These roles are only the dying spasms of the nuclear family myth.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:That should get you lynched now.
The neo-victorianians...lynching? How unbecoming!
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Anarchist Cain:I'm sorry but you were stating that domaination and exploition is code for increasing productivity therefore implying that domination is a necesscity for a productive economy or are you stating that other individuals imply this and they are wrong?
The latter.
Anarchist Cain:All deserve their just desserts.
Value is subjective.
Anarchist Cain:These roles are only the dying spasms of the nuclear family myth.
Perhaps but women bringing a baby to term and giving birth, as well as lactating are still material facts of existence. As others have stated, the nuclear family has a role as a petit division of labour. I think a lot of people online have a tainted view based upon western culture, which is not exactly the ideal everyone in the world aims for. Certainly the nuclear and extended family have an important cultural and economic role in Asia.
Anarchist Cain:I've had girlfriends who are completely inept at cooking, while I myself can cook. Social roles are not gender depedent. A man could be a cook, a carer for young children etc.
I'm not sure where the argument lies. I am a great cook and handy with a needle and thread. But there are roles like child birthing that men are not capable of. And while we have less hard physical labour than before, men are still built to handle the rough stuff. Actually, Block has an interesting theory on that. That males are basically the cannon fodder (used for dangerous tasks), and females are the more valuable sex because of their unique role in procreation.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Certainly the nuclear and extended family have an important cultural and economic role in Asia.
Certainly the nuclear and extended family have an important cultural and economic role in Asia.
I'm a big family person. I love family, extended thus included. My son is glued to his mother, my wife. He's only two. When she's not around he's all about me, but when she's around he nearly forgets I exist . I don't know maybe it's my personality she's very nurturing and I tend to not be compared to her. Sometimes though, more recently, he's been veering towards me, maybe he's getting older, or maybe I don't smell as bad...
Preference chatter passes the time...
Biology plays a role at times, males are different than females and the science of it can be fun. Lifting heavy objects may injure the female reproductive organs, as I've heard, so I do that stuff. I pick the weeds in the garden and she cans them. I'd rather do the former, she the latter. Is it because of male or female biological restrictions of course not. Families are awesome though. I love 'em.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
liberty student:The latter.
Ok then we agree. What else is new?
liberty student:Value is subjective.
True, just desserts is receiving what we think we earn and the working towards such goals. So it being subjective isn't a conflict.
liberty student:Perhaps but women bringing a baby to term and giving birth, as well as lactating are still material facts of existence.
Obviously only women can give birth. I conceded this earlier. However after birth there is formula or perhaps we can have the rubber boob like meet the Fockers.
liberty student:As others have stated, the nuclear family has a role as a petit division of labour. I think a lot of people online have a tainted view based upon western culture, which is not exactly the ideal everyone in the world aims for. Certainly the nuclear and extended family have an important cultural and economic role in Asia.
I think it is a disguise for chauvinism. In Asia it is exactly that. In China, Confucius traditional is utiziled for sons to obey fathers, wives to obey husbands and men to obey the king. It is made to include individuals in aggrandizing the social hierarchy established by the state apparatus.
liberty student:But there are roles like child birthing that men are not capable of.
That is a biological role. Not a necessary a social one.
liberty student:And while we have less hard physical labor than before, men are still built to handle the rough stuff.
Men can be 'femine', perhaps you have heard of 'metrosexuals'?
liberty student:That males are basically the cannon fodder (used for dangerous tasks), and females are the more valuable sex because of their unique role in procreation.
Men too are necessary for procreation and women can be used for dangerous tasks.
Anarchist Cain:I think it is a disguise for chauvinism.
Perhaps. My father was one of 7 kids. I have about 20 cousins between both sides. My grandparents helped raise me while my parents worked. My parents helped maintain my grandparents when they got old. I was expected during summer vacations to take my grandfather for walks. I support my parents now when I can and when they need it. As they get older, I will expect to help them further. My sister keeps me on speed dial if she needs help. Is it because I am male? or because I am a useful fellow? She's quite the feminist, but more than happy to let me lift the heavy stuff or pay a bill.
I don't think familial relations are as simple or outmoded as some might believe.
Anarchist Cain:That is a biological role. Not a necessary a social one.
I'm talking about socio-biology. Biology has an important role in determining social relationships.
