals for nice houses in Beliz to those who see the coming sunami of doom ?

Or is there another reason you continue to point out the latest fallen brick from our nation’s spiritual wall? Are you trying to pull the last few out as firebrands from a fire? Do you even know why you post what you post?

While I am very sympathetic to Angelbeast’s point here, I take some issue with the notion that it is of no value to diagnose problems, regardless of whether or not one has a solution to offer. Considering how very few people currently agree with me with regards to the mere existence of the problems, still less their nature and extent, I don’t think that a continued focus on the problems is inappropriate.

While I have given a few solutions to various specific problems over the past few years, I find that I very much dislike the natural tendency of people to argue about solutions they find distasteful, especially when the solutions are largely theoretical anyhow. In any event, I believe that the larger problems we currently face are usually caused by the public and government reaction to perceived and pre-packaged crises, therefore the correct solution to most of these problems is to do nothing.

For example, the best short-term solution to the Iraqi problem is to knock off the heads of the various parties struggling for power and then pull out. The internecine strife will keep the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Iranians busy for at least three years and quite possibly more. The best long-term solution to the terrorism problem is to admit that there is no solution for it, nor will there ever be as long as the existence of the terrorists gives our government an excuse to do what it seeks most, expand. (Umberto Eco wrote an essay about the symbiotic nature of terrorists and supranational interests called Striking at the Heart of the State back in 1983, describing it as a natural biological consequence of multinational rule.) The only aspect of it that can reasonably expected to reduce the terrorist “risk” is addressing the immigration issue (intermediate-term) and the demographic issue (long-term). Just to give two examples, anyhow.

Do I know why I post what I post? Not always. I don’t even know why I write the columns I write most of the time. Next week could be anything from an overdue interview with Tucker Max – except I still haven’t sent him the questions – to a critique of Ricardo’s defense of free trade based on comparative advantage.

I don’t have any particular goals here except to perhaps persuade a few people to open their eyes to what is happening around them. If history moves on waves of mass human emotion as the evidence suggests is the case, then there is very little that any individual can do except to pay enough attention to avoid sitting where the next big wave is going to land. Libertarians are supposed to be idealists, but I feel more akin to Juvenal than Jefferson, not so much dreaming of a better world as providing mordant commentary on the last gasps of a murdered Republic.

Republican feministas

Divorce is easier the second time around:

The modern “family issues” are actually about a century old. The first openly “pro-family” president was a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. Between 1900 and about 1912, he wrote and spoke often, and eloquently, about the dangers of a rising divorce rate and a falling birth rate. He celebrated motherhood and fatherhood as the most important human tasks, and described the true marriage as “a partnership of the soul, the spirit and the mind, no less than of the body.” He blasted as “foes of our household” the birth control movement, equity feminism, eugenics, and liberal Christianity.

However, the Rough Rider was the only prominent Republican of his time to think and talk this way. The dominant wing of the GOP tilted in favor of the banks, the great industries, and–perhaps more surprisingly–the feminist movement. Indeed, as early as 1904, the National Association of Manufacturers had formed an alliance with the feminists, for they shared an interest in moving women out of their homes and into the paid labor market. When the feminists reorganized as the National Woman’s party in 1917, the manufacturers’ association apparently provided secret financial support. More openly, Republican leaders embraced the feminists’ proposed Equal Rights Amendment, first advanced in Congress in 1923. The GOP was also the first major party to endorse the ERA in its platform.

Social conservatives have been getting suckered by the Republican Party as long as I can remember, but this is what comes of putting your faith in government rather than the hearts of men. As Teddy Roosevelt was ultimately led to leave the Republican Party and openly oppose it, Christian conservatives will either find themselves following his example or finding themselves opposed to national sovereignty, individual freedom and the family.

It was interesting to note how the author brings up the same wage stagnation created by middle class women entering the work force en masse I have mentioned in the past. He approaches the matter from a different angle, but the result is the same. For a single 75k median wage earned by the husband, we have substituted two wages combining for that same amount, less the annual cost of child care and an additional commute. A fool’s trade-off, to be sure, but there is copious evidence that representative democracy is a system designed to take advantage of the short-sighted and the unwise.

Why not just seize them at birth?

Illinois decides that 13 years of indoctrination is insufficient:

By the time they start kindergarten, many children are already 18 months behind. That – along with studies showing that money invested when kids are 3 or 4 years old helps them graduate or keeps them out of jail – is one reason states are starting to take a much harder look at funding education before they get to kindergarten.

Last month, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) proposed an initiative that would make the state the first in the US to offer universal preschool to 3-year-olds.

They’ll barely be able to read or do math, and they’ll be useless for anything but mindless office servitude, but at least they’ll graduate from high school! The next step, obviously, will be universal college, in order to keep children safely ensconsced in their propaganda cocoons from three to twenty-three.

After this long pupation they will emerge at last into the light of the worker’s paradise as a pretty, pretty, red butterfly, and with about the same attention span and ability to think as the insect variety.

In case this is too subtle, let me spell it out for you. If you sentence your children to public school, regardless of how “excellent” your local one is supposed to be or how “wonderful” the teachers and the facilities are, you are an idiot. And not having an easy alternative because you’re a single parent or whatever doesn’t make you any less of an idiot, it just means your idiocy is dictated by circumstance instead of choice. Those circumstances may or may not be your fault, but it’s not as if a literal idiot asked to be born that way either.

I am growing increasingly unsympathetic towards my fellow Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike. This ploy by Illinois is only one of the many, many examples of how Americans so richly deserve what they are getting now and what they will be experiencing in the near future. Run to the man on the white horse; he will trample you with hooves shod with blood and iron and you will call it salvation.