This is why, after years of living in leftist and activist communities, I realized the obsessive quest for equality was a fool's endeavor. Not only is it impossible to satisfy, it seeks to eliminate any genuine sense of joy and meaning that might produce benefit for one over another. And in trying to submit every experience in life to its metric, it demands we compare apples to oranges, thereby driving the quantification of everything (i.e., the concept of "emotional labor").
The best we can do is to alleviate the effects of inequality and keep the balance from becoming too lopsided. But some leftists are so driven by their resentments that they fail to appreciate life.
you have to wonder if big business (and even the world's most powerful intelligence agencies) has gone so leftist, because they have figured this fool's errand creates a lot of energy for an unobtainable outcome - so they have found a way to hijack and corral that motivation to direct it to their own ends.
Lol at how you incorporated that cuckolding comment so elegantly and seamlessly into your thinkpiece. 😂
From what I have observed in life, the "dismantle the nuclear family" drivel is always pushed first and foremost by predators, and in general by people who were not loved by their parents. It's glaringly obvious. I could make fun of it but it's terribly sad.
I think it highlights the crazy way people think we should eliminate our emotions from real life. If _stoge_ love of one's children goes away, then you really can't justify romantic jealousy!
I don't think it's a coincidence that the only people who sincerely believe in "abolishing the family" tend to be childless and have a large amount of inherited wealth.
Since they don't have children, the potency of parent-child love is alien to them. They don't understand that most people can NEVER love an unrelated, non-romantically-involved stranger hundreds of miles away MORE than they love their OWN romantic partner or children (nor can they understand *why* that is).
They think that unconditional altruism is safe, easy and affordable because they were raised in peace and affluence - they think that life is peaceful and easy (and that it can be that way for everyone).
The reality is that life is inherently dangerous, uncomfortable and difficult BY DESIGN (that's just how biological evolution works); the modern world is a historical aberration - only possible because of the VAST wealth which we inherited through the sacrifices made by pre-WWII generations.
And the well is drying up. We will never again be as wealthy as the baby boomers were growing up, and unconditional altruism will never again be as affordable as it was in the 1970s (hence why spending on social services has declined ever since.)
This is why all successful, long-lasting societies have elaborate rules and customs regulating people's familial roles and sexual relationships: a civilization cannot last or function without them. E.g., The whole "sex-positive" movement - the belief that ALL consensual sexual behaviours are equally morally valid and healthy (e.g., promiscuity, BDSM, polyamory, OnlyFans, etc.) - is a dead man walking. There is no way that belief will survive into the 22nd century. Because once every country in the world has a below-replacement fertility rate and our economies/social services begin to collapse, people will have no choice but to fall back on more old-fashioned (and morally judgmental) rules and cultural customs.
Any policy that goes against the parental instinct to do what's best for their children is doomed to fail. A discussion of when a parent does too much for their children such that it has a negative effect is worthwhile. But putting your child in the best school possible based on your situation should not be up for debate. Thank you for this brace of common sense.
Beautiful correlation between education policy and inheritance taxes! I would argue that capital gains also act as type of economic roadblock to families as it discourages long term investment that can later be liquidated to help one’s children as they begin adulthood and start families.
Every time I hear about The Left and their latest foray into compassionate nihilism I’m reminded of Ivan Karamazov announcing: “I love mankind, but I find to my amazement that the more I love mankind as a whole, the less I love man in particular.” As a public school teacher, I can say with confidence that good parenting is the only thing that truly gives a child an advantage. Egalitarian policies and programs add up to almost nothing compared to the riches gained from parents who treasure their children and sacrifice for them.
The argument for capital gains tax is that the problem with the property market currently is that property has been reduced to a speculative financial asset rather than being valued for itself as place to live or an asset to do something real on (like grow food). So it encourages people to use land as a ‘productive asset’- like a place to grow food- rather than speculative financial asset that you sell on when the market rises.
This doesn’t seem to be stopping people from buying property as an investment but it does keep them from selling those assets and utilizing cash for other investments, like grand children’s education. Capital gains tax have not stopped Investors from buying up farmland in the US. If anything it’s propelled equity firms and billionaires to buy farmland because they can pay well over asking price thus off setting CG tax seller has to pay.
