What does the word 'liberal' mean nowadays? It's a question worth asking. In North America, there has long been a distortion of the word to just mean big government and leftism, whilst in Australia, it is the name of what has become the major conservative party, a party that does not even support the freedom to marry for gay couples. Neither definition seems very 'liberal' to me.
In fact, the word 'liberal' has an inherent meaning, much like conservative or socialist. It means to support freedom. Of course, how this freedom is interpreted differs amongst individuals, but surely it doesn't mean taxation without representation or opposing the freedom to marry. We need to reclaim this word by strengthening awareness about what liberalism is (and what it is not).
All liberals should support freedom above any other ideology. A liberal may be conservative, progressive, pro-business, pro-environment, religious or atheist, or everything in between, but they must respect liberty above all else. Whilst they may have their own beliefs, they must not force it onto others. In politics, liberty must be their main game, and in upholding this liberty, they must not use the power of the state to force their beliefs onto others. For example, a liberal is free to not approve of same sex marriages personally, but should still vote for the freedom to marry. On the other hand, a liberal may be personally angry about climate sceptics not supporting more climate action, but has to fully understand that the mutual respect of each individual's personal conscience and the upholding of the principle of governments only levying taxes when there is a mandate to do so are too important to sacrifice in any case, and therefore will not use the climate emergency to justify distorting these principles.
Liberals may otherwise still have disagreements on policy and ideology. For example, some liberals believe that lower taxation and freer markets are always the key to freedom, whilst others believe that freedom would only equally be available to the poor and disadvantaged if a strong welfare safety net is available. Some liberals believe in gun control, citing that it is a right for citizens to be able to roam the streets without fear, whilst others believe that the right to bear arms is more important. Either way, these are all valid disagreements for liberals to have, because they are all about how freedom is to be maintained. Therefore, liberalism should be a broad church. I believe the consensus should be that everyone who truly believes in liberty for all should be allowed in, even though this welcome should not extend to encompass those who seek to take away others' liberty for any other ideological agenda (whether it is religious values, environmentalism, upholding tradition, or feminism).
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
Rehabilitating Traditional Values
I believe that some traditional values, like a lifelong commitment to one's partner and family, public modesty, and modesty in the entertainment sphere, and associated lifestyle habits, like saying no to 'recreational' drugs, are conducive to living a great life. As much as I know that these are great values to have, however, I do know that just this preceding sentence will have made some readers uncomfortable. As a result, this is a topic we don't often get to talk about in public. And it is something we need to address.
I believe the reason why certain traditional values have almost become a taboo topic is because some of the people that have been proponents of these values in the past few decades have been judgemental. We need to change this image. For example, whilst I may be a proponent of the 'just say no to drugs' movement, I am also not going to be judgemental towards any drug user. In fact, I am of the opinion that what they do should not come under legal punishment, although I know that too may be controversial in some circles. In other words, although I live by this 'just say no' principle and I am proud to promote it from time to time, unlike many other people I don't feel that I am morally superior to drug users because of their lifestyle choice. It's just that I propose and promote what I believe to be a better lifestyle choice. The same principle can be applied to many other things in life.
The traditional values movement has a right to promote its values. However, it really doesn't have a right to treat those who don't follow as inferior or less moral in any way. Like any other movement, we need to attract followers by standing on our own merits. And being judgmental is never going to be viewed nicely.
I believe the reason why certain traditional values have almost become a taboo topic is because some of the people that have been proponents of these values in the past few decades have been judgemental. We need to change this image. For example, whilst I may be a proponent of the 'just say no to drugs' movement, I am also not going to be judgemental towards any drug user. In fact, I am of the opinion that what they do should not come under legal punishment, although I know that too may be controversial in some circles. In other words, although I live by this 'just say no' principle and I am proud to promote it from time to time, unlike many other people I don't feel that I am morally superior to drug users because of their lifestyle choice. It's just that I propose and promote what I believe to be a better lifestyle choice. The same principle can be applied to many other things in life.
The traditional values movement has a right to promote its values. However, it really doesn't have a right to treat those who don't follow as inferior or less moral in any way. Like any other movement, we need to attract followers by standing on our own merits. And being judgmental is never going to be viewed nicely.
The Libertarian Vision: Better Achieved Gradually
The libertarian cause, i.e. to reduce government intervention in every area of life and to give people more flexibility and 'freedom to do the right thing', is a very noble cause. However, I believe that it must be achieved gradually, perhaps over decades. Let me explain.
