Equality

Abolish the Family? Or Just Hobble Parents So They Don't Give Kids 'Unfair' Advantages?

"Harrison Bergeron" was not intended as a how-to manual

|

US Army

If you need further evidence that egalitarianism is off the rails, down the rabbit hole, or just batshit insane, check out the profile at Australia's ABC of two British political philosophers who fret that good parenting is giving some kids an "unfair" advantage over kids with crappy parents. I shit you not.

It's praiseworthy to want to improve opportunity for kids—kudos to everybody who wants children to be better treated, better educated, better fed… Who doesn't want that? But perverting those concerns, so that rather than looking for ways to expand choices and raise the floor you're going full Handicapper General and trying to hobble anybody who rises above the crowd a bit produces quotes like this gem from Prof. Adam Swift of the University of Warwick:

"One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field."

There's probably nothing "simply" about abolishing the family, unless you want to march all the way down the communitarian road to Plato's Retreat and Reeducation Camp. Swift (seemingly grudgingly) concedes this point, noting "nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong." But he and his colleague Harry Brighouse, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, do a lot of "thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn't need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people's children."

Top of the list of things parents ought not be allowed to do is send their kids to private school. Add to this "inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage." Their whole take on permissible family activity has been extended to book length in 2014's Family Values: The Ethics of Family-Child Relationships, which "explain why a child's interest in autonomy severely limits parents' right to shape their children's values, and why parents have no fundamental right to confer wealth or advantage on their children."

Oh—in case you're wondering, reading bedtime stories to your kid is OK, even though it confers a bigger advantage than private schooling. Fortunately (whew!) it's among the "kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods."

Admittedly, academics who want to reshape society in some perfect image and lack only (drat!) a good secret police force to make it happen are a dime a dozen. But we live in the age of Piketty and other handwringers over the dread scourge of inequality. "It's just not fair" is the battle cry of those who would challenge libertarian preferences for freeing people to achieve their potentials and follow their dreams. Swift, Brighouse, and their ilk would have us trade the freedom to try and fail with our various advantages and disadvantages for an imposed Harrison Bergeron-esque fairness that could never truly root out inequality, not just because people aren't uniform factory products, but because you're never going to get them to cooperate.

Ban private schooling? And what will you do then about the inevitable weekend tutors and online lessons. Outlaw inheritance? Watch large family fortunes flee into offshore trusts and small ones turn into bundles of cash and jewelry.

That's what I would do, and I doubt I'd be the only gleeful scofflaw.

And then we'll need some more equalizing enforcement to eradicate that cursed unfairness. Once it goes beyond equality before the law, equal liberty for all, egalitarianism always runs up against a major problem: It needs people with guns to impose it on the unwilling, and even then they need escalating powers to scrutinize and intrude.

Swift and Brighouse are unlikely to get those guns and powers any time soon, I'm happy to say. But they're not the only would-be reshapers of our lives hanging around.

Advertisement

NEXT: Federal Court Ruling Puts Cellphone Location Data Back in Police's Hands

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT:

    Carly Fiorina trolls the shit out of Seth Meyers.

    http://m.washingtonexaminer.co…..le/2564068

    I kinda like her style.

    1. I don’t know enough about her yet to approve one way or the other, but the way she’s been trolling leftists by calling them out on their hypocritical questioning has been delightful.

      She almost broke Perky Katie recently.

      Carly Fiorina Nails Katie Couric on Double Standards, Hillary Defense

    2. You know, that’s downright fucking cool. My esteem for her just rose. Low bar….but it rose…

      1. I know. then my cynical side crept in, and I thought, “wow, wouldn’t that be just the easiest setup gag to do on TV? Free publicity for everyone, good TV. Costs nearly nothing. No one gets burned.”

        those youtube trolls who comment “FAKE” on every video* have influenced me, i confess.

        (*i love it when they do it to things like the Challenger shuttle-explosion, fall of the Berlin Wall, or on documentaries about genetics)

        1. This comment was staged!

        2. Carly’s making me like her against my own better judgement. She certainly knows how to handle the media with a bitchy but playful style; reminds me of Thatcher.

      2. She’s also really hot for a 60 year old.

        1. ….

          ….

          ….

        2. Damn right she is. I bet she likes anal, too!

          1. A reasonable solution to post-menopausal vagina pain.

    3. That is pretty funny.

    4. You know the thing about that GOP candidate, she’s got… lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eye. When she comes at ya, doesn’t seem to be livin’. Until she trolls ya and those black eyes roll over white

    5. I live in the Silicon Valley. Around here, nobody has an use at all for Carly after the shit she pulled at HP.

      She’s not only as incompetent as Hillary Clinton, she’s actually had the opportunity to do real damage to what was once a great company.

      -jcr

  2. Lowest. Common. Denominator.

  3. Wow. Wow.

    *blinks*

    WOW.

  4. What’s Homey the Clown doing at the playground?

    1. *bops WTF on the head*

      “I was hired by The Man to entertain his chirrens. That OK with you, Monsieur Whitey? Homey’s gotta make a livin’, but The Man’s got the money. Now let’s all sing…..YOU BEST KEEP UP…..”

      1. Homey don’t play that.

        1. “Gather around kiddies, the man with the goodies is her.”

  5. “thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children.”

    Who THE FUCK are you to “allow” anything, you piece of unadulterated shit? I swear, the delusions of grandeur and sociopathic dreams of dictatorial power these people have should instantly set off all your psychopath warning bells. This person would become Descartes’s Evil Genius for all of us if they could. There is something very, very wrong with them.

    1. I don’t think there is anything “wrong” with them per se, it’s the natural course of mankind. The rational reasoning thinkers in the world who would never assume that they would ever have some kind of power over others in this way to decide “what’s best for others” is the exception, not the rule.

      1. There is a lot “wrong” with them. Mostly they are sociopath pieces of shit suffering from an epic case of narcissism. they don’t think nit will happen to them because they know better and there would never be any need.

        Is there anything more basic and good than the bond between parent and child? These people are so hatefilled and so evil, they would destroy even that.

        1. I completely agree that they are sociopath pieces of shit suffering from an epic case of narcissism, but they are the majority, thus my point is that they aren’t necessarily “wrong” in the eyes of most others.

          Recently there have been a bunch of polls showing that most people would agree to restrictions on free speech, or to restricting the ability of children to walk around without parental supervision.

          Again, we are the exception to the rule.

      2. I agree that sociopathy is actually pretty normal, at least at mild levels. This is worse. This is…delusional. That’s very dangerous.

        1. It’s especially dangerous because, as many have pointed out, some of these individuals actually believe in their delusions.

          1. That’s what makes delusion dangerous.

          2. They’re dangerous because people listen to them.

        2. I would argue that this delusion is unfortunately more and more common these days.

          Just look at the various pearl-clutching that goes on over rape or racist cops or free range kids or free speech, then compare the statistics that show by any reasonable measure we live in a far safer, and less racist (or rapist!) society with less restrictions on speech than an at any other point in time.

          People are more likely to be delusional these days than ever before.

