The Outcome Fetish: Examining the Left.

I maintain the view that leftism, as defined by social liberalism, progressivism, socialism and communism, are more concerned with outcome than opportunity, where the right doesn’t care much about outcome at all, and would cease to use it as a proof of in-opportunity. For the right, as defined by conservatism, classical liberalism, libertarianism and protectionism, inequality is a part of life so long as no inequity has taken place.

Equality, and Egalitarianism.

I used to see egalitarianism only in terms of base equality of opportunity. It is not a bad thing in my mind that there are rich and there are poor, nor is it a bad thing that some are better off than others; so long as that richness is achieved and that poorness is achieved, and so long as one did not create the other. However, I have recently been told that this belief makes me un-egalitarian. I have been told that an egalitarian speaks in terms of distributive equality, backed up by questions used to define this ideology; “Are all persons of equal moral worth? Is variation in income and wealth just?” My answer is no, and “it depends”. Certainly morality should not be tied to conversations of wealth, not because wealth is immoral, but because it has nothing to do with it; wealth is a means of survival and the acquisition of luxury, am I moral or immoral for owning a television? Am I moral or immoral for starving to death or binge-eating? There is no moral action involved.

I think the left has taken this term hostage, and uses it to justify a redistribution of outcome. And I will explain, in simple terms, why outcome is irrelevant; If I get an A in an exam, and you get a C, has inequity taken place? Is it fair to say that because I have a better upbringing, on discipline and hard work, and because I have a more stable home life, that my A is undeserved, and that too, your lack of these things makes your C undeserved? Should the solution be to give us both Bs? No, because we took the same test, with the same examiner, with the same teacher, and with the same textbook. Or what if we had the same upbringing? Would we both receive As, or is there a disparity in intelligence or enthusiasm or memory?

It is the right that asks these questions, it is the left that assumes if one person received an A, and the other a C, then injustice must have taken place.

Priority.

Prioritarianism, a subset of utilitarianism, is originally defined that “benefiting people matters more the worse off these people are.” A base interpretation of which would imply that anyone in society that is seen as “worse off” should be paid special attention to, although some modern prioritarians have interpreted this as being more about the value of the benefit itself. I would argue that it is exactly the base interpretation the left has adopted (and maybe adopted falsely). It is this argument that is used to justify welfare states and socialised healthcare. Ironically of course both of these hurt the people who are  worst off, but unintentionally (from the welfare cliff to a demand-pull as people who can afford healthcare unnecessarily drain the resources).

On this, the progressive movement falls into identity politics, on “marginalised” people, a term which implies motive when is really only used to mean “minority” characteristics, and they assume that because of these characteristics, whether black, or disabled, or trans, or gay, or Muslim, or women (even though that is not a minority group), these people are worse off in society and therefore must be protected. More moderate, social liberals however fall into a similar trap of collectivism only on an economic level. They use wealth as a measurement of need, if you do not have money, by definition you “need” it, and if you do, by definition, you don’t “need” it (while all the while claiming there is more to life than money). Well that isn’t true for one reason, and it wouldn’t matter if it was for another. First, it depends entirely on what people spend their money on, a rich man may need money to start a business (which may require more than he has, although he would still be considered rich), and needs to make money from that business in order to sustain the investment, to avoid losing money – or perhaps to appeal to the humanitarians reading this, he needs money for a certain cause. Equally, a poor man may not need money if he spends it unnecessarily, also he may not be looking to make money but just to live within his means – this brings us to the reason why it wouldn’t matter either way. It will never be true on a collective level that those who need money should be given it, nor those who don’t need money should be impeded from earning more; this is because for some people earning your money is important (and living within your means), for others the opportunity to have more money can work as an incentive.

Take corporations for example, the corporation tax is designed and morally defended because, as a recent panel on BBC question time discussed, “why should the rich be getting richer?” What is not understood is that repealing or lowering tax on businesses and corporations incentivises them to invest in that country, to do more business in that country, which ultimately trickles down with job opportunities and lower prices (because the supply is easier to meet).

So back to the question of outcome, if outcome is greater across the whole, it doesn’t matter if there is a disparity in outcome individually, especially if no disparity may reduce the outcome across the whole. This is why providing opportunities to everyone, exempt from priority, can greater benefit everyone.

Privilege.

Privilege is one of those words used to invert the prioritarian stance by focussing on those who are “best off”. Again the distinction can be drawn between the progressive identity politics, that being white is a privilege or being male, and the social liberal view on economic privilege. First, to get the former out of the way, any notion that someone is “privileged” because of an arbitrary characteristic is as collectivist, and as bigoted, as saying that someone is a victim because of an arbitrary characteristic, remember the whole “judge people not on the colour of their skin but the content of the character”? It also operates on the assumption that western countries at least are systemically racist and sexist enough (even ran by black or female politicians) that a poor white man in a rust belt state or working in a factory 13 hours a day is more privileged than some of the most powerful people in the world.

On economic privilege, I would argue that money itself is only a privilege if you have been afforded it (by definition), which is why I find it so unusual how many people who claim that rich people are privileged enter the lottery, which, to win, would be the ultimate privilege. But obviously this is more used in relation to what can be done with the money, that money grants privilege rather than is a privilege itself. In which case… so? Everything people want grants a privilege of some sort, otherwise they wouldn’t want it, so if we’re framing things in terms of privilege, anyone who achieves something is afforded the privilege in question and every one who doesn’t, isn’t. That’s how society works, what’s your solution? Allow people the privilege without the achievement? Wouldn’t that eliminate the need for that achievement?

Going back to the earlier analogy, I want to get an A in order for the privilege of a higher chance of getting into university. If I work hard, and achieve it, and you have not, should you be offered an equally high chance as me of getting into that university? If so, why would I bother trying to achieve an A?

Consequentialism.

The finally topic I want to cover on the left’s desire to resolve “outcome” disparity, is the means by which that resolution is achieved. Consequentialism is a philosophy defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as the belief “that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act.” This view of the ends justifying the means is very dangerous, and something adopted by the left in almost every area of modern leftist policy. It is the politics of morality over rationality.

The more extreme proponents of this view will use it to justify violence in the name of political activism, see UC Berkeley, or warrant the punching of “Nazis” on moral grounds because the action is forgivable by the morality of the actor. Why both of these are dangerous is because anyone can have a different moral opinion, and how often are people referred to as “Nazis” or “white supremacists” unjustly because they’re right wing, or voted for Trump? If the left can make an enemy out of you on moral grounds, even if you’re on their side politically but disagree, it can justify any action to stop you under consequentialism.

Now, think of the two dividing factors I’ve outlined previously, the progressive “identity” line vs. the social liberal “economic” line. Any action, however extreme, which resolves a disparity on race or gender by the progressives will be seen as morally justifiable. And any action which resolves a disparity of income or wealth will be seen by social liberals as morally justifiable. In extreme cases, the former leads to misandry, and anti-white violence (especially if privilege is a defining factor); the latter leads to socialism. In moderate cases however, it would be the use of government policy to affect outcome, which prioritises in favour of the worst off, punishes the privileged, and framed in terms of “equality” to make any refutation of the action or policy comparable to being anti-equality, and therefore immoral (for which action may be taken against you also). This is the recipe for a totalitarian state.

Conclusion.

People say I lack compassion because I’m not a liberal. They say I don’t care about people, that I’m robotic when it comes to how the world should run, and yet I am the only one it seems who would feel bad for a white man who grew up dreaming of success, and maybe holds some more conservative positions, having his money forcibly taken away, refused a job on the grounds of race or gender in the name of “diversity”, told that he only succeeded because of his race or gender or economic upbringing, told he’s privileged and that he should be grateful for all that is being done to him, told that he’s not doing enough to help others, forced into permanent government programs, told that he’s living in a country which benefits him the most, and then called a Nazi for wanting to limit the size of the state.

I think we can find common ground on the protection of people’s rights and freedoms, limiting the size of the state, and wanting truth in the media. But I don’t think any of us can come together until we resolve the dispute between those who want equal opportunity and personal responsibility, and the “morally superior” proprietors of outcome resolution.

Advertisements

The Truth about Feminism.

I was told not long ago that it was never against the law for women to vote, and whilst this is technically true when phrased that way (in Britain, that is, I don’t know about American voting rights), it is not true as the statement might imply that voting rights did not discriminate based on gender. In lieu of learning more about voting rights, it got me thinking about feminism as an ideology, and so I decided to lay out some of my arguments on paper.

We’ll get back to voting rights later on, but first I want to raise a flag at the notion of ‘equal rights’, or at least the phrasing of it that way. I used to tell a joke that goes down poorly, which is that if I was running for office I’d absolutely fight for equal rights, in that nobody has any rights, but equally. Maybe not very funny, but there is a point to be made on that, which is that it seems like people who use the term “equal” to qualify “rights” are making a statement that instead of “we deserve”, “we deserve as much”. It seems like a meaningless distinction except when applied to real examples. By dictionary definition, which is descriptive not prescriptive, feminism is “the advocation of women rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes”. If of course they advocated men’s rights as well it would read “the advocation of equal rights between the sexes”, so by this definition at least it stands on the simple advocation of women’s rights where they have not rights equal.

Obviously this is a pedantic point, so let’s use an example. Consider the right to protect your child’s birth. I don’t think there are many that wouldn’t say abortion is a feminist issue, and ignoring the debate of whether and when an unborn foetus has rights of its own, if a man does not want the woman to have the child, but the woman does, does she have the right to have it anyway? And if so, does the man have the right to abandon her? And would you fight against that man being stigmatised for leaving his child with the same ferocity that you would fight against a woman being stigmatised for aborting her child? If reversed, where the woman does not want it but the man does most feminists would say it’s up to her, “her body, her choice”. This is where the “we deserve as much” becomes important, if the woman has the right to choose whether a child that is mutually hers is born, but the man doesn’t, it is not on the ground of equality of the sexes, and is therefore not a feminist issue, contrary to feminism, it is rather a “we deserve” argument, an argument of women’s rights, not equal rights.

To pair that down, the point is this: feminism either advocates equality in so far as women have fewer rights, beyond that, they advocate only for women’s rights which may even go beyond the rights of men, or it does not advocate abortion (and abortion is not a feminist issue). You decide. I like to think feminists probably do advocate abortion largely, they just don’t advocate equality in areas concerning inequality for men, which outlines my main criticism of the ideology; it is one sided. An egalitarian however would seek to give rights to either gender where they are not equal to the other because an egalitarian advocates equal rights between the sexes, or actually the protection of rights and equality under law.

Let’s go back then to voting rights. So I said at the start that the phrase “it was never against the law in the UK for women to vote” is technically true, this is because it was only a law for about 80 years and even then never explicitly banned women from voting. The argument from feminists that women were not legally allowed to vote is an interpretation of the law, a common one, but still an interpretation. Voting rights were based originally on property, land owners who owned property beyond a certain amount (which was mostly men) were eligible to vote. Before the woman’s suffrage movement, there was a male suffrage movement looking to extend the vote to more people, but even before the first world war some 40% of men still could not vote.

Whilst it wasn’t in law that women could not vote, it was custom, women didn’t vote not technically because they couldn’t but because it wasn’t what women did, however the Reform Act of 1832 did explicitly widen voting only for “male persons” which has often been interpreted as the first actual exclusion of women from voting, but there was still never an explicit ban. This is where most of this notion that women couldn’t vote comes from – the Interpretation Act of 1850 clarified certain laws saying that the masculine would include the feminine unless stated otherwise, however in the case of Regina vs Harrald [1872], there was a ruling against married women voting. So the statement “it was never against the law for women to vote” is true, but misleading and debatable.