Firstly, whilst libertarian policies as we commonly understand them are ultimately what we should strive for, in some cases their immediate implementation would cause some people to lose freedom. For example, the withdrawal of anti-discrimination laws would mean ethnic minorities and LGBT people have less freedom to access opportunities in life, the withdrawal of government welfare would mean those living in poverty have less freedom to negotiate their working conditions, and the complete and immediate withdrawal of gun control may mean those who cannot afford to buy a gun or learn to use one feel unsafe and therefore effectively lose their freedom of movement. Whilst all these policies may eventually be able to be implemented in a society that is mature enough for them, in the 2010s we are simply not there yet.
Let me take this from another angle. Whilst those of us familiar with libertarianism find libertarian policies logical, whether we agree with their (immediate) implementation or not, the wider world really doesn't understand them at all. The Libertarian Party may be the third largest party in the USA, but stereotypes about libertarians being conspiracy theorists or even anti-social remain strong in some circles. In Australia, where a senator representing a libertarian party was elected recently (something US libertarians can probably only dream of right now), many people across the political spectrum, from the environmentalist left to the religious right, still appear to completely misunderstand the new senator's positions on various matters. All this just shows that libertarianism continues to have a communication problem worldwide, and many non-libertarians continue to view it as, to put it mildly, eccentric.
In a society that measures policies and ideologies by their results more than anything else, libertarianism cannot exist in a bubble. It must generate acceptable results regarding its stated goal: to maximize freedom for everyone. And if it is to do so, then libertarian policies must be rolled out gradually, and only when they do increase freedom in the current society. If we can consistently stick to this plan, libertarianism will become better understood by society, and will be seen as practical and the right thing to do.
Firstly, whilst libertarian policies as we commonly understand them are ultimately what we should strive for, in some cases their immediate implementation would cause some people to lose freedom. For example, the withdrawal of anti-discrimination laws would mean ethnic minorities and LGBT people have less freedom to access opportunities in life, the withdrawal of government welfare would mean those living in poverty have less freedom to negotiate their working conditions, and the complete and immediate withdrawal of gun control may mean those who cannot afford to buy a gun or learn to use one feel unsafe and therefore effectively lose their freedom of movement. Whilst all these policies may eventually be able to be implemented in a society that is mature enough for them, in the 2010s we are simply not there yet.
Let me take this from another angle. Whilst those of us familiar with libertarianism find libertarian policies logical, whether we agree with their (immediate) implementation or not, the wider world really doesn't understand them at all. The Libertarian Party may be the third largest party in the USA, but stereotypes about libertarians being conspiracy theorists or even anti-social remain strong in some circles. In Australia, where a senator representing a libertarian party was elected recently (something US libertarians can probably only dream of right now), many people across the political spectrum, from the environmentalist left to the religious right, still appear to completely misunderstand the new senator's positions on various matters. All this just shows that libertarianism continues to have a communication problem worldwide, and many non-libertarians continue to view it as, to put it mildly, eccentric.
In a society that measures policies and ideologies by their results more than anything else, libertarianism cannot exist in a bubble. It must generate acceptable results regarding its stated goal: to maximize freedom for everyone. And if it is to do so, then libertarian policies must be rolled out gradually, and only when they do increase freedom in the current society. If we can consistently stick to this plan, libertarianism will become better understood by society, and will be seen as practical and the right thing to do.
Marriage Has Changed, and it's Too Late to Go Back
Once upon a time, marriage always represented a lifelong union. Well, there were exceptions, for example regarding domestic violence, but in more than 95% of cases it lasted for life. Like most pro-marriage people, I have long lamented the change away from this concept in the wider society in the past five or so decades. In the past, I have tried to support everything from divorce reform to denouncing Hollywood celebrities who don't take marriage 'seriously', by our standards. I have even tried to tie my support for marriage equality to a demand that gay and lesbian couples who do marry take marriage 'seriously'. Guess what? None of that worked at all, and all of that was seen as offensive by significant numbers of people.
And I probably should not have expected any differently. Marriage may traditionally have been what we believed it to be, and it may have been that way during our own upbringing because our families were more traditional than many others out there, but for many people the marriage they buy into does come with the option of walking away when they don't like how things turn out. And when we try to uphold 'traditional marriage' by criticising those who have opted into 'modern marriage', we only end up offending many people.