          1. As people’s lives become ever more comfortable, delusion increases because encounters with actual hardships and realities are reduced. It’s our very prosperity that creates and allows for these levels of delusion. It’s just something that we’re going to have to work through as we continuously increase our prosperity.

            1. It’s amazing how we have such a great example of this from the Cuomo idiocy this morning.

              The sad part is how often we get examples of this lately.

    2. Good catch.

      when people start to let their Left-Wing muses take over, and they start hypothesizing about the ‘possibilities’ of a better-ordered society… i frequently tend to pop their balloon by simply pointing out that their fever dream =

      1) requires Totalitarian Control of Everything

      and 2) even then, blithely presumes both that people would willingly subject themselves to these kind of controls,

      and then again 3) ignores that said system created obvious perverse incentives that would instantly turn the benign-intended concept into a self-serving program of systematic exploitation.

      And didn’t Rousseau already propose this @#$*& idiocy, and spend the next 200 years getting repeatedly debunked?

      1. i frequently tend to pop their balloon by simply pointing out that their fever dream =

        You didn’t pop anyone’s balloon. Those people arrived at their beliefs in the first place because their balloon is effectively nearly unpopable. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.

        1. not everyone is a True Believer = some people believe this shit because they just don’t think very hard.

          1. And they’ll hold onto those beliefs for no other reason than to convince themselves that they weren’t wrong about something they didn’t think very hard about. The people whose minds you can readily change are the young, whose minds have not been bound up in emotional attachment to the people and institutions who will be pleasantly lying to them.

            Convincing a fully ill-developed adult to abandon their fundamental assumptions is the exception, not the rule. Even the great minds and orators of libertarian history gained few followers outside of the like-minded and unminded.

            1. I never said it was, “The Rule”.

              And for the record, the people i find myself convincing most often are people in their mid-late 20s. They usually find themselves struggling with the discovery that the shit they learned in college was mostly useless, and that the Real World? is not quite what had been described to them.

              1. I never said it was, “The Rule”.

                I know. I was referring to this

                i frequently tend to pop their balloon by simply[…]

                the people i find myself convincing most often are people in their mid-late 20s. They usually find themselves struggling with the discovery that the shit they learned in college was mostly useless, and that the Real World? is not quite what had been described to them.

                Those are the unminded and like-minded. If you convert a die-hard Marxist or even die-hard progressive for that matter, that might very well be the only such convert that you’ll ever achieve in a lifetime. (assuming you don’t have an audience of millions to increase the odds)

                I’m not saying that you don’t know your shit or argue well, it’s just that at a certain point one’s ideology becomes intransigent and rethinking becomes unthinkable. People who’ve got a balloon to pop have long since insulated it against popping with layers of emotion and irrational beliefs.

      2. 1) requires Totalitarian Control of Everything…

        That’s a feature, not a bug.

        1. the funny part is when i point this out, one of the most common responses, “well, how is that really all that different than what we do now?…”

          which i call the “Speed Limits”-rationale for progs.

          e.g. “We have speed limits! Therefore you agree we need laws controlling behavior! Therefore any laws controlling human behavior are merely a matter of whether they’re good or not….”

    3. Epi, that is the most appalling thing I have ever read.

      1. that’s odd because when I clicked your name, I think I read something even more insidiously appalling. Though to be honest I gouged my eyes out before I could read the final paragraph so it could have ended on lighter note.

        1. Idle,

          That is closest to what I do. I work with Indians to ensure they get paid what they are owned on their mineral leases, but there isn’t a website for that, so I chose something related. If it is “insidiously appalling” to ensure people are paid what they are owed, I guess I will have to live with that.

          But if you think that is worse than someone “allowing” how you can or cannot raise your kids, I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

          1. Government monopolized resources entitles you to something? Like a mugger is owed your wallet.

            1. FS,

              You understand that the Indians (Tribes and individuals) own land and the mineral rights under that land, right. So companies sign contracts with these owners to extract the minerals and in return promise to pay royalties. The companies don’t always hold up their end of the bargain. When they don’t, I get a call from the Indians asking for help to get the money (royalties) owed to them.

              So no mugger or monopolized resources, just enforcing the provisions of a contract.

              1. You understand that the Indians (Tribes and individuals) own land and the mineral rights under that land, right. So companies sign contracts with these owners to extract the minerals and in return promise to pay royalties.

                From your link;

                The BLM reviews and approves permits and licenses from companies to explore, develop, and produce both renewable and non renewable energy on Federal lands.

                What lands are being talked about if not federal? If so, the Indians get a cut of the mineral wealth while the tax payer picks up the tab for management and expenses.

                1. What lands are being talked about if not federal?

                  Indian lands, as I said in two of my posts. As I pointed out, this comes closest to what I do, and then I explained what I do. So again, I don’t deal with Federal Lands, only Indian. The Indians get royalties that companies agree to pay for the right to extract minerals from their lands.

                  As far as expenses, the taxpayer pays that just as they pay for expenses related to courts.

                  1. Blm is managing the land. They are a federal agency. And federal tax payers not local tax payers financially support the blm.

                  2. Why don’t the Indians ( casino not call center) have to hire a lawyer just like the rest of us who may have probems getting our lease royalties ?

    4. They’re philosophers. Who is to allow but them?

  6. A huge reason to have kids is so you can raise them and pass on your fucked-uped-ness

    1. They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
      They may not mean to, but they do.
      They fill you with the faults they had
      And add some extra, just for you.

      But they were fucked up in their turn
      By fools in old-style hats and coats,
      Who half the time were soppy-stern
      And half at one another’s throats.

      Man hands on misery to man.
      It deepens like a coastal shelf.
      Get out as early as you can,
      And don’t have any kids yourself.

  7. I think it is time to take a page out of the radical Islamist playbook and start shooting people that propose big state solutions.
    /joking or am I?!?

    1. +1 Hornady Lock ‘n’ Load

      1. That’s some expensive brass to be wasting on a bunch of two-cent hookers, Almanian.

        1. +1000 rounds of PMC

        2. That’s an insult to hookers. At least whoring is an honest job. Politics is the farthest thing from that.

    2. You kid Florida man, but these people are fucking evil and are not going to change or give up.

      1. I don’t support murder obviously but I’m a little Jealous how the left is so shitting their pants scared of radical Muslims they shut up and bow their head to them.

        1. Are they really scared? Or do they think a religion with a built in oppressive, totalitarian theocracy is a good idea? You decide..

          1. They are useful idiots who think the Mooslems won’t cut off THEIR heads and watch them bleed out because they are enlightened and tolerant.

            In other words they are effin idjits.

  8. From this kind of philosophical standpoint, it must be really frustrating to see animals in the wild consistently raise their offspring to survive and thrive–without any assistance from a government at all.

    You’d think homo sapiens would do at least as well as wild animals at raising our own children, what with our higher functioning brains, etc.

    If some of us are having trouble raising our children compared to lower functioning coyotes and bears, maybe it’s the government interference that’s holding us back.

    1. No assistance from government? What do you think Wildlife Management does? Before Wildlife Management, there was no wildlife!

      1. Aw man, did I laugh. And laugh some more.

    2. By human standards, animals do a terrible job raising their offspring. Just look at the brutality and the appalling mortality rates.

