In Wednesday's Los Angeles Times, Macy's ran a full-page ad for its wedding registry that says, "First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it's a milestone every couple in California can celebrate."
A while back, Paul Varnell looked at the positive side of gays being (oh, the horror!) a target market.
The Macy's ad also brought to mind the article Capitalism and the Family, written last year by Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University, who noted that:
One final result of capitalism's effects on economic growth and the rise of the love-based marriage is perhaps the most controversial cultural issue of the early 21st century: the demand for the legalization of same-sex marriage. ...
Although leftist historians...at least recognize the ways in which capitalism has made gay identity and thus the demand for same-sex marriage possible, they still go out of their way to note that this does not mean that capitalism is actually good.
Conservatives, however, seem unaware of the connection. They continue to pay lip service to the great things capitalism provides and often understand correctly the ways in which its economic effects cannot be controlled, yet they complain about the cultural dynamism that is the direct result of the dynamism of the market.
That sums it up nicely.
More. David Boaz, as it happens, has a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week about capitalism and its political discontents, taking aim at presidential candidates (and, I'd add, their media cheerleaders) who hypocritically disparage the "money culture" of traders, entrepreneurs and manufacturers. States Boaz, in rebuttal: "You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others."
23 Comments for “Capitalism and Gay Equality”
posted by grendel on
reminds me of Daniel Bell and “The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism” capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction — or so his argument goes — and ironically, I seem to recall he was a conservative
posted by avee on
No, the Marxist were again wrong. It’s not capitalism that destroys itself; rather, capitalism is the engine of change — and progress — that pushes society ever forward toward freedom. Some elements of social conservatism, such as prejudice, thus get rejected, as they are in the end “unprofitable” in a dynamic society.
It’s so-called “progressives,” who promote a collectivistic, regulatory state, who are the real enemies of progress (a dynamic, ever-more-free society).
posted by Richard on
Well, the only politicians who oppose capitalism are those running under the Socialist or Communist Parties. How many elections have they won?
Capitalism does not mean, anything and everything should be unregulated. It does not mean that people should be above the law and how in the he-double-L it came to mean that a business entity is a human being is beyond me.
The rise of eighteenth century capitalism was probably an important factor in the development of many political issues dealing with human rights.
posted by Brian on
Unbridled capitalism is an engine that encourages selfishness and creates a “tragedy of the commons”. It ends up destroying our world because it creates a desire to make as much money as possible in as short a time as possible, however it can be done. A few rich capitalists make out like bandits, but many more suffer the negative consequences.
My “progressive” beliefs are that your right to make a profit ENDS when it compromises my basic human right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat safe food, find affordable housing, or have affordable health care.
People should have freedom in their personal lives, but the market place should have strong regulations to protect the rights of the majority. Just because a corporation can create a catchy advertising jingle and can convince people to make unwise decisions doesn’t mean it should be allowed to do so.
posted by The Gay Species on
The choice between collectivism and lassez fair capitalism is a false dilemma. The only choice is with a market economy, and the only fair choice in a market economy is a regulated market economy.
Or do you support child labor, 16-hour workdays, 7-day work weeks, unsafe working environments, subprime lending hoaxes, monopolistic and predatory lending and banking practices, free as opposed to fair trade, and other exploitations?
Joseph Schumpeter warned against monopolistic capitalism as “socialism by other means.” Frederick Hayek and Karl Popper, both market economy advocates, recognized the market is not suitable for all social needs, such as health care.
The answer has long been regulated markets, but Ideologues on the Left and Right take opposing, irrational stances, as if those polarities are the sole options.
Would you approved the repeal of Regulation Z, Truth in Lending? Do you believe the “right to contract” exists in a cartel? Apparently, you only believe in your bottom line self interest, but even Adam Smith insisted on the moral sentiments of “analogous emotions” for a system of equity and fairness to function. But then, Wealth of Nations was only his application of Theory of Moral Sentiments. Since Smith never saw a “factory,” knew little of our concept of “corporation,” much less multi-national corporation, I think your Ideology is no stronger than Marx’s is weak.
posted by Brian Miller on
I support markets regulated by individuals.