Whilst we may not like how marriage evolved into 'modern marriage', it is a fact of history, and it is something that has already become fact (perhaps even before our generation was born). Whilst we may not like 'modern marriage' very much, it is now a legitimate option, and one that is chosen by many people. We just have to accept it for what it is. To many people out there, 'modern marriage' was always available, and those seeing marriage this way right now effectively just opted into what was already available. They are not responsible for 'cheapening marriage' (that occured long ago), and any movement suggesting that would rightly be seen as offensive.
I guess those wanting to support traditional marriage as it existed before the 1960s should find another term. Some have suggested 'covenant', whilst others have suggested something along the lines of 'lifelong partnership' or 'lifelong marriage'. Whatever we end up choosing, however, we should not aim to expand the new description beyond those who really believe in lifelong commitment, 'for better or for worse'. I believe one reason why marriage became 'modern marriage' was that there was great pressure on couples to get married back in the 1970s and 1980s, when many couples just weren't ready for that commitment, due to the temporary influence of various 'liberation movements' back then. If we let these couples just cohabitate without social pressure, we would have been able to retain the traditional spirit of marriage, ready to become mainstream again perhaps in the more family friendly 1990s. Belief in commitment, like all other traditional values, must never be forced onto an unwilling majority. Otherwise, it will be the traditional value that ends up being subverted, because the majority always wins.
And I probably should not have expected any differently. Marriage may traditionally have been what we believed it to be, and it may have been that way during our own upbringing because our families were more traditional than many others out there, but for many people the marriage they buy into does come with the option of walking away when they don't like how things turn out. And when we try to uphold 'traditional marriage' by criticising those who have opted into 'modern marriage', we only end up offending many people.
Whilst we may not like how marriage evolved into 'modern marriage', it is a fact of history, and it is something that has already become fact (perhaps even before our generation was born). Whilst we may not like 'modern marriage' very much, it is now a legitimate option, and one that is chosen by many people. We just have to accept it for what it is. To many people out there, 'modern marriage' was always available, and those seeing marriage this way right now effectively just opted into what was already available. They are not responsible for 'cheapening marriage' (that occured long ago), and any movement suggesting that would rightly be seen as offensive.
I guess those wanting to support traditional marriage as it existed before the 1960s should find another term. Some have suggested 'covenant', whilst others have suggested something along the lines of 'lifelong partnership' or 'lifelong marriage'. Whatever we end up choosing, however, we should not aim to expand the new description beyond those who really believe in lifelong commitment, 'for better or for worse'. I believe one reason why marriage became 'modern marriage' was that there was great pressure on couples to get married back in the 1970s and 1980s, when many couples just weren't ready for that commitment, due to the temporary influence of various 'liberation movements' back then. If we let these couples just cohabitate without social pressure, we would have been able to retain the traditional spirit of marriage, ready to become mainstream again perhaps in the more family friendly 1990s. Belief in commitment, like all other traditional values, must never be forced onto an unwilling majority. Otherwise, it will be the traditional value that ends up being subverted, because the majority always wins.
Referendum for Climate Change?
Many people I know have been complaining about how governments around the world are not doing enough to address climate change, and how Western democratic systems have not adequately met the challenge.
Whilst I am not unsympathetic to their concerns, I really think the issue should be addressed through democratic consensus. This is because climate change can only be addressed through collective action, and if you believe strongly in liberty and democracy, you realise that collective action must only come through a strong democratic mandate. In fact, when climate action is implemented without a clear democratic mandate, you get what has happened in Australia recently - the tearing down of whatever achievement made, plus the election of a government that is detrimental on many other fronts too.
Therefore, any future climate action must have a clear democratic mandate. How do we establish this? A referendum may be a suitable vehicle, I suggest. We can have a clear campaign on the issue at hand without other aspects of politics interfering, and a resounding 'yes' will provide ongoing legitimacy to climate action. Of course, many governments are not interested in referendums. However, that does not prevent interested people in campaigning for one to be held. Better still, we could institute a citizen initiated referendum system once and for all.
Whilst I am not unsympathetic to their concerns, I really think the issue should be addressed through democratic consensus. This is because climate change can only be addressed through collective action, and if you believe strongly in liberty and democracy, you realise that collective action must only come through a strong democratic mandate. In fact, when climate action is implemented without a clear democratic mandate, you get what has happened in Australia recently - the tearing down of whatever achievement made, plus the election of a government that is detrimental on many other fronts too.
Therefore, any future climate action must have a clear democratic mandate. How do we establish this? A referendum may be a suitable vehicle, I suggest. We can have a clear campaign on the issue at hand without other aspects of politics interfering, and a resounding 'yes' will provide ongoing legitimacy to climate action. Of course, many governments are not interested in referendums. However, that does not prevent interested people in campaigning for one to be held. Better still, we could institute a citizen initiated referendum system once and for all.