      What they should notice is that because of our big brains, humans already do a whole lot better than that. And that there is no chance that that level of control will actually work at all. Even Plato conceded that his Republic plan was bound to fail because of fallible humans. If these “philosophers” are seriously proposing any of this as a workable policy, they are truly fucked in the head. And they are far worse than Plato. Plato wanted to have people reach their full potential. These assholes are more concerned about some awful idea of fairness that requires hobbling certain people just because.

      1. I would point out that animal offspring have the exact same mortality rate as human offspring.

        1. Don’t be obtuse. You know what I mean. Mortality before reaching reproductive maturity.

          1. Nothing stops. Nothing… or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I’ll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the Warties. You’ll think you’ve been fucked by a train! And the library? Gone… sealed off, brick-by-brick. We’ll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They’ll see the flames for miles. We’ll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?… Or am I being obtuse?

    3. “You’d think homo sapiens would do at least as well as wild animals”

      Why? The humans I’m familiar with are not wild at all. They are in captivity. They are tame. Since when does the condition of captivity add to a parent’s capacity to raise young?

      1. Shut the fuck up, you Prog douche bag.

        1. Douche bag, I’ll admit to, but Prog? Don’t suppose I could persuade you to expand on that. My guess is you’ve shot your wad.

      2. “Why? The humans I’m familiar with are not wild at all.”

        You must have missed the Democrat raised scion of Baltimore and Ferguson demonstrate their tameness on TV as of late.

        After all, they vote for the same “leaders” you do.

        1. “After all, they vote for the same “leaders” you do.”

          You mean they don’t vote at all? That’s your idea of ‘wildness?’

  9. I believe this qualifies as not even wrong.

    1. They’ve gone to plaid.

  10. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    Go to tech tab for work detail ??????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. I don’t think this actually happened.

  11. That’s what I would do, and I doubt I’d be the only gleeful scofflaw.

    There are contingencies for that. Never doubt that their endgame involves dragging people like us into the streets and putting bullets in the backs of our heads.

  12. These “intellectuals” think that the progressive/left movement is so ascendent that it is safe to take the mask off.

    Destruction of bourgeois family has been on the leftist agenda since Marx and Engels’ day. But it has usually been on the secret agenda.

    1. Destruction of bourgeois family has been on the leftist agenda since Marx and Engels’ day. But it has usually been on the secret agenda.

      Funny how they never give much thought to what comes next.

    2. Oh, intellectuals have never been afraid of that. This is nothing new. It’s Plato’s republic for retards. Instead of trying to construct the perfect society, they want to create a “fair” society in the worst, stupidest way possible.

      1. Agreed. And I would add that their definition of “fair” is “nobody on the left side of the political spectrum ever gets their feelings hurt.” Whites, Christians, gun owners, business owners, etc. aren’t really people at all, so their feelings don’t count.

        1. I don’t really think that describes their view of fairness very well. Their idea is that no one should be disadvantaged because of accidents of birth. Which doesn’t seem like a bad ideal on the surface. But they want to fix the unfairness in the worst, most destructive way possible. Of course, I’d say that trying to fix unfairness is a terrible idea in any case. Even if you could somehow place everyone on an equal footing, things would quickly get back to an unequal state because people are not all the same. It would require constant intervention which is both evil and incredibly destructive.
          I know quite a few white, Christian leftists. Why do people imagine that they don’t exist? The Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations are well and fully steeped in lefty politics.
          This is idiocy that goers beyond left/right/whatever. This would most definitely hurt the feelings of all the proggy helicopter parents out there.

  13. Everyone will be raised in an orphanage, where kids are happiest.

    1. You just don’t get it. Orphanages only suck because only the underprivileged currently get placed in them. With a more diverse population, happiness and success are sure to follow.

      1. You jest, but I’m sure these shit piles actually believe that.

    2. I’m a Delta, and I’m ever so happy!

    1. Sorry, Injun. That courtesy is reserved only for those whose name rhymes with Anal Vanneman.

    2. My apologies. I didn’t see the comments this morning.

    3. Just the tip?

  14. I could say that a big problem is that dumbshits like these two clowns are able to survive in a society in which they produce nothing. They are able to earn a living thinking about useless shit like this, when what they should actually be is bear food, because they are fucking retarded.

    1. Come again?

    2. “what they should actually be is bear food, because they are fucking retarded.”

      Don’t feed the bears

      i *do* believe that leftist academics should be stripped naked and released back into the wild.

      But that then… they should be hunted for sport

    3. You can say that again.

      Thomas Sowell had some pretty good insights on that in a video I watched. Basically, people who’s final product are ideas instead of something tangible pay no price for having a shitty product because there’s no cost. Shitty products have little to no utility and therefore represent opportunity cost for the consumer. People who make shitty products therefore tend to go out of business. But when the final product is an idea, there’s no immediate cost. It doesn’t cost me anything to believe the world is run by lizard people, so there’s no natural mechanism to stop the derp.

      1. We don’t talk about the lizard people, cis.

      2. It doesn’t cost me anything to believe the world is run by lizard people

        There would be a cost if that belief somehow, and visibly, affected your survival. The state actually subsidizes bad ideas, so they persist longer and pervade the land far and wide in a way that just wouldn’t be possible in a free society.

      3. Crab People

  15. I could say that a big problem is that dumbshits like these two clowns are able to survive in a society in which they produce nothing. They are able to earn a living thinking about useless shit like this, when what they should actually be is bear food, because they are fucking retarded.

    1. Once more, this time with feeling, if you please.

      1. I don’t have any feelings. It’s how I’ve survived.

    2. I liked it the second time, as well. Some things are worth repeating.

  16. So basically Sparta but for pussies?

  17. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.

    CAKE FOR EVERYONE!

    1. They all want cake.

      1. And they want the rest of us to eat it.

        Be one with the collective.

        1. It’s all gluten-free vanilla, with buttercream frosting from a can.

          And we’ll all be named Beverly.

  18. The funny thing is this sort of article should be used as the ultimate refutation of all talk of inequality being a problem. It perfectly illustrates that equality can never be achieved without going full Harrison Bergeron

    1. OT RE Harrison Bergeron – from the author

      http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2…..ers_could/

      “Nobody was smarter than anybody else,” the attorneys quoted Vonnegut as writing. “Nobody was better looking than anybody else.

      But in a telephone interview Wednesday, Vonnegut told the Journal-World that the students’ attorneys may have misinterpreted his story.

      “It’s about intelligence and talent, and wealth is not a demonstration of either one,” said Vonnegut, 82, of New York. He said he wouldn’t want schoolchildren deprived of a quality education because they were poor.

      “Kansas is apparently handicapping schoolchildren, no matter how gifted and talented, with lousy educations if their parents are poor,” he said.

      Just sayin’…

      1. I hated Vonnegut less when I thought he was dead.

        1. This is an old article. Vonnegut is still dead (although I have my doubts about McCartney and Lou Reed).

          I had to read HB and a couple others in 10th grade and read Slapstick outside of class and never thought much of him. I thought HB was a pessimistic evaluation of technology as it could hve been used to improve everyone rather than drag them down and still keep the theme the same (see The Borg). I just thought the quote above was worth linking since HB comes up so often in libertarian and conservative circles.