Im not saying it’s a silver bullet for the property speculation issue. It needs to be accompanied by other incentives to invest in productive assets rather than speculation
I remember when my first was born we had to drive her back to the hospital where she was born and we both nearly died. She had pulled out her feeding tube and needed it replaced twice in one day, middle of the night. I could practically feel my brain reshaping to prioritize her. I thought to myself, the trolly problem isn't a problem if she's on one track- it doesn't matter how many people are on the other track, I'm pulling the lever to their side. I'm vegan. Animal rescuer. Used to worry whether I'd ever even be able to scream if attacked much less violently defend myself. Motherhood reshaped my brain and my backbone, too.
It’s very much “I’m so sorry you had a bad experience with your parents. You didn’t get what you deserved as a child: your parents failed you. But I’m also quite sure that families as such are not the problem and that you are blinded by a hatred of your own. And I will not concede the actual point and centre of human life to you on the basis of your sadness and rage”
I think it’s spiritually relevant to what you’re discussing (although one is not supposed to notice) that Sophie Lewis of Abolish the Family is, as you mentioned, married to Vicky Ostweiler of In Defense of Looting. Except that “Vicky” Ostweiler is actually male. So they aren’t a radical lesbian couple living a life liberated from family shackles or whatever, they are a heterosexual married couple wherein the husband has a fetish lol. Extremely bourgeois!
I saw Lionel Shriver say in an interview something to the effect that progressives are uncomfortable with inequality, and that rather than try to craft policies that alleviate the effects of inequality, they seek to eliminate inequality. Which is of course impossible. While I can understand the argument about private schools possibly furthering inequality, it does seem crazy to suggest that those who can afford them, not choose to use them. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to have good publicly funded schools, thus lessening the incentive to send kids to private schools. This was the case until recently in Canada, where most parents who were wealthy enough to pay private tuition fees, nevertheless opted for public schools. If the public system is strong, why not use it? Sadly, in recent years the public system has deteriorated and predictably, wealthy parents are pulling their kids out of it. But I do realize that asking the progressive left to think realistically about the world we live in is a tall order.
This is definitely one of those areas where ideas that are all well and good in theory come crashing up against the reality of human nature, and are found wanting.
When I was a lib in my 20s, I assumed I’d send my future child to public school to support public education.
Now that I have a kid…. Lololol. We give him the best private education we can afford, and the idea that we shouldn’t for social justice reasons just sounds insane.
I agree with every word of this 100%. I had the exact same perspective shift when I started having kids, to one where “I love my children and will do anything for their good” became the prime directive of my life. Thank you.
Re: the inheritance tax on farmers, haven’t we seen by now what happens to societies that ‘collectivize’ farmland and systematically dispossess their farmers?? It boggles the mind.
I'll be honest, I could not get through this article without my mind going to some dark places. Just the idea that some /r/iamverysmart Communist rando out there has designs to abolish my little family just fills me with a nameless rage. I can just imagine my 3 year old banging on whichever door they are using to keep her from me screaming "MAMA MAMA MAMA" into the night. Children don't deserve to be born orphans just for some vague notion of equality. So I suppose my position on this subject is clear.
"Even if it is “natural” to want to promote the interests of your own children at the expense of others, are we morally justified in doing so?
"The answer is that I don't care."
This pretty much sums up the profound perspective shift I went through on becoming a parent. Nothing is more important to me, or more urgent, than the wellbeing of my children. Suddenly, moral questions I'd ruminated on had an obvious answer. And when everyone in a society is similarly invested in their children and grandchildren, we all do well.
Lately I have been mulling over the ways humans have traditionally matured into adulthood (e.g. marriage and children being the norm), how that's rapidly been changing, and what might be the impact on culture, politics, etc. of having such a large proportion of the adult population never having experienced these transitions. Pregnancy and motherhood, for example, profoundly reshape the brain (see Baby Brain by Dr Sarah McKay). It used to be that most women had been through this by their 30s. What difference this might make over the next couple of generations, who knows.
I want to add a point to Louise’s cogent argument. We should think of parental investment as advantaging their offspring at the expense of other children ONLY in the setting of zero-sum games such as positional goods (e.g., is Louise’s children are academical successful they may displace my children from Cambridge.)
But in life we live in communities of inter-dependence. My children may one day benefit from the inventions created, or diseases treated, by Louise’s children and vice versa. By and large, her parental investment is not only a head start for her own brood but also a contribution to the community.
A policy that bans parental investment runs counter to our deepest impulses and impoverishes us all.
This is something I’ve thought about. The idea that we should really love and care about all children equally - when like Louise I would give my life for my own - if we tried to practice this we would only end up not loving our own children.