Modesty: An Example of Why Everything Must be in Balance
Dressing modestly is about being respectful, I believe. It's a kind of respect seen too rarely in mainstream popular culture these days. In particular, it's a kind of respect to people committed to the abstinence lifestyle, and to people who are uncomfortable about flaunting their bodies in public.
However, like all good things in the world, it is only one good, not necessarily the highest or the most dominant good. Therefore, it must be considered in conjunction with, rather than over, all other goods.
What if we set strict standards for modesty, and exclude everyone and every cultural phenomenon that does not fit the standard? From what I know, some parents have done this regarding the culture allowed in their homes. Homeschooling parents in particular may find it quite easy to do this. The results? The young adults raised this way often complain that they missed out on years of popular cultural references and feel like an immigrant in their own country, learning a new culture. Obviously this would impact on their socialisation.
I guess we can also take this one step further. When people are not comfortable interacting in the mainstream, they often stick to their own subculture. And subcultures where people 'cannot' leave anyway are vulnerable to being controlled by crazy leaders, I believe. I'm not saying that it will happen - but it may just happen.
Live and dress modestly, and have plenty of modesty in your life, if that's what you believe. I certainly do myself. But going to great lengths to exclude the rest of the world is not worth it, and may even be a dangerous idea.
However, like all good things in the world, it is only one good, not necessarily the highest or the most dominant good. Therefore, it must be considered in conjunction with, rather than over, all other goods.
What if we set strict standards for modesty, and exclude everyone and every cultural phenomenon that does not fit the standard? From what I know, some parents have done this regarding the culture allowed in their homes. Homeschooling parents in particular may find it quite easy to do this. The results? The young adults raised this way often complain that they missed out on years of popular cultural references and feel like an immigrant in their own country, learning a new culture. Obviously this would impact on their socialisation.
I guess we can also take this one step further. When people are not comfortable interacting in the mainstream, they often stick to their own subculture. And subcultures where people 'cannot' leave anyway are vulnerable to being controlled by crazy leaders, I believe. I'm not saying that it will happen - but it may just happen.
Live and dress modestly, and have plenty of modesty in your life, if that's what you believe. I certainly do myself. But going to great lengths to exclude the rest of the world is not worth it, and may even be a dangerous idea.
The Ex-Conservative Perspective
I was raised in a conservative culture. I was once a conservative. Now I am not, at least politically.
I still have the values of my upbringing. I value family, commitment, freedom from social engineering and the like, as much as when I was younger. I have nothing against the values underpinning 'conservatism' (at least social conservatism). It's the way I was brought up, and it's my values. However, the way political and cultural conservatism is carried out is often counterproductive, and I would like to see more adaptive ways of applying the values.
I would like society to have a conversation about these and many more conservative values and ideals. They are ideas that I have thought about again and again, and I would have a lot to say about them. My positions are based on preserving the spirit of those values but in a way that is adaptive so that it benefits the diverse people and cultures of the modern world, something that conservatism cannot do. As we share the same values, I look forward to talking to conservatives about why I believe in my application of such values rather than the conservative way.
In conclusion, I don't support conservatism as a complete ideology anymore, but I sure still support those values. It's all about applying them in a better way, I guess.
I still have the values of my upbringing. I value family, commitment, freedom from social engineering and the like, as much as when I was younger. I have nothing against the values underpinning 'conservatism' (at least social conservatism). It's the way I was brought up, and it's my values. However, the way political and cultural conservatism is carried out is often counterproductive, and I would like to see more adaptive ways of applying the values.
I would like society to have a conversation about these and many more conservative values and ideals. They are ideas that I have thought about again and again, and I would have a lot to say about them. My positions are based on preserving the spirit of those values but in a way that is adaptive so that it benefits the diverse people and cultures of the modern world, something that conservatism cannot do. As we share the same values, I look forward to talking to conservatives about why I believe in my application of such values rather than the conservative way.
In conclusion, I don't support conservatism as a complete ideology anymore, but I sure still support those values. It's all about applying them in a better way, I guess.
Non-judgmentalism in Balance: Judge Values, Not Actions
My generation in the West is known for being non-judgmental. And I agree it's a good thing. The culture I was brought up in was known for its judgementalness, and freedom and truth get lost in the way. And unlike what some people thought, it wasn't just freedom to live a 'loose lifestyle' that gets lost. It's the freedom required to do the right thing that matters. For example, peer pressure against supporting marriage equality would be too great to overcome for most people in the aforementioned culture.