          1. I saw Elvis working at a Starbucks just yesterday.

            He asked me if I wanted to talk about race.

      2. I blame this on G&T programs consisting of primarily More Work.

        In 3rd and 4th grade, in rural PA, I got to do math & social studies in their “gifted and talented” program. It was me and another kid, in a trailer-class. We’d go over the unit for the week, take the test, if we passed we got to spend the rest of the week in those periods messin around on the Apple IIe. Thus began my lifelong obsession with computers, which has led to a lucrative career despite having no academic credentials beyond a GED.

        Point being, gifted kids don’t need more homework. They need the time and the resources to just BE gifted. Less is more.

      3. I think you have to take the works as separate from the author. It happens a lot that artists accidentally make a good point that they don’t personally agree with.
        The Wire and most works of Joss Whedon are other good examples.

        I don’t think Vonnegut is a great writer, but he is a pretty good writer even if he was a standard issue leftist.

        1. yep.

          I was a big vonnegut fan as a kid. i’d quibble that its not that he’s a great “writer” …

          (*flaubert, tolstoy, joyce, henry james, chekov, borges, etc… are ‘great writers’ in the sense of ‘master artists of the written word’)

          …Vonnegut is more of a great ‘inventive storyteller’. his actual language was ‘meh’, but his ideas & plot devices were fascinating.

          And i think “Welcome to the Monkey House” is a great libertarian book – written by someone who hadn’t yet become fully Proggy-left yet. It is riddled with skepticism that ‘government’ can ever do Good, and does awful things whenever it tries.

        2. There is that, but there’s a danger in pushing subjectivism too far. Someone could easily interpret HB as parody of libertarian worst-case scenarios.

          1. HB was a Freudian slip by KV.

            1. I dunno. I think a lot of liberals really do believe that that sort of scenario would be terrible, even if it is a sort of logical extension of a lot of their favored policies. They believe that the balance can be maintained. Which, honestly, is probably true for most things. Logical extremes don’t usually actually happen.

    2. With Liz Warren as handicapper general, gleefully assisted by useful idiot SusanM.

  19. The comments are ok though.

    Someone argued that because some kids get addicted yo heroine, we should make sure to give all kids heroine to level the playing field.

    Another argues that the living are advantaged over the dead, and we should rectify that ASAP.

    1. The advantage of a zombie apocalypse is that these 2 shit stains would be among the first to go.

      1. You people misunderstand the zombies. “Double tap” is reactionary thinking. We need to negotiate with them first, try to reason with them.

        1. “The solution to violence is NOT more violence! Civilized people don’t solve their problems with guns!!”

          /progressive “intellectual” during a zombie apocalypse

        2. Can’t we negotiate a peaceful coexistence? Mutual inspection, cultural exchange? Send pelosi to the zombies in exchange for Lou reed?

            1. Well, I started with a Glory Road quote, but halfway through I saw a picture of Pelosi in another tab and realized how zombie-like she looked.

    2. Yes. I think that some people are getting a little too worked up about this. These supposed philosophers are absolutely awful and should be mocked and criticized loudly. But we are very far from any kind of widespread acceptance of this kind of thing. I suppose you could argue that it is only a difference of degree. But when you get right down to it, all political philosophies that aren’t completely voluntarist only differ by degree.

      Very few people are going to hear this crap and thing that’s a good idea. Every parent I’ve ever encountered values their ability and right to give their children the best start that they can far more than their political views. If it was something about controlling the poor more, then maybe rich progressives would go for it, but this messes with their precious snowflakes and will never fly.

      1. Yea but they use this sort of logic to argue for the Death Tax.

        1. If these are the arguments they use, they aren’t going to get very far. Attacking people’s child rearing is not going to win you many friends.

          Death taxes are bad, but they exist and have for a long time.

  20. “One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family.”

    The Khmer Rouge tried that duding the 70s. It lead to the most just society of dead people anybody ever saw.

    Add to this “inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage.”

    For fuck’s sake. You guys probably know already where all of this is leading to. Remember why Communism was such a super-big failure? It was precisely because some people with better skills or stronger or more motivated felt discouraged by egalitarianism. The lack of incentives do indeed motivate most people to NOT work or produce. Hence the criticism against the privileges of those born with better genes or from better parents. Of course egalitarians are negating reality but they’re also morbidly obstinate. This is what Envy does to a person.

    1. Remember why Communism was such a super-big failure?

      Because… it wasn’t tried right?

      1. no it’s been tried it’s just that the right people weren’t in charge. It’s different now because the new people are exactly the right sort to lead us to nirvana.

      2. They had the wrong people in charge.

        But now we’re in charge.

        “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

      3. Nor was it given enough time to work Deebston.

      4. Re: Dweebston,

        Because… it wasn’t tried right?

        You wouldn’t believe how many college grads and students use that excuse for the failures of communism. it is almost as if they want to believe perpetual motion machines can work just as long as you use the right mechanism.

        1. Newton was an old white dude and thermodynamics is a gendered construct and scientists fear alternative energies.

        2. Oh, you know it. My favorite is “The Soviet Union wasn’t an example of communism. It was state capitalism.”

          1. I’d concede that for the sake of argument. Any places that tried something closer to actual communism (I’m thinking Cambodia and North Korea) were/are even more horrible.

      5. The right people were not in charge then?

        The people in charge were not serious enough about stamping out desent by the wreckers and kulaks?

        Capitalism, evil and unfair in its ways, especially the US, unfairly undermined communism?

        The stupid people lucky enough to live in a communist utopia didn’t understand that this was better for them than the alternatives?

        Someone unjustly and evily murdered the “communist revolution unicorn” and this crime destroyed the worlds onlly chance for justice?

      6. I thought it was the 50 straight years of crop failures due to bad weather.

        1. I bet the commies are just sick to their stomachs that they didn’t conceive of the climate scam back in the day. What gun they would have had. ‘Evil capitalists release carbon to kill our crops!’

      7. What’s funny about that is that it really hasn’t been tried on a national scale. It’s *why* it hasn’t been tried that’s key.

        A true communism, following Marx’s manifesto, essentially requires a pure democracy, with every single person voting on every single decision, big or small. It becomes unworkable on a large scale because of that and can’t produce enough to sustain itself on a small scale.

    2. “The lack of incentives do indeed motivate most people to NOT work or produce.”

      The Soviet state offered plenty of incentives. A bigger apartment, the possibility of foreign travel, badges and other honours. May like much but it was enough to produce results in some areas that put the CCCP at the head of the world – ballet, chess etc.

      1. And if you tell some inner-city kids that their only hope for success in this world is through football and basketball, you’ll produce some great athletes, never mind the legions of people with destroyed potential such an approach necessarily creates.

        Another good motivator the Soviets employed was murdering 14,000 people per day. They had so many good ideas, like you mtrueman.

        1. So you do agree with me that the CCCP did give incentives to produce and work.

          1. Of course. Brutal, murderous and soul-crushing as they were. Just as I have an incentive to hand my wallet over to mugger who will stab me if I don’t.

      2. The Soviet state offered plenty of incentives.

        Not for most people, though.

        1. Most people were too equal to benefit from the incentives.

          1. Yes MOST people were disenclined to denounce their parents and neighbors as wreckers just to receive enough food to eat to stay alive.

            The benefits were preverse you deluded idiot.

            1. There’s nothing more preverse than travelling abroad and a summer cottage.

  21. You missed the best line:

    “‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.”

    Soak that paragraph in.

    Soak it. In.

    1. Can’t already feel like a shirt at a wet tshirt contest after that “art” video you posted.

      1. straining against perky nipples? or just cold and wet?

        1. Both there’s nothing worse than being presented with perky nipples and unable to sate your lust, while at the same time being both cold and wet.

    2. I actually have that in my mind every time I read a story to my kid. I’m doing my best to give her all the unfair advantages that I can.

      1. Next your going to tell us you plan on leaving her an inheritance.

      2. Those are fair advantages, actually.

        1. Yes, they are. The idea of fairness that these people have is a big part of their problem. It seems like it rests on the same kind of assumption that people who cry about inequality all the time use. That having something means depriving someone else of something.

  22. Prof Swift shows that social justice types value some platonic ideal of “fairness” over human happiness. Can such social justice be worth the price of such a miserable existance?

  23. what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children

    That’s mighty white of you, Doc.
    Now take your fucking meds, or we’ll have to strap you to the bed again.

    1. “… or we’ll have to strap you to the bed again.”

      It does what it’s told or else it gets the hose again?

      1. PUT THE TOTALITARIAN PHILOSOPHY IN THE FUCKING BASKET!!!!!

        1. Spot on, Swiss.

          *stands and claps*

  24. Is one of the “philosophers” Tony? This sounds exactly like something he’d say.

    1. Nah. He’d just say he doesn’t give a fuck about breeders and that poor people are gross.

  25. On David Thompson’s blog (which is hilarious and everyone should read it) he mentioned that the worst part is that they’re trying to make you ashamed for being a good parent.

    When a society starts shaming good parents and patting bad parents on the back, you’re fucked.

    1. +1 for DT’s blog. It’s awesome.

      That Frontier Spirit

  26. ‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’

    OK, guys, you got me. Excellent prank.

    1. April Fools de Mayo!

  27. Part of this kind of idiocy is the wages of the crude matiralism of Marxist thought. One of the greatest evils of Marxism is that it denies the value of anything beyond the material. This is why Progressives so lack in principle and understand nothing but power. Abstract ideals only mean something to them in so far as they produce results in the material world. So something like due process is great right up until it produces a result they don’t like. Then it has to go.

    These people are Marxists and crude materialists. So the idea that there could be values beyond the material never occurs to them. As a result, they judge parenting totally by material goods. The fact that a poor child who has two parents who love him and take care of him is better off than a rich child whose parents neglect him never occurs to these half wits. Every child who doesn’t have an equal amount of material wealth to another child is by definition worse off. It is a crude, primitive and evil way of thinking.

    1. At their core they are tribalistic troglodytes.

      1. Yes they are. They are utterly primitive and evil. Yet they think of themselves as being enlightened and caring.

      2. Neo-medievalists

    2. Re: John,

      It is a crude, primitive and evil way of thinking.

      Marxist materialism is mostly an appeal to envy. The interesting thing about the little red Marxians is their lack of self-awareness: at one time they espouse the greater materialistic rewards that communism delivers to all people while, at the same time, denouncing capitalism’s material abundance under the guise of “sustainability” or “environmentalism.”

      This idea of genetic privilege is nothing more than another excuse to explain why we don’t have true communism. It’s either our children are too-well-taken-care off or born too pretty or are educated with the wrong ideas, whatever the case may be. It is all an excuse treasure-hunt for these guys, but unfortunately it is one with innocents in the middle of it, serving as guinea pigs for their evil plans.

      1. Yes Mexican. It is just a restatement of the old “wrong political class” collective guilt. With them there is always some evil group of people who are preventing the rest of the good people from achieving Utopia. Since the end is Utopia and the people standing in the way are collectively guilty, it always ends in murder.

      2. Genetic privilege isn’t a myth. That there really is a natural aristocracy is what makes egalitarianism such a utopian crock of shit.

    3. They apply the “labor theory of value” to parenting.

    4. I also like 2 chilly’s “factory goods” moniker for human beings. It captures the 19th century left so well.

      1. They deny the basic dignity and uniqueness of the individual. Individuals are nothing but means to greater ends to Leftists. This is why they always end up murdering people wherever they come to power. Once you view people as means rather than ends, the easiest and most tempting solution to any problem is just murder whoever you see as being the cause.

    5. This is why they question (escalating from polite to hostile) why a person might prefer to do something ‘irrational’ simply because they enjoy it, find some sense of satisfaction out of it, prefer the end results, etc.

      Anything that has an element of self-sufficiency is attacked on these grounds. Why would a person want to wash their own car when the place down the street “can do just as good a job”?

      Why grow your own good, hunt your own animals, build your own deck, educate your own kids, etc. when there is someone out there who can do a “better job”? It’s like a cult that worships ‘top men’ where ever they can find them.

      1. The other thing is they constantly accuse classical liberals of all stripes of elevating profit over all other values. In fact, classical liberals do no such thing. They elevate freedom and the sanctity of the individual over all other things. It is the leftist who elevate material well being, which is effectively the same thing as profit, over all other things.

        1. I like to bring this up whenever I hear an Obama supporter praise the performance of the stock market while Obama has been in office, especially when it’s done to deflect criticisms of various administration actions and Obama backpedaling/lies

  28. Adam Swift; any relation to Jonathan?
    Because I really really want this to be parody.

    1. Did they title the article “A Modest Proposal”? Because they probably should have.

    2. Always refresh before posting…

    3. This was my thought.

  29. “All your children are belong to us.”

    What the fuck is wrong is wrong with these assholes?

    1. Nothing. You can’t establish the great utopian state with pesky family members putting non state approved propaganda into the heads of the new soviet chilluns.

  30. Abolish the Family?

    It worked in Baltimore.

    Seriously, abolishing the family is one of the primary goals of statism.

  31. “One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family.

    By the way, this was a staple concept of the radical American left in 70s. After the hippies got bored and Vietnam ended, the left got taken over by the real committed crackpots, and this concept was openly kicked around for a few years in academic circles.

    1. It takes a village….

  32. The well from which all wacko lefty nonsense (and plenty of conservative bullshit) springs is the abundance of the modern western world. I don’t think human nature has changed a bit in the last 2-3K years at least, so the “SJW”, the 3rd Wave Feminists, the Nanny-Staters, and busybodies of all stripes have ALWAYS existed, and have probably served humanity as much as they’ve harmed it. Their causes and methods are becoming more obsolete as our abundance grows.

    The West has largely solved the greatest problems faced by humanity: feeding, clothing, hydrating, and housing a population. It would be obtuse to say we’ve perfected human life, but it would be equally obtuse to say we have done anything less than wholly conquer our environment.