One reason why regulation by government *always* fails is because it’s not disconnected to the market. More often than not, it becomes a tool by the powerful interests in the market to preserve their dominance.
posted by Richard on
The right-wing and Libertarian version of capitalism and free markets are largely their own partisan invention.
Yeah, the Libertarian Party does support child labor, 24/7 work days, unsafe working conditions, the abolishment of civil rights laws.
posted by another steve on
Richard, the LP does not support enslaving children or forcing employers to provide conditions that workers will rebel against.
It amazes me that left-liberals condemn U.S. companies that hire child labor overseas, when often for these families the choice is working in a factory or going hungry (or prostitution). But oh, how good it must make U.S. lefties feel to but a stop to this “exploitation.” Richard, give yourself a great big hug.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The willfull blindness of the radical left never ceases to amaze me, since it is entirely self-defeating. I have encountered the gay left’s reflexive anti-capitalism lately on the Gays Without Borders e-list, where from time to time there is an obligatory slam against the United States for its oppressive capitalism (and for every evil in the world, both real and imaginary). Not only are the critics in question guilty of mind-blowing double standards where oppression is concerned, and not only are they oblivious to the good that capitalism (for all its faults) has brought, they are also corrupt because they are enjoying the fruits of capitalism (and of Western freedoms) even as they use their privilege to attack the sources of it. One of the most frustrating things about dealing with them is their manichaeist outlook that forces everything into a stark black and white, either/or pair of alternatives despite the world not being that simple. Thus, because I criticize them, I must represent “the other” (not another among a range of possible views, but the one and only possible other) and am therefore painted as a right-wing stooge. It is quite tiresome. Unfortunately, the international gay rights movement in my experience is dominated by Marxists. They remind me of the Japanese WWII soldiers of legend who remained on outlying islands decades after the war ended, still thinking the war was continuing.
posted by Richard on
Once again, anyone who states the simple truth about what the right-wing or Libertarians support is autmoatically called a ‘left-winger’ or a ‘liberal’.
I do not affiliate with such a philosophy nor am I a member of either major party. I am an Independent.
The Libertarian Party wants to abolish virutally every single government regulation, law and constitutional amendment that came into being since the nineteenth century (or possibly the 18th).
Wheather or not this is good or bad, is debatable. However, it is certainly a major part of the LP’s agenda and do not feel it is ethical for a party to try and lie about its platform.
Young children in developing nations could be sent to school, instead of some dangerous factory where they often treated like dirt. Wealthy nations could do more to help poorer nations develop.
Again, these policies are as debatable as what the Libertarian propose. The notion that young children have to work in dangerous conditions or they must starve is a false argument.
Also, the LP supports the legalization of all drugs and prostitution.
The point, is that the version of capitalism and free markets often promoted by the right-wing and libertarians is actually very different from the one that most people want, that exists in most nations and was being advocated by people like Adam Smith.
By all means, we should be willing to have an intelligent discussion and debate about policy. However, when the right-wing or libertarians pretend like they have advocate the one, true capitalism, they need to be called on it.
posted by Richard on
The other Richard;
I hope that you are not accusing me of belonging to the ‘radical left’. It is hard, in my view, to assert that gay people living in developed nations are the entire ‘international’ gay rights movement.
Few Americans have really travled or lived in developing parts of the world and thus really do not understand how good, and bad, we have it in the developed world and why.
Also, as I have seen here, the gay right-wing and libertarians are just as a
capable of doing what you described.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, we’re all trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt on your claim that you’re “an independent” and you belong to no major party… but your points in just this post -skip all the others in total- screams farLeft, Democrat-thinking statist, liberal behavorialist.