Anarchist Cain:Men can be 'femine', perhaps you have heard of 'metrosexuals'?
Sure. But I am talking about the physical build of men, is generally more inclined to handle hard labour. Their disposition may vary, but that was never the question (in my mind)
Anarchist Cain:Men too are necessary for procreation and women can be used for dangerous tasks.
True, but men's role in procreation can take one minute, for women, it is a major commitment in time and change in lifestyle. Block reasons that a species that allowed women to do the more dangerous roles may risk the continuity of the species. One man can father hundreds of children, but each woman can only have a limited # of children. Women are the rarer sex in the procreation game.
Anarchist Cain: Stephen Forde:I was thinking more along criminal lines but your argument works too. If flourishing for A directly conflicts with flourishing for B than it can't be the basis of an objective interpersonal ethic because it would lead to conflict and the ethic would be self-contradictory. Why? Violence is, in all situtations but self-defense, a moral wrong. B is immoral if B punches A in the face to get the snow cone machine.
Stephen Forde:I was thinking more along criminal lines but your argument works too. If flourishing for A directly conflicts with flourishing for B than it can't be the basis of an objective interpersonal ethic because it would lead to conflict and the ethic would be self-contradictory.
Why? Violence is, in all situtations but self-defense, a moral wrong. B is immoral if B punches A in the face to get the snow cone machine.
I agree with your argument. But it has nothing to do with flourishing.
Anarchist Cain: Richard Lynn: In 1991 I extended my work on race differences in intelligence to other races. I concluded that the average IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 70. It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment. Apparently American blacks have a higher intelligence simply because they have 'white genes.' Wonderful science. You would forgive me if I don't believe this man.
Richard Lynn: In 1991 I extended my work on race differences in intelligence to other races. I concluded that the average IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 70. It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment.
Apparently American blacks have a higher intelligence simply because they have 'white genes.' Wonderful science. You would forgive me if I don't believe this man.
I think a colder climate has, in the past, produced a greater positive eugenic effect than a warmer climate. Human being's ancestors who have inhabited colder climates are generally more intelligent. This is basically just the theory of evolution applied to human beings.
Anarchist Cain: Stephen Forde:The family is a division of labour. If everyone in the family were equal in terms of what they're bringing to the table, there would be no point to it. I just think that man and women are different and should specialize. This leads to a happier and healthier family. Ah so your argument concerning how should be in power is merely who makes the most money. Strange, I wonder if we were to apply this society what events would transpire? The rich are in power because they are rich. Could the woman not be the ultimate decision maker then if she made more money then the male? Your only qualification for decision maker is who makes more.
Stephen Forde:The family is a division of labour. If everyone in the family were equal in terms of what they're bringing to the table, there would be no point to it. I just think that man and women are different and should specialize. This leads to a happier and healthier family.
Ah so your argument concerning how should be in power is merely who makes the most money. Strange, I wonder if we were to apply this society what events would transpire? The rich are in power because they are rich. Could the woman not be the ultimate decision maker then if she made more money then the male? Your only qualification for decision maker is who makes more.
Bringing to the table doesn't just mean money.
Anarchist Cain: Stephen Forde:If both the man and wife have equal authority, they will fight each other. This should be avoided. I think it is better if the wife dominate the husband than if there is equal authority. So there must be a ruler and a ruled...I'm sorry but are you even a libertarian? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument? That individuals cannot live in harmony without someone telling them what to do.
Stephen Forde:If both the man and wife have equal authority, they will fight each other. This should be avoided. I think it is better if the wife dominate the husband than if there is equal authority.
So there must be a ruler and a ruled...I'm sorry but are you even a libertarian? Do you not see the contradiction in your argument? That individuals cannot live in harmony without someone telling them what to do.
In any organization there are decision-makers and decision-followers.
Anarchist Cain:Sounds like your rearing up for a good relationship. If you are not dominating her, then she is dominating you. One has to ask how you could ever survive in a libertarian society without actually dominating your friends, family and interactions with other traders. And what are these biological reasons? Merely because we are bigger?
Again, organization.
Anarchist Cain: Stephen Forde:Now, what's wrong with 'celebrating diversity'? And why are you being so 'intolerant'? I'm just 'expressing myself' after all. Men and women are different, however to take those differences and say 'well because you are this, that means you have to do this' or 'because you are this, and I am that, that means I control you/ am better then you.'