    Now that society (not govt, actual society) is leaving the few remaining relics of oppression behind, these busybodies find themselves searching for problems to fix, and using the same legislative hammer used to redress things such as slavery, suffrage, and apartheid. Problem is, many of those issues were caused by govt enforcing society’s crude biases. Instead of seeing the one problem the western world still has – govts that fail to equally protect individual liberty – they find ever more minute problems to use their hammer for instead of putting it back in the toolbox. “1st World Problems” are the only ones left.

  33. I had a different idea a while back about dealing with inequality.

    What if, at age 18 we did something like offered each 18 year old adult a “grant”, either in the form of a piece of fertile land, a college education, or a cash lump sum ?
    Sort of like the basic income concept, only it’s a one-time payment that your supposed to use to get started in life.

    The individual gets to choose what he wants, land, education or cash, and can do what they want with it. Invest the cash in the stock market until they are ready, then use it to start a business, say. Or become a farmer and live off the land.

    The kicker is that after this one-time grant is conferred, that’s it. You’re on your own. No welfare, no social security, no medicaid. if you squander it, you can’t complain because you got a decent shot, and you have to turn to charity. Lots of people will squander it, but at least they will all have that basic opportunity.

    I would have no problem funding this with inheritance taxes.

    1. That is not a bad idea Hazel. The problem is that it would never satisfy these people. The problem is that these people cannot accept the reality that people are not equal. Some people would take your grant and go on to do great things. Others would piss it away and end up right back where they started. Idiots like these people could never tolerate such inequality. The entire thing is based on envy and the juvenile refusal to admit that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

      1. Yes. It would not satisfy socialists and progressives who are commited to the idea of equal outcomes, or won’t admit that people are unequal.

        Still, I think that there is truth to the idea that it’s unfair that some people are born with more opportunity and that enables them to have richer, happier lives. Even if that just means the richer person gets to spend their 20s globetrotting and partying, those are experiences which someone who is struggling to climb out of poverty can’t afford.

        IMO, this would be a feasiable way of addressing that issue from the perspective of opportunity, not from the assumption that everyone is entitled to a living.

        1. IMO, this would be a feasiable way of addressing that issue from the perspective of opportunity, not from the assumption that everyone is entitled to a living.

          There is no issue. You just evoked some emotionally derived concept of fairness that is entirely subjective. And you do operate from the assumption that positive liberty is valid otherwise you wouldn’t think there was any issue at all.

          I need to quit being shocked every time Hazel let’s his inner communist out of it’s cage.

        2. I agree, its an interesting idea.

          The problem is that the left would blow it up because it fails to have a mechanism to punish the children of the wealthy (*additional to Estate Taxes) or members of the Oppressor Class (white males) who already have benefits/assets;

          they would want some sort of ‘scaling’ of benefits such that benefits increase as you slide down the “progressive stack”. So the transgendered black dwarf gets a mansion and a yacht, and the poor white folks get a coupon book for Whole Foods.

          Its like the OTC birth control issue = progs don’t really want practical ‘solutions’ to their demands…. they just want to constantly make demands in order to gain power. They never intend to actually *use* that power to help anyone. That would be silly.

          1. Well, it’s meant ot be more of an answer to the left’s arguments about inheritance, and the left-libertarian arguments about the BIG. In a ideal world, we could have something like this, instead of a massive welfare state. Practically speaking it could probably only be implemented in a libertarian state where welfare was banned. Otherwise the welfare state would come creeping back to help the people who squandered their grant.

        3. Still, I think that there is truth to the idea that it’s unfair that some people are born with more opportunity and that enables them to have richer, happier lives. Even if that just means the richer person gets to spend their 20s globetrotting and partying, those are experiences which someone who is struggling to climb out of poverty can’t afford.

          The idea that anybody is owed anything based on the inequality of their starting point is ridiculous. It will necessarily balloon into absurdity.

          I’m genetically predisposed to be fat if I don’t watch my nutritional intake and exercise religiously. How is that fair when some people (like my brothers) can eat like pigs and stay skinny?

          Unfairness is 1) arbitrary and 2) inescapable. You can’t legislate away unfairness.

          1. The idea that anybody is owed anything based on the inequality of their starting point is ridiculous.

            This is my thought as well. Funding it with inheritance taxes is doubly ridiculous.

          2. Libertarians actually spend a great deal of time trying to make life less unfair. That’s the whole point of concepts like “the Rule of Law”, “Equal Justice Under Law”, and so forth.

            One could make the same argument you just did in favor of hereditary nobility. “Life isn’t fair! So what if you were born a peasant, even though you’re the bastard child of a noble man! Get over it! ”

            At one time, people consided hereditary aristocracy the natural order of things. Noblemen just got to fuck the servant girls because that was their privlege. Now we believe that all individuals have equal rights, because it’s more fair.

            Same thing for government intervention in the economy. It’s not just a utilitarian argument that it’s bad. It’s that it’s unjust to the people who are negatively impacted by such interventions. It’s unfair to provide subsidies to select companies. It’s unfair to create regulations that arbitrarily favor some businesses. All sorts of libertarian thought is focused on fairness and justice issues.

        4. Still, I think that there is truth to the idea that it’s unfair that some people are born with more opportunity and that enables them to have richer, happier lives.

          It is one of the first lessons that ought to be beat into youngsters’ minds; Life is not fair.

          1. So let’s go back ot hereditary monarchy. Why not?

            1. Say what you will of hereditary monarchy, at least it’s rooted in the auspices of a property right. Democracy has nothing but majoritarianism to morally justify it, which is of course a shitty justification.

            2. Hey you could do a lot worse than Liechtenstein.

            3. So let’s go back ot hereditary monarchy. Why not?

              Stating the fact, “Life is not fair,” equals “hereditary monarchy”? What kinda fucking idiocy is that?

    2. “grant”, either in the form of a piece of fertile land, a college education, or a cash lump sum ?

      40 acres and a mule?

      1. Simpsons did it.

      2. Indeed. Why not?

        1. Indeed. Why not?

          Some people are unfairly incapable of procuring sexual partners, so in the spirit of 40 acres and a mule, we should also instate 40 condoms and a concubine. After all, it’s really unfair that nerds aren’t going to be able to get the sex that the jocks do.

          1. We’re assuming the prostitute is willing right? Cause there still wouldn’t be any sex slavery in this society.

      3. That’s one way to get the government from owning 25% of the surface area of the United States.

        1. Goddamnit! You found out out my ulterior motive! (Keep quiet, before the progs figure it out. )

    3. I would have no problem funding this with inheritance taxes.

      Hmmm…sounds familiar… ah!

      “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”

      Sod off, slaver.

      1. She has no problem with forcing people to buy liability insurance either.

        But that’s totally not like Obamacare, which she is totally against.

    4. I would have no problem funding this with inheritance taxes.

      You‘d have no problem with it? Good for you, forfeit all of your wealth upon death. Stay the fuck away from mine, thief.

      1. You are right, of course. But libertopia or anarchotopia isn’t about to happen. I don’t see the need for hostility toward people with possibly less awful ideas to deal with the things that people seem dead set on dealing with.

        But, if you just want to tell it like it is and practical politics be damned, that’s a reasonable way to be too.