This is why, after years of living in leftist and activist communities, I realized the obsessive quest for equality was a fool's endeavor. Not only is it impossible to satisfy, it seeks to eliminate any genuine sense of joy and meaning that might produce benefit for one over another. And in trying to submit every experience in life to its metric, it demands we compare apples to oranges, thereby driving the quantification of everything (i.e., the concept of "emotional labor").
The best we can do is to alleviate the effects of inequality and keep the balance from becoming too lopsided. But some leftists are so driven by their resentments that they fail to appreciate life.
you have to wonder if big business (and even the world's most powerful intelligence agencies) has gone so leftist, because they have figured this fool's errand creates a lot of energy for an unobtainable outcome - so they have found a way to hijack and corral that motivation to direct it to their own ends.
Lol at how you incorporated that cuckolding comment so elegantly and seamlessly into your thinkpiece. 😂
From what I have observed in life, the "dismantle the nuclear family" drivel is always pushed first and foremost by predators, and in general by people who were not loved by their parents. It's glaringly obvious. I could make fun of it but it's terribly sad.
I think it highlights the crazy way people think we should eliminate our emotions from real life. If _stoge_ love of one's children goes away, then you really can't justify romantic jealousy!
I don't think it's a coincidence that the only people who sincerely believe in "abolishing the family" tend to be childless and have a large amount of inherited wealth.
Since they don't have children, the potency of parent-child love is alien to them. They don't understand that most people can NEVER love an unrelated, non-romantically-involved stranger hundreds of miles away MORE than they love their OWN romantic partner or children (nor can they understand *why* that is).
They think that unconditional altruism is safe, easy and affordable because they were raised in peace and affluence - they think that life is peaceful and easy (and that it can be that way for everyone).
The reality is that life is inherently dangerous, uncomfortable and difficult BY DESIGN (that's just how biological evolution works); the modern world is a historical aberration - only possible because of the VAST wealth which we inherited through the sacrifices made by pre-WWII generations.
And the well is drying up. We will never again be as wealthy as the baby boomers were growing up, and unconditional altruism will never again be as affordable as it was in the 1970s (hence why spending on social services has declined ever since.)
This is why all successful, long-lasting societies have elaborate rules and customs regulating people's familial roles and sexual relationships: a civilization cannot last or function without them. E.g., The whole "sex-positive" movement - the belief that ALL consensual sexual behaviours are equally morally valid and healthy (e.g., promiscuity, BDSM, polyamory, OnlyFans, etc.) - is a dead man walking. There is no way that belief will survive into the 22nd century. Because once every country in the world has a below-replacement fertility rate and our economies/social services begin to collapse, people will have no choice but to fall back on more old-fashioned (and morally judgmental) rules and cultural customs.
Any policy that goes against the parental instinct to do what's best for their children is doomed to fail. A discussion of when a parent does too much for their children such that it has a negative effect is worthwhile. But putting your child in the best school possible based on your situation should not be up for debate. Thank you for this brace of common sense.
Beautiful correlation between education policy and inheritance taxes! I would argue that capital gains also act as type of economic roadblock to families as it discourages long term investment that can later be liquidated to help one’s children as they begin adulthood and start families.
Every time I hear about The Left and their latest foray into compassionate nihilism I’m reminded of Ivan Karamazov announcing: “I love mankind, but I find to my amazement that the more I love mankind as a whole, the less I love man in particular.” As a public school teacher, I can say with confidence that good parenting is the only thing that truly gives a child an advantage. Egalitarian policies and programs add up to almost nothing compared to the riches gained from parents who treasure their children and sacrifice for them.
*capital gains taxes
The argument for capital gains tax is that the problem with the property market currently is that property has been reduced to a speculative financial asset rather than being valued for itself as place to live or an asset to do something real on (like grow food). So it encourages people to use land as a ‘productive asset’- like a place to grow food- rather than speculative financial asset that you sell on when the market rises.
This doesn’t seem to be stopping people from buying property as an investment but it does keep them from selling those assets and utilizing cash for other investments, like grand children’s education. Capital gains tax have not stopped Investors from buying up farmland in the US. If anything it’s propelled equity firms and billionaires to buy farmland because they can pay well over asking price thus off setting CG tax seller has to pay.