Stephen Forde:Now, what's wrong with 'celebrating diversity'? And why are you being so 'intolerant'? I'm just 'expressing myself' after all.
Men and women are different, however to take those differences and say 'well because you are this, that means you have to do this' or 'because you are this, and I am that, that means I control you/ am better then you.'
Actually, it would only really work if the advantages are mutually recognized. And it has nothing to do with who's better. Most of your post has been strawmans and non-sequiturs.
When I look around, I see a world full of problems. Divorce rates are over 50% in Canada. There's a reason why tradition became the norm. It withstood the test of time and proved its superior form. I think that if people are going to be successful in raising a family nowadays, they have to be very careful and think things through. Marriage is somewhat like a business partnership and one must make sure they find someone who they are compatible with. Also, one should keep in mind that people change. My arguments are just rough ideas. I'm fairly open minded. I just have a strong conservative prejudice.
Spence: You ever kill anybody?
Sam: I hurt somebody's feelings once.
liberty student:Stephen Forde and like many Hoppeans, he's not exactly the warmest when making his case
I'll have to work on that. I certainly don't want to come across that way. It's not how I come across in private conversations. Can you elaborate a little more? It's hard to tell on the web what others think because you can't really see an emotional response, just what they type and what they don't.
Going straight to IQ test results for blacks, bringing up eugenics. Hoppeans have a hammer, and tend to see every discussion as a nail. I quite like it myself, I don't suffer from Hoppephobia.
wombatron: liberty student: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:I asked because Rasmussen and Den Uyl might not even be aware of the thick/thin debate and certainly don't use that terminology. They also aren't left-libertarians. Veatch died before the thick/thin debate and wasn't a left-libertarian. I don't think Sciabarra is very left. I don't consider myself to be predominantly either left or right on the cultural/socio-economic continuum. Ok, so I definitely do not mean the Aristotelians at large then. Thanks for clearing that up! They are thick libertarians, though, unless I am very, very mistaken. And the point that I am trying to make is about thick libertarianism broadly conceived, not just left-libertarianism
liberty student: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:I asked because Rasmussen and Den Uyl might not even be aware of the thick/thin debate and certainly don't use that terminology. They also aren't left-libertarians. Veatch died before the thick/thin debate and wasn't a left-libertarian. I don't think Sciabarra is very left. I don't consider myself to be predominantly either left or right on the cultural/socio-economic continuum. Ok, so I definitely do not mean the Aristotelians at large then. Thanks for clearing that up!
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:I asked because Rasmussen and Den Uyl might not even be aware of the thick/thin debate and certainly don't use that terminology. They also aren't left-libertarians. Veatch died before the thick/thin debate and wasn't a left-libertarian. I don't think Sciabarra is very left. I don't consider myself to be predominantly either left or right on the cultural/socio-economic continuum.
Ok, so I definitely do not mean the Aristotelians at large then. Thanks for clearing that up!
They are thick libertarians, though, unless I am very, very mistaken. And the point that I am trying to make is about thick libertarianism broadly conceived, not just left-libertarianism
To varying degrees, consciously so or not. It's in the nature of being an Aristotelian I think. Rasmussen, Den Uyl, and Veatch are generally right-libertarian minarchists I think though. Sciabarra is harder to categorize. Being a thick libertarian does not entail paternalism. Anyone making this charge should read Long and R&DU and my own work. Even Aristotle recognized the epistemic difficulties in judging virtue or vice in someone else and libertarians are more pluralistic and cautious than he was. Human flourishing is not one and the same for everyone (there are both universal and particular aspects), nor are the virtues rigid deontological rules that require the same of everyone regardless of who they are and their specific circumstances.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
I disagree with radical feminist ideas that there exists no hardwired differences in intelligence and motivation between men and women and that pornography causes men to treat women like sex objects.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Lilburne: wombatron:What I mean by politics is "the joint pursuit of eudaimonia by equals"'; basically, social ethics. Okay, so you have the term "social ethics" to characterize your doctrines. Must you also take "politics" as well? There is an enormous body of work that is concerned solely with matters of the state and jurisprudence. Despite what you might like to believe, THAT is what is traditionally referred to as "politics". If you're going to take two names for your field of study, what does that leave for the study of matters of the state and jurisprudence?
wombatron:What I mean by politics is "the joint pursuit of eudaimonia by equals"'; basically, social ethics.
