Previous 21 - 30 Next
Sorry, but the division of labor worked in the 1950s and 1960s and feminists saw no problem with challenging it. To say that men should now pragmatically stay home is absurd: they won't do it and they can't be made to like it. Meanwhile, a majority of women say they're unhappy, far more than in the past, and a number that seems to increase every year. Draw the obvious conclusion. Add to that the fact that women cluster in administrative-type and service jobs and not any of the things that add major value to the economy, and that this state of affairs is also the result of politicization and regulation of the economy and you don't exactly have natural progress.
In response to:

Is the Superpower Afraid of Iran?

amirvish Wrote: Nov 26, 2013 5:03 PM
The Iranians are patient and they have regional ambitions. Once they have the bomb, others in the region will want it too. With strong religious animosity between Sunni and Shia and very short reaction times due to short physical differences, there are grounds for considerable instability. Non-proliferation will be dead. We had a few close calls during the Cold War despite fairly rational actors and strong reasons not to go to war. The history of the Mid-East shows less rationality. It is not a cause for complacency. Also, suppose Iran builds 100 bombs and smuggles 20 into the US. We would nuke them in return, but we'd be dead as a nation. Don't doubt their desire and motivation to find a way. 9/11 was as much a failure of our imagination as anything else. And bin Laden didn't count conventional force; he counted will and weaknesses.
There's merit in this article. What is missing, though, is that if the conservative movement wants to attract the rational, small-government, pro-individual rights type of libertarian or Objectivist, it needs to demonstrate a serious commitment to those issues. Right now, there are a lot of conservatives who are pretty wishy-washy on them, if not on the other side already, and this is even more true of the Republican party. Moreover, the flip side of the socially liberal libertarian who wants to toke up but doesn't care about big government otherwise is the social conservative who really does want to get inside someone's bedroom and isn't worried about this for him/herself, because not much is happening there either.
In response to:

How to Appeal to the White Working Class

amirvish Wrote: Oct 29, 2013 8:44 AM
To the extent the "white working class" supports government programs, it is part of the problem and - while I would agree that there is legitimate suspicion that business/financial elites (especially politically connected ones) don't necessarily think of them and their interests - people have no right to expect someone else to look out for them. The left has infected the culture and many white working class people have internalized these values to some degree. I would also note that everyone who actually works is part of the "working class" and not just blue collar workers.
In response to:

You Say You Want a Revolution

amirvish Wrote: Oct 28, 2013 8:54 AM
Our politicians have many flaws but they don't elect themselves. Until a lot of us - including those middle class types who don't see it as welfare for them - stop wanting and taking government money, and demanding laws to avoid basic responsibilities, the problem will continue.
This is good advice.
In response to:

The 'Bums' Aren't the Problem - We Are

amirvish Wrote: Oct 15, 2013 10:16 AM
This is very correct. We need to tell people that government cannot provide escape or relief from the ordinary responsibilities and consequences of life i.e. that it cannot manage the economy, that it cannot provide old age security, medicine, jobs etc. Until that message sinks in, nothing will change.
For this to work, conservatives and libertarians need to agree on some common ground - primarily fiscal for now - and to offer a compelling story about the benefits of freedom and how voting for them would maximize this. Big government imposes huge costs on the average American and the wealthiest citizens tend to support the Democrats. There is potential here. But, only if we stand for something and are able to articulate it, and if we recognize that our opponents are not acting in good will and cannot be bargained with.
In response to:

A Response to Richard Dawkins

amirvish Wrote: Oct 01, 2013 8:34 AM
If you were alone on a desert island and could do anything you wanted, would any course of action alone ensure your survival? I'd say no. There is nothing "rational" about any of the cases that you've raised and very good, rational reasons for not doing them. The secular test for morality is whether all individuals practicing a code could all live by it: a society in which one eats one's neighbors would a) run out of food quickly and b) make life impossible for anyone. Only by the productive and restrained behavior that is part of the Judeo-Christian code can people survive and flourish individually and collectively; but one can reach those principles rationally.
Maybe we've passed a tipping point; if we haven't, we're not likely to fight our way back with the current Republican leadership, many of whom are big government RINO types.
Previous 21 - 30 Next