Does anyone have any good examples, articles, books, etc. that show how capitalism and the free market promote social progress (i.e. women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, general tolerance, equality, etc.)?
I'm particularly interested in how Austrian/libertarian economics can be shown to be the most effective form of feminist economics.
Here's a few links that may be of some interest to you:
WendyMcElroy.com
Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?
Rad Geek People's Daily
Equality: The Unknown Ideal
Austro-Athenian Empire
Hope this helps!
Agora! Anarchy! Action!
Here's a Walter Block's lecture on descrimination and stuff -- make sure the brain is engaged while watching ;) :
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Freiheit: Does anyone have any good examples, articles, books, etc. that show how capitalism and the free market promote social progress (i.e. women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, general tolerance, equality, etc.)? I'm particularly interested in how Austrian/libertarian economics can be shown to be the most effective form of feminist economics.
Creative Destruction is about how capitalism changes culture (and why this can help society progress).
"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." -Milton Friedman
"It is a mistake to think businessmen are more immoral than politicians." -John Maynard Keynes
Freiheit:Does anyone have any good examples, articles, books, etc. that show how capitalism and the free market promote social progress (i.e. women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, general tolerance, equality, etc.)?
Cultural Marxism isn't progress. In fact, it's a house of cards that, like classical Marxism, is propped up by a coercive state.
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
What exactly do you mean by women's/minority/gay rights &c.? That the members of these groups should have some rights in addition to the ones that I, white male 18-49, should have; or that their rights qua individuals are not being fully respected (in which case the terms are superfluous)?
And I don't even want to know what "feminist economics" is.
I HATE PAPER
Byzantine: Cultural Marxism isn't progress. In fact, it's a house of cards that, like classical Marxism, is propped up by a coercive state.
Spot on. I love the word progress since you can never reach your goals because the goalposts keep shifting. Once we have an "equal" society we can progress to natural hierarchy but that wouldn't be progress in there eyes.
The best feminist economics is feminist economics. The school of economics that would do the most to advance everyone's utility and property rights would be the Austrian school.
Segregation and whatnot has never been a widespread problem among free people who choose to associate with each other. If people wish to segregate themselves by race or gender, there is nothing wrong about that. But if government steps in and imposes segregation, that is wrong. In the long run, racism, sexism, nationalism, and other destructive "isms" are done away with in a free market because people realize it is in their own personal interest to mix with people.
But then again, who are you to judge the values of others? If I personally want to live in an all white neighborhood, send my children to an all white school, and associate only with whites, nobody should stand in my way to force me to do otherwise.
"There is only one innate right, freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law." - Immanuel Kant
Byzantine: Freiheit:Does anyone have any good examples, articles, books, etc. that show how capitalism and the free market promote social progress (i.e. women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, general tolerance, equality, etc.)? Cultural Marxism isn't progress. In fact, it's a house of cards that, like classical Marxism, is propped up by a coercive state.
I think that it's definitely a straw man, coming from a very obvious traditionalist conservative bias, to assume that anyone who supports those causes in any way must be a cultural marxist. Would you be willing to accuse Roderick Long and Wendy McElroy of being marxists? Or, perhaps for good reason, would you be willing to grant that these causes haven't always been statist or socialist causes? Or do you genuinely think that pluralism as such is essentially marxism? By the way, I know of quite a few white nationalists who are 100% in line with this viewpoint: "cultural marxism" is the ultimate enemy, and they see it everywhere. Allegedly simply not being a downright racist or a theocrat or a paternalist makes one a "cultural marxist".
Physiocrat: Byzantine: Cultural Marxism isn't progress. In fact, it's a house of cards that, like classical Marxism, is propped up by a coercive state. Spot on. I love the word progress since you can never reach your goals because the goalposts keep shifting. Once we have an "equal" society we can progress to natural hierarchy but that wouldn't be progress in there eyes.
I recently wrote about precisely this problem. While the marxists are wrong in essentially attributing all inequalities to nurture while more or less ignoring nature, traditionalist conservatives such as yourself engage in the opposite error by essentially portraying all inequalities as "natural", as if it's in a vacuum and detached from political and cultural influences. In this view, the status quo and existing inequities can be legitimized and defended as "the natural order", while all proposals for meaningful changes can be brushed off as utopian before even being given a chance to be explored. This is an erroneous and dangerous worldview that breeds stagnation and regress. Progress (in real terms) is not possible without deviation from the norm.
Milton Friedman addresses this question in Free To Choose. He gives a simple analysis that even laymen can understand, but it is strong in it's argument.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Brainpolice: Byzantine: Freiheit:Does anyone have any good examples, articles, books, etc. that show how capitalism and the free market promote social progress (i.e. women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, general tolerance, equality, etc.)? Cultural Marxism isn't progress. In fact, it's a house of cards that, like classical Marxism, is propped up by a coercive state. I think that it's definitely a straw man, coming from a very obvious traditionalist conservative bias, to assume that anyone who supports those causes in any way must be a cultural marxist. Would you be willing to accuse Roderick Long and Wendy McElroy of being marxists? Or, perhaps for good reason, would you be willing to grant that these causes haven't always been statist or socialist causes? Or do you genuinely think that pluralism as such is essentially marxism? By the way, I know of quite a few white nationalists who are 100% in line with this viewpoint: "cultural marxism" is the ultimate enemy, and they see it everywhere. Allegedly simply not being a downright racist or a theocrat or a paternalist makes one a "cultural marxist".
In short, I see no reason why having some degree of sympathy for those causes and being a pluralist automatically makes one a cultural marxist. To my knowledge, cultural marxists believe that literally all existing inequalities between races, classes and genders can be attributed to oppression and various nurture factors. I don't think one has to believe that to support the listed causes, at least understood in context. Cultural marxism is an extreme position, the opposite of the extreme of traditionalist conservatism which essentially proclaims all existing inequalities between said groups to be "natural". Personally, I reject both views as naive.