Okay, so you have the term "social ethics" to characterize your doctrines. Must you also take "politics" as well? There is an enormous body of work that is concerned solely with matters of the state and jurisprudence. Despite what you might like to believe, THAT is what is traditionally referred to as "politics". If you're going to take two names for your field of study, what does that leave for the study of matters of the state and jurisprudence?
I don't know if there's disagreement between myself and Wombatron on this, but... I recommend reading chapters 6 & 7 of my dissertation on this score. The problem is that politics plays an important role in Aristotle's ethical and political thought and it isn't entirely statist. In fact, in those chapters I argue that the state is antithetical to the essential means and purpose of politics: discourse and deliberation between equals (in authority, a la Locke) in joint pursuit of well-being. This requires liberty and precludes the state. Plato, Aristotle and subsequent thinkers were wrong to identify the state with politics. Accepting the state introduces tension into Aristotle's conception of politics and ensures that the means (discourse and deliberation) and the goal (well-being) will be corrupted and undermined. Anarchists want to do away with politics in the statist sense altogether, but I don't see why we should give up that term "politics" while opposing the state. For more information, see my dissertation chapters.
Lilburne:The widespread failure to see that dichotomy may be the chief historical cause of state encroachments. From that view, you can so easily see libertarianism as so thick that it bulges over the bounds of liberty altogether.
There is an alternative to viewing vices and crimes as two entirely separate and mutually exclusive categories, on the one hand, and any vices being fair game for criminalization, on the other. In fact, it's impossible to take the former view coherently. Surely, murder and theft are vices - among the most socially destructive kind. Standard libertarian rights-based reasoning tells us which vices can be legitimately prohibited and which can't - those that can are the ones that involve the threat or use of initiatory physical force (aka aggression, i.e, those that violate the rights to life, liberty and property).
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:To varying degrees, consciously so or not. It's in the nature of being an Aristotelian I think. Rasmussen, Den Uyl, and Veatch are generally right-libertarian minarchists I think though. Sciabarra is harder to categorize. Being a thick libertarian does not entail paternalism. Anyone making this charge should read Long and R&DU and my own work. Even Aristotle recognized the epistemic difficulties in judging virtue or vice in someone else and libertarians are more pluralistic and cautious than he was. Human flourishing is not one and the same for everyone (there are both universal and particular aspects), nor are the virtues rigid deontological rules that require the same of everyone regardless of who they are and their specific circumstances.
I'm in complete agreement. I was trying to point out some of the universal aspects.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
And as far as the "arbitrary personal preference" argument against left-libertarianism goes (and thick libertarianism in general), I think that this is at least the start of an answer to it:
Gary Chartier: For some people, I suspect, non-aggression plays an epistemically foundational role: nothing is more basic. For them, warranting leftist concerns will either have to mean showing that other moral concerns are equally basic or that they follow in one way or another from the one foundational tenet, the NAP. For other people, more basic moral theories—Kantian, Aristotelian, consequentialist, or whatever—will be treated as foundational, and the question will be whether both the NAP and some set of leftist commitments can be seen to follow from these theories. And, of course, for other people, the whole notion of epistemic foundations will seem to be mistaken, and the best way to think about moral principles (and other convictions) will be to see them as linked in mutually supporting fashion in some kind of web, which one can enter at multiple points. My own inclination would be largely to endorse this last approach, though with the recognition that, even on this sort of coherentist model, not all starting points are equally acceptable, and without endorsing what seems to have been Quine’s view that, in principle, everything is up for grabs (I am disinclined to think that non-contradiction is, for instance). In any case, though, the claim that the only conceivable link between leftism and libertarianism is, or could be, a matter of aribtrary preference, unrelated to and unconstrained by principle, seems pretty unimaginative to me.