It’s a fiction you’re anything but that as your attitudes about the evils of capitalism here attest… frankly, your opinions about “economic liberty” would bring smiles to Obama’s face and he hasn’t had many of those lately.
You write: “The Libertarian Party wants to abolish virutally every single government regulation, law and constitutional amendment that came into being since the nineteenth century (or possibly the 18th).”
Baloney. You’ve been called on that ridiculous claim before… the May 08 LP platform adopted in Denver says nothing of the sort.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
If you want to hide behind that thin-as-skin banner of “independent” then you need to start thinking and acting like one instead of an apologist for the welfare state. I’m no Liberatarian… in fact, the majority of my life I’ve spent trying to reason with Libs to join the GOP. I’ve never known a Lib to embrace the notion that no govt is the optimum state for mankind. They believe in a strong natl defense, lower taxes, smaller govt, personal freedoms. In fact, they’re more like TommieJefferson’s notion of an enlightened citizen than all the modern Dems put together.
Really, guy, you gotta start acting like you claim to be… or you gotta get a new schtick.
posted by Richard on
MM, I would really like to give you the benifit of the doubt, but you pretty much done everything here but sit up and peck for the GOP to let them screw you.
Given the fact that you are a gay partisan Republican, where do you get off tell me — an Independent — who to be an Independent?
In your mind, anyone who does not worship the ground that the GOP walks on most be a Democrat or (gasp) a liberal.
I have friends who have done the same thing with Democrats and Republicans over the years and have little patience for such childish antics.
Judges are not suppose to be Democrats or Republicans when they are making their decisions, at least if you believe in due process, equal protection and the rule of law.
The notion that a Democrat would have ruled differently is just silly. If the majority of the GOP still likes that judge is is probably because they hope his ruling will hurt Democrats.
Just like lots of Republicans roll out to defend Ralph Nader’s rights, but cannot be found when its Bob Barr’s.
I never said that capitalism or free markets were evil. I stated a simple fact, which you hare trying to cover up by personal attacks and outright lies.
Sounds like a gay partisan to me.
Your inability to accept the basic truth about libertarianism and the Libertarian Party is simply shocking.
Fact 1: The Libertarian Party wants to abolish virutally every single government regulation, law and constitutional amendment that came into being since the nineteenth century (or possibly the 18th.
Why: The Libertarian Party believes that most — if not all — government rules, laws, regulations are unconstitutional, and violate individual rights.
If they somehow managed to win a lot of elections, they would be taking us to an economic reality, very similar to what existed in the ninteenth century.
The LP motto has long been a call for members to reject the initation of force or fraud. In other words, reject must government rules, regulations and laws.
Libertarians oppose the Income Tax, many want States to elect Senators again and Dr. Mary Ruwart herself said that elections and political rights are not really not that important.
Baloney. You’ve been called on that ridiculous claim before… the May 08 LP platform adopted in Denver says nothing of the sort.
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
If you want to hide behind that thin-as-skin banner of “independent” then you need to start thinking and acting like one instead of an apologist for the welfare state. I’m no Liberatarian… in fact, the majority of my life I’ve spent trying to reason with Libs to join the GOP. I’ve never known a Lib to embrace the notion that no govt is the optimum state for mankind. They believe in a strong natl defense, lower taxes, smaller govt, personal freedoms. In fact, they’re more like TommieJefferson’s notion of an enlightened citizen than all the modern Dems put together.
Really, guy, you gotta start acting like you claim to be… or you gotta get a new schtick.
posted by Richard on
The Libertarian Party has, in recent years, made their platform shorter and thus vaguer.
However, anyone who really reads the platform and understands the philosophy they are advocating knows what the logical implications are if such a philosophy comes to be the unlaw of the land.
posted by Bobby on
“Fact 1: The Libertarian Party wants to abolish virutally every single government regulation, law and constitutional amendment that came into being since the nineteenth century (or possibly the 18th.”