        1. You are right, of course. But libertopia or anarchotopia isn’t about to happen.

          I didn’t say anything about libertopia. I responded to a self-avowed libertarian proclaim that the inheritance tax, of all the conceivable taxes, is worth it “because egalitarianism”.

          don’t see the need for hostility toward people with possibly less awful ideas to deal with the things that people seem dead set on dealing with.

          His idea was to add his voice to the multitude calling for the plunder of what belongs to others. He didn’t propose a reduction in the amount of plunder, he proposed that an indeterminate amount of plunder be used to further nebulous notions of social justice.

          But, if you just want to tell it like it is and practical politics be damned, that’s a reasonable way to be too.

          Practical politics have their place and this is not practical politics. It’s a fanciful, non-factual proposal to solve non-issue. Needless to say such an issue is not worth supporting an estate tax over.

          Theft, extortion, kidnapping and murder are all crime even when the crime is widespread. Only intellectual cowards and the morally ignorant provide cover for such a thing just because it’s common. Not to say you fit into that category, but Hazel seems to be making the case that that’s where he stands.

          1. All possible governments depend on theft and extortion. That’s what governments are. Unless you are an anarchist, you are arguing for theft and extortion to some extent. In principle I am an anarchist, but I find endless anarchist theorizing boring, so I am willing to engage in debates about ideas that in principle I consider violations of people’s rights. Like, for example, assuming that some redistribution is going to happen, how can it be done in a less destructive way?

            I guess I just like being nice to people, even when they have bad ideas.

            And I’m pretty sure Hazel is a she.

    5. Life is not fair, get over it. Learning that lesson early on and overcoming it is how you succeed.

  34. I see a spot for Doktor Swift in Hilary’s cabinet; HHS, or Education.

  35. Top of the list of things parents ought not be allowed to do is send their kids to private school.

    The tacit admission that state schools (state-run enterprises) are inferior?

    1. Tacit? Blatant, actually.

    2. Which leads to the next obvious conclusion. If state run schools are ineffective and lead to those children being disadvantaged, clearly we should have the state raise kids! Impeccable logic.

    3. The tacit admission that state schools (state-run enterprises) are inferior?

      Has Comrade Stal…er….Obama been informed? I’m sure that if he knew….

  36. Wait- Prof Swift? This is one big “modest proposal” right?

    Right? No? Shit.

  37. The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time.

    Yes, the wealth creation and preservation qualities of the family are a problem. Nothing is asking too much in service to the state.

  38. It’s like these waterheads read the first book of the The Giver and thought it was a blueprint for genius instead of criticism.

  39. I shit you not.

    J.D., if you don’t get promoted to editor in chief when Welch’s exile from the MSM is over, I’m leaving libertarianism.

    1. I actually think Suderman is being groomed for “Made Man” status

  40. As soon as I started reading this article I thought of that short story I read way back in 8th Grade. Hilarious that you linked it, and scary that it’s so applicable.

    1. Let me guess, it’s been removed from the Common Core?

  41. “egalitarianism always runs up against a major problem: It needs people with guns to impose it on the unwilling, and even then they need escalating powers to scrutinize and intrude.”

    Problem? It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    The force required in the name of imposing equality is the end, not the means, with the means being the rationalization of imposing equality.

    “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

    ? George Orwell, 1984

  42. This is some weapons-grade, ultra-fine, 110-proof, extra strength derp. It’s right up there with the statue of pregnant single mom outside a Birmingham library in Britain:

    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..birmingham

    “Sex should be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water.”
    -V. I. Lenin

  43. From chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto:

    Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    1. Resistance is senseless and futile, my friends. Now that it is established FACT that “The government loves your kids more than you do”, that ship has sailed long ago. Time to get used to it?
      You know how frogs and toads and sea turtles lay a batch of eggs and then abandon them to let Nature take its course? So, too, do we need to learn to drop our newborn babies off to the tender loving care of the Government Almighty, who Loves Them more than we ever can? And go, and never look back. If that is contrary to our instincts, if that thought or act tears at Mom and Dad’s tender feelings, then we need to start looking into genetic human-behavior modifications, PRONTO! What frog, turtle, or insect, spider, etc., genes might best and most easily be spliced into the human genome, to take care of these mal-adaptive, instinctive “feelings” of ours?

      PS, while we are at it, might as well do it right? All is for the Hive, and only the genes of the Emperor and Empress deserve to be passed on? For those behavioral genes to be spliced into our genomes, look no further that ants, bees, wasps, etc. (AKA the Socialist and Communist insects), and the naked mole rats, as well. MARCH ON into our brave new future, comrades!

      1. Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

        Government loves me, This I know,
        For the Government tells me so,
        Little ones to GAWD belong,
        We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        My Nannies tell me so!

        GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
        Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
        Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
        And gives me all that I might need!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        My Nannies tell me so!

        DEA, CIA, KGB,
        Our protectors, they will be,
        FBI, TSA, and FDA,
        With us, astride us, in every way!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        My Nannies tell me so!

    2. Karl Marx’s children would certainly have been better off his family would have been abolished. The guy’s lifestory is the profile of lecherous fiend who betrayed his purported values and his family at about equal rates.

  44. Was there not a similar situation in Scotland whereby each child would be assigned a government minder?

    Something must be in the water over there…

    1. That’s a bit different. The big thing here is that they want to fuck with the children of rich people. Which is why it will never happen.

  45. I hope these jerks neglect their kids so as to make them more ‘equal.’

    1. If they have kids, I hope those kids are wildly successful, refuse to lift a finger or pay a dime to support them in their dotage.

      -jcr

  46. I think some people are taking this a bit too seriously.

    Very few people are going to hear this crap and think that’s a good idea. Every parent I’ve ever encountered values their ability and right to give their children the best start that they can far more than their political views. If it was something about controlling the poor more, then maybe rich progressives would go for it, but this messes with their precious snowflakes and will never fly. At worst this will give them some other thing to feel guilty about but not change at all.

  47. As a one time student of philosophy, I’d like to add a bit of my own meta-philosophy.

    You aren’t meant to take it literally. That’s my take on most philosophy. Especially ethics and political philosophy. You are just playing games with language and thoughts and logic. You can’t just assume that the conclusions you reach are actually applicable in the real world.

    That’s why I can enjoy someone like Plato. His political theories would be disastrous if attempted and require a whole lot of brutality to implement. I don’t hold that against him because I never considered that to be the point. The point is to try to figure out in a systematic way how people and language and existence work.

    1. That’s why these people are so awful. They think that every little turd that falls out of their brain is something that can and should apply to contemporary politics.

    2. That’s why I can enjoy someone like Plato. His political theories would be disastrous if attempted and require a whole lot of brutality to implement. I don’t hold that against him

      You should hold it against him. Plato laid the groundwork for fascism and communism, plus all sorts of other evils in science and religion. And his influence was extremely strong, in particular on German thinkers (which produced a lot of dangerous nonsense as a result). Plato can’t be ignored entirely, both because of the strong effects his erroneous ideas have had on history, and because he actually did have some useful insights. Nevertheless, the man does not deserve adoration or celebration.

      You aren’t meant to take it literally. You can’t just assume that the conclusions you reach are actually applicable in the real world.

      That point is lost on politicians, and on most academic philosophers as well.