For some people, I suspect, non-aggression plays an epistemically foundational role: nothing is more basic. For them, warranting leftist concerns will either have to mean showing that other moral concerns are equally basic or that they follow in one way or another from the one foundational tenet, the NAP. For other people, more basic moral theories—Kantian, Aristotelian, consequentialist, or whatever—will be treated as foundational, and the question will be whether both the NAP and some set of leftist commitments can be seen to follow from these theories. And, of course, for other people, the whole notion of epistemic foundations will seem to be mistaken, and the best way to think about moral principles (and other convictions) will be to see them as linked in mutually supporting fashion in some kind of web, which one can enter at multiple points. My own inclination would be largely to endorse this last approach, though with the recognition that, even on this sort of coherentist model, not all starting points are equally acceptable, and without endorsing what seems to have been Quine’s view that, in principle, everything is up for grabs (I am disinclined to think that non-contradiction is, for instance). In any case, though, the claim that the only conceivable link between leftism and libertarianism is, or could be, a matter of aribtrary preference, unrelated to and unconstrained by principle, seems pretty unimaginative to me.
(source)
Hi Geoffrey,
I've read all of chapter 7, save the last 6 pages (I need to get to bed). It was exceedingly interesting! What you have done in synthesizing basic Aristotelean political theory with liberal political theory is the same kind of thing that I would like to work toward in synthesizing David Hume's philosophy of mind with libertarian moral theory. My first attempt at this is here.
Although I agree with a great deal of what you said, it's probably more fruitful to raise points on which I disagree. I will introduce two such points now, and try to flesh them out tomorrow (again, the bed factor).
I am doubtful whether the modern eudaimonist's conception of eudaimonia is actually present in Aristotle's writings. I suspect he meant it as the ultimate end of any given action or artifice, and that different actions/artifices will have different eudaimonias. I don't think he meant it as a general well-being, as most scholars do. This suspicion stems from a different interpretation of certain passages that I have.
And I think that what you call politics, as something that doesn't necessarily involve the state, concerns what Aristotle calls a "koinônia" (community or partnership). I believe "state" (or at least "city-state") is a near-exact English translation of polis. So I don't think it is quite right to say that Aristotle was wrong to identify the state with politics, any more than saying the state should not be associated with "the science of statecraft". Again, this difference stems from a different interpretation of a certain passage, the text of which I will try to analyze tomorrow.
It was a highly stimulating chapter, and I look forward to reading the last 6 pages.
Best Regards,
Lilburne
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
wombatron: And as far as the "arbitrary personal preference" argument against left-libertarianism goes (and thick libertarianism in general), I think that this is at least the start of an answer to it: Gary Chartier: For some people, I suspect, non-aggression plays an epistemically foundational role: nothing is more basic. For them, warranting leftist concerns will either have to mean showing that other moral concerns are equally basic or that they follow in one way or another from the one foundational tenet, the NAP. For other people, more basic moral theories—Kantian, Aristotelian, consequentialist, or whatever—will be treated as foundational, and the question will be whether both the NAP and some set of leftist commitments can be seen to follow from these theories. And, of course, for other people, the whole notion of epistemic foundations will seem to be mistaken, and the best way to think about moral principles (and other convictions) will be to see them as linked in mutually supporting fashion in some kind of web, which one can enter at multiple points. My own inclination would be largely to endorse this last approach, though with the recognition that, even on this sort of coherentist model, not all starting points are equally acceptable, and without endorsing what seems to have been Quine’s view that, in principle, everything is up for grabs (I am disinclined to think that non-contradiction is, for instance). In any case, though, the claim that the only conceivable link between leftism and libertarianism is, or could be, a matter of aribtrary preference, unrelated to and unconstrained by principle, seems pretty unimaginative to me. (source)
I thought the issue was cultural & social preferences being attached to libertarianism by individuals & in the process, possibly distorting libertarianism (neolibertarianism, paleo-cons, left-libertaians, right-libertarians / Hoppeans, etc.), not about whether or not the "link" between leftism & libertarianism is arbitrary or not.
Even if it were, the ending line "...seems pretty unimaginative to me" is a polite ad-hominem & doesn't really amount to a good argument, imo.
wombatron: And, of course, for other people, the whole notion of epistemic foundations will seem to be mistaken, and the best way to think about moral principles (and other convictions) will be to see them as linked in mutually supporting fashion in some kind of web, which one can enter at multiple points.
And, of course, for other people, the whole notion of epistemic foundations will seem to be mistaken, and the best way to think about moral principles (and other convictions) will be to see them as linked in mutually supporting fashion in some kind of web, which one can enter at multiple points.
