Being a Libertarian Can Play Havoc With Your Sex Life!
Anybody who has hung around any libertarian-type organisation, or forum will have noticed the paucity of women.
And if you've ever visited a libertarian conference or think- fest, don't say you never noticed what a "men-only club" it appeared to be.
The situation is so bad, that a new class of person has evolved, the libertarian "groupie" - a very small group of switched-on women, who have worked out the benefits of attending such gatherings of intelligent men. After all, what woman wouldn't want to be automatically the centre of attention - on a 1:100 (or better) ratio?
On the other hand, a man is likely to do much better, in search of interesting female company, attending religious gatherings, "green" protest meetings, and even anti-global capitalism events.
Why is this so? Why are most women apparently not interested in the serious issues of "life, liberty and property"?
I'm not qualified to answer that with any certainty, so what follows are just musings and observations - plus a few pet theories.
I think freedom started down the slippery slope to slavery once women were given the vote. In fact, not only women, but everyone who had a stake in wanting the state to provide them with a better life.
In the "old" days - in Great Britain - voting was something that only certain men of property could participate in. An old boy's club of sorts.
The type of government that these men voted for was primarily concerned with the protection of their property - their business, their money and the rule of law. In other words, a fairly limited government.
But once women's suffrage took hold, and the franchise was extended to every adult, the floodgates of socialism opened up wide!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of voting at all, and don't see any value in it. However, plainly women of that time saw some value in it - and obviously hoped to gain some advantages in having the vote.
I think the essence of why socialism began "creeping" into politics was because women are essentially "socialistic" by nature. I don't mean to disparage women by saying this - but to simply point out the fact that women have different instincts than men - more "social". Instincts brought about by millennia of evolutionary circumstances.
Women (whether they like it or not) have, in evolutionary terms, been primarily "mothers". And as such they have a different take on the world than those other humans - men, who spent their time "hunting and gathering".
The role of a mother is by definition a role of caring, support, relationship-building, nurturing, and many more worthy attributes.
However, these "caring" attributes extend beyond the boundaries of the nuclear family, or even the traditional extended one - and seek to include all lost souls and disadvantaged persons.
Such sensibilities are fine and praiseworthy, when applied to voluntary interactions between people (as in a family) - but once they enter the "political" domain (coercion), they become a tyranny in the making.
My own experience, as a man, bears this out. In general, I find that men are more inclined to want to talk about issues like freedom and property - while women are more inclined to talk about human rights - or what they perceive as human rights.
On the face of it, there should be no disagreement between those two positions - for I'm fully of the mind that freedom, property AND human rights are indivisible.
But, that's where all the confusion starts.
The very nature of "human" rights has been subverted and twisted.
If we all agreed as to exactly what human rights were, then there would be no dichotomy between freedom, property - and such human rights.
That is why it's so important to DEFINE the meaning of words. If I want to talk about "human rights" - and find myself arguing with someone else who also claims to be for human rights - then the likely disagreement is to be found in the definition of the term itself.
Is getting a good education a human right? Is having access to health care a human right? What about having a job, is that a human right?
These are important questions - because the commonly held answers to such will determine the essential nature of most political discourse and activism.
I don't know what answers are spinning around your head as you read the above - but I'm going to chip in and say that in every case - they are NOT human rights.
Why is this so?
Because you cannot have a "right" which imposes an unchosen obligation on someone else.
Let me reinforce that: You cannot gain something at the expense of someone else - and then call such an exchange a "right". If you do, then you are claiming a right to impose obligations on others.
If I claim the right to education, health or a job - I am in fact demanding that someone else provides it.
Education, health and jobs do not grow on trees, and cannot be found to spontaneously occur in the natural environment. These things are the result of individual people expending their energy and life.
So to demand a job is to demand that someone, somewhere, create such a job in the first place. And to demand an education is to demand that someone, somewhere, be commandeered to provide it.
So, what is left? What constitutes a legitimate human right?
Actually, the list is quite small.
As a human, you have the right to ACT to sustain your own life. And that's it! Simply the right to act.
That's why the American Declaration of Independence said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.
Having the right to life, means having the right to act to sustain one's life - not having the right to force someone ELSE to sustain it.
Having the right to liberty - is to have the freedom to act.
Having the right to pursue happiness - means you must be free to SEEK happiness, not be guaranteed happiness by someone else.
So, it follows that almost all the so-called rights we hear bandied about these days, are not rights at all - but are bogus.
And that brings us back to the supposed dichotomy between freedom and human rights - the supposed difference between the essential natures and outlook of both men and women.
It also presents the solution to the problem of too few women attending libertarian-type gatherings. :-)
Woman are right to have concerns about others. And men are right to be concerned with freedom and property. The two are perfectly compatible by inserting just ONE proviso - that all human interaction must be voluntary. No one should be forced to provide a good or service for anyone else.
So men - convince more women of that - and increase your dating prospects!
Yours in freedom