—And what’s wrong with that? We’re over-regulated as far as I’m concerned.
“Libertarians oppose the Income Tax”
—Because it’s government robbery. You made your money, why can’t they let you keep it? Why should I pay for public education if I don’t have kids? Why should I finance pork projects like bridges to nowhere in Alaska? Democrats actually want to raise taxes, I tell you this, if we’re going to pay any taxes, it should be 5% across the board.
I just heard Obama saying that he wants to eliminate taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. I make $45,000 a year, I have a mortgage to pay, don’t I deserve a tax break? Why should some old geezer get a tax break?
The truth is that the libertarian party is the best party for America, but they have no chance in hell, people for the most part like the status quo. They don’t like radical changes.
posted by Richard on
Bobby;
We can debate the merits of the Libertarian Party, but we should not be debating facts. Once people agree to facts, then we can debate nomative values.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, you don’t really want to debate facts or the merits of the LP –what you really want to do is make sure the “gay vote” is kept solid for your Democrat masta… and when it comes to contending that you’re “an independent”, I’ll gladly give you that appellation when you start speaking and acting like an independent instead of someone intent on keeping the gay vote safely in the hands of the Democrats.
Like elsewhere here, you’ve claimed lots of “facts” that are nothing more than loosely & poorly formed opinions parading as “facts”.
You don’t mean to debate the merits of the LP –which you earlier contended was the party that supported “Yeah, the Libertarian Party does support child labor, 24/7 work days, unsafe working conditions, the abolishment of civil rights laws.”
Those were your unenlightened opinions parading as facts… when called on it and shown clearly that the most recent LP platform does nothing of the sort, you STILL claim it does and try to spin away into other ridiculous opinions that are equally without basis, merit, or support.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a moderate, Ripon GOPer who is also a fiscal conservative.
We know you’re not an Independent, Richard, or else you wouldn’t play the usual gayLeft Democrat games you do here on a regular basis… like here when you claim
“However, anyone who really reads the platform and understands the philosophy they are advocating knows what the logical implications are if such a philosophy comes to be the unlaw of the land.”
“Really reads” Richard? Is that like reading through some gayLeft Democrat approved filter? Sometimes your condescending sneer even trumps the king of condescension (and your hero) BarryObama… I wonder what all those libertarians will do when they’re done embracing their guns, their gods, their checkbook balances and their bitterness?
Spoken like a real independent, unaligned thinker there, Richard. NOT
posted by Bobby on
The reality is that millions of people want big government. They want public health insurance, foreign aid, welfare, they may not want military expenses unless they’re fighting a politically correct war such as the one Clinton fought in Yugoslavia and Haiti , they want more money for public schools, more money for alternative energy, more money for the environment, the government to save all those people that took bad mortgages, and so on.
The libertarian challenge is to convince the people that they don’t need all that crap.
posted by tavdy on
“The reality is that millions of people want big government.”
Perhaps because it’s successful? The Western countries which get the best marks for quality of life are almost all big-government states. The top 10 for 2005 were Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Australia, Iceland, Italy, Denmark and Spain; the USA came in 13th, after Singapore and Finland. Most of those are “big government” states – free healthcare, free education, welfare, etc.
By comparison, the UK is a “big government” state that has spent the last 25 years experimenting with “small government” ideas – particularly getting private companies to provide services previously run by the government under a scheme known as PFI. including healthcare, prisons, immigration, municipal construction, etc.; the result has been a financial nightmare – at least one local Council (Bedfordshire County Council) has been abolished (or will be next year) as a result of involvement with a PFI scheme, which saw them become simultaneously one of the most expensive and worst-performing Councils in the UK. A decade ago the UK had a huge budget surplus; it now has an even bigger budget shortfall and, due to the government’s inability to control inflation, is facing a period of strikes the likes of which have not been seen since the early days of Thatcher.
posted by grendel on
in case “quality of life” is too nebulous for hard-nosed conservatives/libertarians, how how ranking countries according to normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita? (aka “the Human Development Index”.) In 2007 the top ten by those measures are:
1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada (my home and native land aka the True North Strong and Free)
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10.France
hardly a ringing empirical confirmation of the small government ideology.
posted by Richard on
MM;
I would be more then happy to debate the merits of the Libertarian Party or even the proper role of minor parties within the republic.