The occurrence of one seeing patterns where one wishes to see patterns comes to mind here, a little.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
@ Wombie
Stephen Forde: wombatron:This is why aggression is wrong; fundamentally, it is the control of one person over another (you can think of property as being an extension of self in this situation). By initiating the use of force, or the threat of the use of force, you are imposing yourself on a person and preventing them from flourshing. Everyone prefers to have as large an income as possible and to avoid the disutility of labour. Flourishing for one person, can come at the expense of another's flourishing. Personally, I find Mises' Rightly Understood Interests argument far more convincing. wombatron:What's more, you yourself are impeding your own flourshing. As rational, social, and political animals, humans have the potential to communicate and interact peacefully, and without the use of aggression. Given that this potential is uniquely human, and a universal part of everyone's natural end, aggressors, to the extent that they are using aggression, are not flourishing. It seems that you are equivocating between 'potential' and 'flourishing.' Human beings also have the potential to commit suicide, but you wouldn't consider that to be flourishing. Now, I will admit that there is something to natural end ethics. I haven't read enough to be knowledgeable about it. But, some of the authors seem to jump to hasty conclusions, and I wonder if they are completely wrong about what it means to flourish.
wombatron:This is why aggression is wrong; fundamentally, it is the control of one person over another (you can think of property as being an extension of self in this situation). By initiating the use of force, or the threat of the use of force, you are imposing yourself on a person and preventing them from flourshing.
Everyone prefers to have as large an income as possible and to avoid the disutility of labour. Flourishing for one person, can come at the expense of another's flourishing. Personally, I find Mises' Rightly Understood Interests argument far more convincing.
wombatron:What's more, you yourself are impeding your own flourshing. As rational, social, and political animals, humans have the potential to communicate and interact peacefully, and without the use of aggression. Given that this potential is uniquely human, and a universal part of everyone's natural end, aggressors, to the extent that they are using aggression, are not flourishing.
It seems that you are equivocating between 'potential' and 'flourishing.' Human beings also have the potential to commit suicide, but you wouldn't consider that to be flourishing.
Now, I will admit that there is something to natural end ethics. I haven't read enough to be knowledgeable about it. But, some of the authors seem to jump to hasty conclusions, and I wonder if they are completely wrong about what it means to flourish.
Help! Gravity won't let me flourish.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Anarchist Cain:I've had girlfriends who are completely inept at cooking, while I myself can cook
Yeah, but after all, I'd bet a big deal that they could bench press more than you.
liberty student: My sister keeps me on speed dial if she needs help. Is it because I am male? or because I am a useful fellow? She's quite the feminist, but more than happy to let me lift the heavy stuff or pay a bill.
Fool she is exploiting you for your labor! I jest. I think she keeps you around because of a conceptulization of brother. You are, perhaps, her psychologicalist, her mentor, advisor etc. Obviously there are few in this group who deny you are an intelligent individual. That to can be a factor. However, I think, and this is pure speculation, that the last reason for calling you is simply because you have a distinct set of sexual organs.
liberty student:I don't think familial relations are as simple or outmoded as some might believe.
Because I deny the nuclear family doesn't mean I deny family itself.
liberty student:I'm talking about socio-biology. Biology has an important role in determining social relationships.
Perhaps a more elaborated example will make me see what you are saying.
liberty student:Sure. But I am talking about the physical build of men, is generally more inclined to handle hard labour. Their disposition may vary, but that was never the question (in my mind)
Strength is now anarchonistic. It matters not how strong you are in the coming technological age...but how smart you are. Also I would like to highlight the growing obesity problem in western nations making hard labor more difficult to assert.
liberty student:True, but men's role in procreation can take one minute, for women, it is a major commitment in time and change in lifestyle. Block reasons that a species that allowed women to do the more dangerous roles may risk the continuity of the species. One man can father hundreds of children, but each woman can only have a limited # of children. Women are the rarer sex in the procreation game.
But yet, to my knowledge, there are more women in the world. Perhaps we can find some middle ground over this specific argument because I do see your point about women not being able to constantly produce children. Perhaps you are a fan of Futurama, but there is a character on there nameZapp Brannigan who makes a funny quote:
'Hmm, 198 billion babies in a few weeks. We'll need an army of super virile men scoring round the clock! Kif, clear my schedule!'
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap