Kanth: This isn't all about family or you would be talking about single people of both genders and not specifically women.
I am specifically talking about women because despite singificantl, if underappreciated role of women in history, they were less influential than men because of their limitations.
Men - specifically white christian men contributed more to the development of western civilisation that women and wielded more influence. Women had probably the same influence on democratic politics in voting that men did by influencing the family's vote, but the key positions were held and key decisions were made by men, let alone research.
That is what is changing now. Due to increased role of governemnt and thus electorate. Due to other policies.
It woud be a valid concern just seing someone tinkering with a mechanism that seemed to work fine - but I actually see negative implications and probable mechanism of the "feminisation's" ill-effects.
You have admitted as much to Lazs, now by 'free men' in that post, to him, I believe you meant lawless men and that 'might makes right'.
That's plain nuts. For a guy who is not interested in what I am saying, you surely put an interesting twist on things I never said. I do not know what else lazs said elsewhere on the subject that you may think I agreed to, but I have not really been following that particular poster and have no idea what he professed outside this thread. I have only that as an explanation of your strange remark.
Well. At least you are talking on subject now (which one, though?) rather than offering snide offenses.
The concept of of liberty I subscribe to is the one developed by Mises and Hayek and J. S. Mill - the personal body, livberty and property being sacred and only purpose of the state being securing said body, liberty and property from violence or fraud. The current state is severely deficient in fulfilling that responcibility while it pursues many others on socialist agenda.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." J.S. Mill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the same applies to private property since the very concept of freedom is meaningless without it.
A person - as long as he/she is not violating body/property of others should be able to dispose of his property whichever way he wishes, be able to enter into voluntary contracts with anyone, including offering or accepting employment on eny conditions mutually agreed upon, be able to discriminate in any way he/she sees fit, etc.
No forcing anyone to part with his property to subcidise anyone else he/she is not willing to subcidise voluntarily.
Than it would not matter what anyone votes for or who votes since the only subject open for vote would be declaring war on other countries or deciding whether to defend from aggression. I am perfectly fine letting women handle that.
That pretty much cover my abhorence of 'might' - if that means violence or threat of it, of course. Surely, the one with more property will have more freedom and options.
In my reply to Lazs I was trying to temper his quite radical and inconsistent position. What made you think I was a proponent of violence, I have no clue.
Then you go on to say that you 'forgot' to explain yourself but I'm a fool for your thinking that I misunderstood something that I hadn't even commented on?
If I really 'forgot', when why would I suddenly 'remember'? Why it al has to be about lying to you? You do not know me, why would I ever care to lie to you here? You remind me the communists of my native country. Every disagreement was explained as a product of lying "class enemies", not an honest difference in opinions.
It's not a prepared speech but a typing without much editing. I am bound to miss many non-essential and evem some important points. That's why we have a dialog. You want a clarification - just ask. i will be happy to oblige with elaborarion of any point. besides, I am a techie, not a liberal-arts person. Public speaking was never my strongest point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Here is another point I forgot to mention - to forestall any accusations of arrogance or dognmatism. I certainly did not cite the worthy geniuses sharing my view as a proof of it's correctness, just that people who were patenty smart, educated and dedicated to the good of humanity shared them.
I would certainly never refer to those people names (vs. some of their still serviceable logic) as substantiation on any idea's correctness since, however intelligent, they were so obviously wrong in many, if not most things they said - Washington, The "Federalist Trio", J.S. Mill, even the old Socrates. That does not mean I do not respect them.
miko