People often confuse normative vs. factual based statements.
As an Independent I do not want the “gay vote” to be stuck with either political party. Heck, I am not really sure the two-party system is such a good idea to begin with.
I find your use of the term “masta” to be entirely without merit and rather rude. Furthermore, given that you claim to be a gay partisan, where as I am not, you might want to use that word on yourself.
If you want to discuss what the LP stands for, I am more then happy to have that discussion.
Fact 1: Child labor laws are a government regulation on the free market system. As the LP opposes most, if not all, government regulations they oppose bans or restrictions on child labor.
They oppose, on similar grounds, all civil rights legislation as it applies to the private sector.
In fact you will be hard pressed to find a government regulation on the private sector that the party supports.
Libertarian Party Platform (1992)
“we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including discrimination in employment, housing, and privately owned so-called public accommodations.”
Libertarian Party Platform (2000)
“We support repeal of…minimum wage laws,…labor legislation for women and children. We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ?aid to the poor? programs
Yes, the platform has been shorted over the years, but the party has not really changed its basic beliefs;
“The Libertarian Party platform opposes all intervention by government into the area of economics” (2007)
Those were your unenlightened opinions parading as facts… when called on it and shown clearly that the most recent LP platform does nothing of the sort, you STILL claim it does and try to spin away into other ridiculous opinions that are equally without basis, merit, or support.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a moderate, Ripon GOPer who is also a fiscal conservative.
We know you’re not an Independent, Richard, or else you wouldn’t play the usual gayLeft Democrat games you do here on a regular basis… like here when you claim
“However, anyone who really reads the platform and understands the philosophy they are advocating knows what the logical implications are if such a philosophy comes to be the unlaw of the land.”
“Really reads” Richard? Is that like reading through some gayLeft Democrat approved filter? Sometimes your condescending sneer even trumps the king of condescension (and your hero) BarryObama… I wonder what all those libertarians will do when they’re done embracing their guns, their gods, their checkbook balances and their bitterness?
Spoken like a real independent, unaligned thinker there, Richard. NOT
posted by Richard on
The most recent LP platform does not change the party’s philosophy or beliefs at all. It simple rewords them or leaves certain issues stated by implication.
Anyone with a basic understanding of libertarianism and the party’s history should know what they do and do not believe. You seem to be having problems accepting reality.
I am an Independent, while you are a gay partisan who cares more about promoting his own party, then advancing gay rights.
Clearly, you do not understand libertarinaism, as a philosophy, nor do you understand th Libertarian Party, its history and platform.
Unlike you, I have not endorsed a presidential candidate. So, McCain, Obama, Clinton, Ron Paul, Bob Bar or Ralph Nader are not my heroes, but they may be your ‘mastas’.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
in case “quality of life” is too nebulous for hard-nosed conservatives/libertarians, how how ranking countries according to normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita? (aka “the Human Development Index”.)
Of course, if one actually looks at that index, instead of just the rankings, one sees quickly that the difference between the United States and those countries are rather miniscule, and are based entirely on how one chooses to weight factors — especially since we set the benchmark for productivity in such things as GDP per capita.
Furthermore, one might also note that all of the countries on this list save the United States have strong barriers to immigration, either geographic or legal, are significantly smaller in population size, and much more homogenous in population makeup.
In short, the United States, despite being a much more diverse country and economy, nicely keeps pace with these competitors and in several respects exceeds them, all WITHOUT the benefit of a welfare state.