Non-judgmentalism has been challenged on the grounds that it doesn't make sense, since we judge in one way or another anyway. My generation is especially prone to judge against people who are racist or homophobic, for example. I think the important thing is that we should judge people's values, rather than their individual actions. Non-judgmentalism is respect for people's chosen identity and chosen course of action in life. It is to respect the dignity of others, even when they choose differently than you do. It should be applied to everyone.
However, even in this spirit, there will always be issues where worldviews clash. To avoid this is just escapism. I'd rather we just deal with that openly. In fact, dealing with values people hold and frankly saying that you agree or disagree with them is a very respectful thing, as long as the values in question are clearly actually held by your 'opponent'. This is because dealing with people based on an identity they themselves uphold is the most respectful way of dealing with people in this world. (By extension, we should not judge others' actions to imply that they hold particular values, unless they clearly do so. For example, support for marijuana legalisation may come from those with a positive attitude to recreational drug use, but it may also come from those with a general libertarian attitude. Assuming the wrong values in people is therefore too easy to do, and must be avoided.)
Saying that, for example, unwed mothers are irresponsible people is very judgemental indeed, as you don't know why someone became an unwed mother, either by choice or by circumstance. You don't know their values, you don't know their life. However, standing up for one's values in an argument is another thing altogether. If we do not do this, there will be no values left in this world. I know my own values, and I know that things as diverse as racism, discrimination against single parents, political correctness, homophobia, and 'sex positive radical feminism' will never sit well with such values. Therefore, I am prepared to take up the argument against such values when they are presented. There is no judging particular people's actions in and of themselves in doing this. I may end up criticising particular actions, but it will be because they clearly stem from values I don't agree with, and I am merely using those actions as an example.
Non-judgmentalism has been challenged on the grounds that it doesn't make sense, since we judge in one way or another anyway. My generation is especially prone to judge against people who are racist or homophobic, for example. I think the important thing is that we should judge people's values, rather than their individual actions. Non-judgmentalism is respect for people's chosen identity and chosen course of action in life. It is to respect the dignity of others, even when they choose differently than you do. It should be applied to everyone.
However, even in this spirit, there will always be issues where worldviews clash. To avoid this is just escapism. I'd rather we just deal with that openly. In fact, dealing with values people hold and frankly saying that you agree or disagree with them is a very respectful thing, as long as the values in question are clearly actually held by your 'opponent'. This is because dealing with people based on an identity they themselves uphold is the most respectful way of dealing with people in this world. (By extension, we should not judge others' actions to imply that they hold particular values, unless they clearly do so. For example, support for marijuana legalisation may come from those with a positive attitude to recreational drug use, but it may also come from those with a general libertarian attitude. Assuming the wrong values in people is therefore too easy to do, and must be avoided.)
Saying that, for example, unwed mothers are irresponsible people is very judgemental indeed, as you don't know why someone became an unwed mother, either by choice or by circumstance. You don't know their values, you don't know their life. However, standing up for one's values in an argument is another thing altogether. If we do not do this, there will be no values left in this world. I know my own values, and I know that things as diverse as racism, discrimination against single parents, political correctness, homophobia, and 'sex positive radical feminism' will never sit well with such values. Therefore, I am prepared to take up the argument against such values when they are presented. There is no judging particular people's actions in and of themselves in doing this. I may end up criticising particular actions, but it will be because they clearly stem from values I don't agree with, and I am merely using those actions as an example.
Am I A Feminist?
After some of my recent posts, some people have asked me this question: are you a feminist?
I usually don't like labels. However, to answer this question, I think I'll have to use some. You see, there are two main types of feminism: liberal feminism and radical feminism. As with all things liberal vs radical, I support all of liberal feminism but none of radical feminism.
Liberal feminism, as with all things liberal, is about removing inequalities that are clearly identified in the system, for example unequal education opportunities for women or unequal pay for women for the same job. These inequalities are objective, and are clearly unfair. Fortunately, the work of liberal feminism is over in the West, but we always have to keep the cause up for the sake of women living outside the West.
Radical feminism, on the other hand, is all about a perceived structure to society that disfavours women and must be changed, even when there are no clearly identified inequalities. In radical feminism, people and society are analysed by looking at who has more 'privilege'. Trouble is, this is highly subjective. Thus radical feminism is a subjective ideology. I personally have a particular problem with subjective ideologies - that thing called 'conservatism' that I ran away from was just such an ideology. Conservatism is always able to justify itself, even without looking at objective results, which is often the misery of other people. Radical feminism, for me, carries the same worries. Therefore, it is something I just cannot support.