Now, there was a movement pushing for women’s suffrage, for women’s votes to be ensured under law, but it was overshadowed by the first world war, after which, with the Representation of the People Act (1918) all women who helped in factories etc. and all men who fought in the war were allowed to vote; all men above the age of 21 and all women above the age of 30 were given the right to vote also. Eventually after that, women fought for universal suffrage above the age of 21 in 1921 with no property restrictions – now, obviously the difference in what age women had to be versus men was a feminist issue, an issue in which women did not have the same rights as men, and universal suffrage was a great achievement from feminists, I’m not taking that away, but they were the last in a series of fights for universal suffrage, which began with male suffrage.

As an egalitarian I value universal suffrage greatly, I do believe that for as long as there is a government, and the right to choose is replaced by the right to choose out of what is allowed, being able to decide what is allowed is an inalienable right. I believe people have a positive and a negative right to vote (and therefore not vote if they so choose). People think of feminism as a series of events and to be against the ideology is to be against those events, but it is an ideology, where to be anti-feminist is to be anti- the premise or argument that it is built on and to be critical is to be critical of anything it does or proposes, not everything it does or proposes. I can acknowledge and credit an ideology without subscribing to the ideology as a whole if there are overlapping issues. But as an egalitarian, there are sides to the first wave feminists that I am critical of. One of which was The Order of the White Feather. Many early feminists and suffragettes engaged in the organisation, in which a white feather would be given as a symbol of cowardice to shame men who were not wearing a military uniform into enlisting in the army, this also often extended to men who had been injured and discharged. Also, we should not excuse burning down buildings like the Tea Pavilion for political purposes.

I have always said that there are at least three great achievements that feminists should be credited for, the first is universal suffrage (although not wholly credited), the second equal pay, and the third sexual liberation. Unfortunately modern day feminism, or third wave feminism, seems to forget the second, and actively tries to repeal the third. You will often hear grand statistics about the wage gap, that women earn x amount on the pound as compared to men, but this is largely untrue. Many institutions in both Britain and America have debunked the statistic, because it is only based on a broad range of people, it does not take into account profession, hours worked, holidays taken, competition in salary versus fixed rate, or the different choices people make. When all of this is taken into account, the gap closes significantly and it even seems to be that women under 30 actually earn more than men. Now, the feminist might say, only when challenged on this of course, that this is because women are not encouraged to take higher paying jobs or commit to working. Well first of all, it might help if you didn’t tell them they wouldn’t earn the same as a man for the same work, but also if you look at societies that are most free,  the more encouraged women are to make their own choices, not the choices feminists want them to make, the wider the gap becomes. This is because feminism, largely as a leftist ideology, conflates inequality with inequity.

I don’t believe that a woman should be rewarded for working over say, staying at home and raising children, nor do I believe she should be punished for it. I believe that women have the choice to do either, and should have as much opportunity to do either as men – which they largely do. Feminists often focus on under-representation, and seek to solve that problem by incentivising businesses to discriminate against men, or by shaming businesses (like a white feather) for not hiring enough women to the point where they are forced to discriminate against men, and of course show no concern for businesses that are dominated by women, or by the under-representation of men in universities, for example. Another example of feminism being one sided. On top of that, of course, rather than fighting for a right which does not extend to women, because they are women, the feminist now seems to fight for an entitlement to something which is not a right, because they are women. Not only is this collectivist, but incredibly sexist. It is the belief that being female is a virtue in and of itself. It isn’t.

On this, I will also say the following (although let me finish): Women do not deserve respect. They do not deserve kindness, charity, or even prosperity. I don’t respect women, because I respect people individually. Some women deserve respect, or kindness, individually if they have earned it, individually, and women do not deserve to be disrespected either, women deserve nothing just because they are women. The same extends to any group of people. This is another reason why the argument on representation is sexist, to assume that all women are as such that any woman would do for the cause, is to believe that the only merit women have is that they are women. But this isn’t something held by all feminists either, of course.

What I do hear often by modern feminists, is the argument on objectification. Now let’s be blunt here as well: you do not have the right not to be objectified. You cannot control how people think, or what they think of you, in the same way as I can think you’re a bad person, and you cannot stop me, I can see you only in a sexual way, and you cannot stop me. It is not “mind rape” to imagine having sex with someone else; to believe it to be, or to try to stop people from thinking whatever they will about you is fascism. Worse than trying to prevent freedom of speech, you’re trying to prevent freedom of thought. But here’s another thing, the argument on objectification is directly opposed to sexual liberation, and here’s why.