  48. “Ban private schooling? And what will you do then about the inevitable weekend tutors and online lessons. Outlaw inheritance? Watch large family fortunes flee into offshore trusts and small ones turn into bundles of cash and jewelry.”

    Or we could just grab pitchforks and torches and subject the facsistic assholes to the guillotining they so richly deserve.

  49. Obama’s re-election is freeing them to go full tilt into liberal derangement, especially the notion that there should be nothing between the individual (i.e., a cog in the machine of society) and the government behemoth.

    I seem to recall reading that capitalism is the unequal distribution of plenty and socialism is the equal distribution of scarcity. But the idea was that the scarcity engendered by socialism was a result of bad policies, not deliberate.

    1. Socialism ***IS*** bad policy, all by itself… At least until such time as we genetically re-engineer human nature itself. My suggestion is to steal genes from the “social insects” (should have been called “communist insects”) so that only the queen can reproduce, and all truly… “ALL is for the hive!”
      Socialism / communism as practiced by the current line of humanoids… Eminently including the so-called “New Soviet Man”… Didn’t equally distribute their poverty… The Party Members got to “Par-tee” at special stores with foreign imports, where the proles were not allowed…

  50. Abolish the nuclear family. Like Pol Pot. Maybe it can work. Maybe it can lead to the extermination of 1 out of 3 people. Let’s see.

  51. As exemplars of Right Action Swift & Brighouse ought to preach the IQ 100 gospel by example, inserting ice picks into each other’s orbits on the Andy Bolt show and wiggling them until the audience agrees they both have arrived at the blessed norm.

    Unless ouf course, they score below that figure to begin with in which case they may as well attempt to persuade the rest of the Queeensland University Department of Philosophy to join them in the experiment.

  52. “parents have no fundamental right to confer wealth or advantage on their children”

    It’s more of an ethical duty than a right, for a parent to give their children as much wealth and advantage as they can, provided of course that it is not of such nature as will actually harm their child.

    That is not merely a law of man, but a law of nature, enforced by natural selection.

    Not-so Swift and Brighouse, in opposing life itself, have chosen evil over good.

  53. Behold, the full glory of demoralization.

  54. Inheritance is an interesting thing. I generally skew libertarian, but inheritance is one concept I just can’t see the justification for. What right does a person have to the property of a deceased parent? They produced no value to trade for it and the deceased isn’t alive to be able to pass on that inheritance. The money/property didn’t belong to the inheritor before and I dont see any justification for them deserving it now(now being after the death of the parent).

    The only real reason I can see for allowing this seizure of property is the lack of any effective way of enforcing against it.

    1. I think you are looking at inheritance backwards.

      Its not so much the right of the offspring to receive the money/property as it is the right of whoever owns the property to designate what happens to their property after they die.

    2. Inheritance is an interesting thing. I generally skew libertarian, but inheritance is one concept I just can’t see the justification for. What right does a person have to the property of a deceased parent?

      They don’t have any right. But the deceased parents have the right to do with their property what they like, including gifting it to their children at the point of their death.

      They can also gift it to their pet poodle or the Salvation Army or the Catholic Church or whatever, who have no more rights to it either.

    3. What right does a person have to the property of a deceased parent?

      That’s the wrong question. The rights to the property belong to the person making the bequest, not the recipient, and it’s their prerogative to give it to their offspring if they so choose.

      -jcr

  55. It could be argued that bad parenting confers an unfair disadvantage,
    rather than that good parenting confers an unfair advantage?

  56. “Top of the list of things parents ought not be allowed to do is send their kids to private school. Add to this “inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage.” ”

    Two ideas Warren Buffett agrees with and has stated publicly.

  57. 2081 isn’t that far away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKHzFWkH0Po

    (Vonnegut’s intended meaning is somewhat ambiguous, but the fact that a piece of literature serves a different purpose than that intended by the writer isn’t necessarily a problem.)

  58. Brighouse and Swift are tragic examples of what happens when idiots get credentials. Fuck them, and fuck the politicians who are paying them with the taxpayers’ money.

    -jcr

  59. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  60. Surely, coming from a Swift this has to satire.

  61. One thing I’d like to say is that you have to take what philosophers say with a pinch of salt. What I read from this was more their musings on the topic.

    A few years ago, there were some philosophers who argued that the a particular argument for abortion also justified killing the child in the first days of life, due to the definitions of the right to life. It came into the news, and many people were quite displeased that philosophers were justifying killing children.

    That wasn’t what they were doing however. They were saying if you take this principle, then you are logically compelled to accept this conclusion.

    The reason for this is that in debate on ethics, reflexive judgments are actually part of the process. Are people willing to accept that it was ok? Those who hold the principle have 3 choices – accept it, refute it, or abandon the theory. It’s called “reflexive equilibrium”; sometimes you change your opinion, but sometimes you change the theory if the issue is important enough. It’s not precise at all, and depends on the user, but abandoning it either for only reflexive judgments or only following “the rule” both tend to cause horrible problems.

    Much the same to me seems to be happening here. If anything, I take this to show the foolishness of obsessing over social justice as if it were the only type of justice, and the only real issue. It needs to be tempered by other principles lest it basically be fascism.

  62. What should we do? This is a question worth pondering.

  63. A large part of inequality of upbringing is down to inequality of family wealth. We can eliminate a large part of this by providing better support to poor families and public schools — without imposing
    restrictions on any parents.

    Studies indicate that inequality between neighborhoods has a big effect on childen’s future earnings (*).

    http://www.motherjones.com/kev…..ore-you-do

    This can be corrected to some extent by better support for poor families and public schools, together with nonplutocratic policies that enable more people to work for a living wage. (Ending the war on
    drugs, and racist policing, will help too.)

    The inequality that Thomas Piketty is concerned with is not the small inequality that enables parents to afford a private school. He points out the inherited fortunes of millions or billions that effectively
    create a ruling aristocracy. It has been demonstrated that the wealth elite and special interests have dominated political decisions in the US for several decades, so that the views of everyone else have had little influence. I presume you are not in favor of that, so don’t knock Piketty.

    * Earnings are not the only measure of a good life, of course, but there is no reason to expect that higher earnings make other things worse.

  64. A large part of inequality of upbringing is down to inequality of family wealth. We can eliminate a large part of this by providing better support to poor families and public schools — without imposing
    restrictions on any parents.

    Studies indicate that inequality between neighborhoods has a big effect on childen’s future earnings (*).

    http://www.motherjones.com/kev…..ore-you-do

    This can be corrected to some extent by better support for poor families and public schools, together with nonplutocratic policies that enable more people to work for a living wage. (Ending the war on
    drugs, and racist policing, will help too.)

    The inequality that Thomas Piketty is concerned with is not the small inequality that enables parents to afford a private school. He points out the inherited fortunes of millions or billions that effectively
    create a ruling aristocracy. It has been demonstrated that the wealth elite and special interests have dominated political decisions in the US for several decades, so that the views of everyone else have had little influence. I presume you are not in favor of that, so don’t knock Piketty.

    * Earnings are not the only measure of a good life, of course, but there is no reason to expect that higher earnings make other things worse.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.