Im not saying it’s a silver bullet for the property speculation issue. It needs to be accompanied by other incentives to invest in productive assets rather than speculation
I remember when my first was born we had to drive her back to the hospital where she was born and we both nearly died. She had pulled out her feeding tube and needed it replaced twice in one day, middle of the night. I could practically feel my brain reshaping to prioritize her. I thought to myself, the trolly problem isn't a problem if she's on one track- it doesn't matter how many people are on the other track, I'm pulling the lever to their side. I'm vegan. Animal rescuer. Used to worry whether I'd ever even be able to scream if attacked much less violently defend myself. Motherhood reshaped my brain and my backbone, too.
Yep it does that! Motherhood is incredible. Sounds like you have an interesting story
100%
It’s very much “I’m so sorry you had a bad experience with your parents. You didn’t get what you deserved as a child: your parents failed you. But I’m also quite sure that families as such are not the problem and that you are blinded by a hatred of your own. And I will not concede the actual point and centre of human life to you on the basis of your sadness and rage”
I think it’s spiritually relevant to what you’re discussing (although one is not supposed to notice) that Sophie Lewis of Abolish the Family is, as you mentioned, married to Vicky Ostweiler of In Defense of Looting. Except that “Vicky” Ostweiler is actually male. So they aren’t a radical lesbian couple living a life liberated from family shackles or whatever, they are a heterosexual married couple wherein the husband has a fetish lol. Extremely bourgeois!
I saw Lionel Shriver say in an interview something to the effect that progressives are uncomfortable with inequality, and that rather than try to craft policies that alleviate the effects of inequality, they seek to eliminate inequality. Which is of course impossible. While I can understand the argument about private schools possibly furthering inequality, it does seem crazy to suggest that those who can afford them, not choose to use them. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to have good publicly funded schools, thus lessening the incentive to send kids to private schools. This was the case until recently in Canada, where most parents who were wealthy enough to pay private tuition fees, nevertheless opted for public schools. If the public system is strong, why not use it? Sadly, in recent years the public system has deteriorated and predictably, wealthy parents are pulling their kids out of it. But I do realize that asking the progressive left to think realistically about the world we live in is a tall order.
This is definitely one of those areas where ideas that are all well and good in theory come crashing up against the reality of human nature, and are found wanting.
When I was a lib in my 20s, I assumed I’d send my future child to public school to support public education.
Now that I have a kid…. Lololol. We give him the best private education we can afford, and the idea that we shouldn’t for social justice reasons just sounds insane.
I agree with every word of this 100%. I had the exact same perspective shift when I started having kids, to one where “I love my children and will do anything for their good” became the prime directive of my life. Thank you.
Re: the inheritance tax on farmers, haven’t we seen by now what happens to societies that ‘collectivize’ farmland and systematically dispossess their farmers?? It boggles the mind.
I'll be honest, I could not get through this article without my mind going to some dark places. Just the idea that some /r/iamverysmart Communist rando out there has designs to abolish my little family just fills me with a nameless rage. I can just imagine my 3 year old banging on whichever door they are using to keep her from me screaming "MAMA MAMA MAMA" into the night. Children don't deserve to be born orphans just for some vague notion of equality. So I suppose my position on this subject is clear.
"Even if it is “natural” to want to promote the interests of your own children at the expense of others, are we morally justified in doing so?
"The answer is that I don't care."
This pretty much sums up the profound perspective shift I went through on becoming a parent. Nothing is more important to me, or more urgent, than the wellbeing of my children. Suddenly, moral questions I'd ruminated on had an obvious answer. And when everyone in a society is similarly invested in their children and grandchildren, we all do well.
Lately I have been mulling over the ways humans have traditionally matured into adulthood (e.g. marriage and children being the norm), how that's rapidly been changing, and what might be the impact on culture, politics, etc. of having such a large proportion of the adult population never having experienced these transitions. Pregnancy and motherhood, for example, profoundly reshape the brain (see Baby Brain by Dr Sarah McKay). It used to be that most women had been through this by their 30s. What difference this might make over the next couple of generations, who knows.
I want to add a point to Louise’s cogent argument. We should think of parental investment as advantaging their offspring at the expense of other children ONLY in the setting of zero-sum games such as positional goods (e.g., is Louise’s children are academical successful they may displace my children from Cambridge.)
But in life we live in communities of inter-dependence. My children may one day benefit from the inventions created, or diseases treated, by Louise’s children and vice versa. By and large, her parental investment is not only a head start for her own brood but also a contribution to the community.
A policy that bans parental investment runs counter to our deepest impulses and impoverishes us all.
This is something I’ve thought about. The idea that we should really love and care about all children equally - when like Louise I would give my life for my own - if we tried to practice this we would only end up not loving our own children.