Take, for example, a poster of a woman half naked. Now, the woman did have the right to behave and to portray herself in a sexualised way (that’s sexual liberation). Of course, if she was being forced to, that would be different, worse it would be against the law. When this woman decides to do this, she is doing it in order to be objectified by men, and for the most part she probably is. So, as a feminist, if you are against this, you have to question what it is you are against. If you are against men seeing the poster, then you are against this woman being allowed to portray herself in this way by trying to eliminate the purpose of her doing so (her audience). If you are against a poster of this sort you are doing the same. Both of these are in direct opposition to sexual liberation and are a form of collectivist chastity. If you are against people seeing it in a sexual way, which is its intention, you are asking to control how people see things, which is not only impossible but incredibly fascistic. If you don’t want to see it yourself, you don’t have to, you can look away. If you even assume that people are seeing it in a sexual way, however obvious that assumption is, or assume that men are looking at it in a sexual way because they’re men, that is also extremely sexist. I don’t think most feminists who would have a problem with this believe in controlling how others think, so I would suggest it is probably that they are against sexual liberation; the same argument works with pornography as well.

If the issue is “unrealistic expectations of beauty”, assuming this woman doesn’t actually look the way she is portrayed, you are the one applying standards of beauty to all women by assuming that women will be affected by the advert just because they share the same gender as the person in the picture. To be offended by another person’s actions, or the display of another person, because they are a woman and it affects how “women” are seen is tribalistic. You’re creating a reservation for which women should not be allowed to step out of. This highlights my second biggest problem with feminism; it is collectivist, to hurt one is to hurt all.

As a believer in the freedom of women to reserve or express depending on their individual preferences, I am a believer in sexual liberation; therefore I am not a believer in the argument on objectification.

Another problem with feminism is that it attaches itself to causes little related to women at all, such as eco-feminism (basically summed up as “men are ruining the environment”), and also, as in the case of modern feminism, seems to find things to advocate in directly opposing ideologies. One such, is the trans-gender movement. Whilst again, this is really only a dig at feminists who conflate the two, which isn’t common, but I haven’t yet met a feminist that would condemn the trans movement despite it being in direct opposition to what feminists believe. First of all, the notion that gender is nothing biological (separate from sex) and that all one has to do really to be a different gender is identify as that gender (with no real measurability) it makes it impossible to treat any inequality of rights as an inequality of rights against women when figures are gathered collectively. What I mean by this is, looking at an under representation of women and saying that this is an example of inequity, and therefore a feminist issue, is to assume the genders of the group in question. This is something rallied against by the trans movement. Also, the core belief in gender as a social construct, is the direct opposite of the feminist approach to gender. Rather than “if you are a masculine female it doesn’t make you less of a female”, being masculine is what trans people do who are born female but identify as male. Rather than “wearing a dress does not make you a woman”, wearing a dress is what trans people often do who are born male but identify as women. And also, by the argument from the trans movement that trans is not a new phenomenon just not previously accepted, it makes it impossible for anyone really to claim a patriarchy or former male supremacy or male control or any form of inequality in the past without “assuming gender”. No? How do we know all of the men who were eligible to vote identified as men?

If you’re still reading this then either you’re an open minded feminist or someone like me saying the same things to yourself privately while biting your tongue when your feminist friend tells you the date for their next “slut walk” (although still crying out against objectification). So, to sum up, you can credit the achievements of an ideology without agreeing with its premise, and you can criticise any ideology, especially if you agree with its premise, and I disagree with the premise of feminism as one sided, tribalistic, and largely hypocritical; too hungry not to eat itself. I criticise its actions even if I agree with some overlapping issues. I am anti-feminism, not necessarily anti-feminist, because I believe in protecting everyone’s rights, as well as equality of rights for every person; race, gender, sexuality, whatever. I am an egalitarian.