I'm sure radical feminists are well intentioned. But so are conservatives. And it doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Social engineering, especially when working with anything other than objective evidence, is dangerous.
I usually don't like labels. However, to answer this question, I think I'll have to use some. You see, there are two main types of feminism: liberal feminism and radical feminism. As with all things liberal vs radical, I support all of liberal feminism but none of radical feminism.
Liberal feminism, as with all things liberal, is about removing inequalities that are clearly identified in the system, for example unequal education opportunities for women or unequal pay for women for the same job. These inequalities are objective, and are clearly unfair. Fortunately, the work of liberal feminism is over in the West, but we always have to keep the cause up for the sake of women living outside the West.
Radical feminism, on the other hand, is all about a perceived structure to society that disfavours women and must be changed, even when there are no clearly identified inequalities. In radical feminism, people and society are analysed by looking at who has more 'privilege'. Trouble is, this is highly subjective. Thus radical feminism is a subjective ideology. I personally have a particular problem with subjective ideologies - that thing called 'conservatism' that I ran away from was just such an ideology. Conservatism is always able to justify itself, even without looking at objective results, which is often the misery of other people. Radical feminism, for me, carries the same worries. Therefore, it is something I just cannot support.
I'm sure radical feminists are well intentioned. But so are conservatives. And it doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Social engineering, especially when working with anything other than objective evidence, is dangerous.
The Adaptive Politics Manifesto
Having seen the world develop in various parts of history and the way society responded to new challenges, I have come to the conclusion that adaptation to new realities is one of the most important tasks of any political ideal. If a political ideal or program is implemented maladaptively, it may end up harming its own aims. Consequently, ensuring adaptiveness in this aspect, and ensuring that there are no unjust outcomes during periods of adaptations, becomes very important.
The rest of this manifesto will address just how we can achieve these objectives.
1. Continued adaptation in policies and politics will always be necessary.
The world is always changing, and further change is inevitable. The world now is different from the world in the 1910s, which was different from the 1810s and the 1710s. There's no reason to suggest that things will look any less different in the 2110s. Technology certainly has a central role in this change, and it is only accelerating.
We also discover new things about the world every now and then. For example, just 50 years ago most people thought that being gay was a lifestyle choice, and that interracial marriage was bad for families. In light of new facts, it would be unjust not to change some pre-existing arrangements. The best example of this is the recent marriage equality movement. Whilst we may think we are civilised now, there may still be many things we don't know yet. People in the 1600s considered themselves very civilised too.
In light of the above factors, society will need to continue to adapt to new environments and newly emerged facts of life for the foreseeable future. There is no use running away from this fact. Therefore, a framework for adaptive politics, i.e. how society should best adapt to changes, is needed.
2. Adaptation must be principled, else it will become maladaptive.
When we respond to things, we must do so in a principled manner, with those principles informed by our values. Using 'maintenance of the status quo' as the ideal (a common theme of conservative politics) is therefore counterproductive. Maintaining the status quo in light of new developments may mean the introduction of blatant injustice into our culture. By conserving the literal status quo no matter the price, our pre-existing social values like justice, fairness and compassion often disintegrate.
Note that this does not preclude one from responding to certain things using traditionalist or even 'reactionary' principles. But the application of the principle must be consistent, rather than shying away from the new development and pretending that it does not exist.
3. Adaptation methods can be progressive or reactionary. Both have their value, and both can be dangerous too.
Two main categories of ways to respond to new challenges, which can be equally principled (or not), are progressive ways and reactionary ways. Progressive ways aim to invent new solutions, and reactionary ways aim to bring society back to its original principles. Therefore, both can be valid. However, both can be dangerous too. Fascism came from reactionary impulses, and eugenics came from progressive impulses. Both were classic cases of each form of impulse 'overreaching'.
4. No adaptation method is perfect from the start. All adaptation attempts have to learn from plenty of previous mistakes, often horrible mistakes.
Especially in the beginning, attempts at responding to new developments often overshoot in either, or even both, of the directions described above. Therefore, they are maladaptive at least to a significant degree. Although the mistakes made are rarely as big as fascism and eugenics, they often include a huge amount of injustice, often necessitating official apologies from future administrations. Examples include forced adoptions during the post-war era, racist immigration policies in the 20th century, attempts to provide 'treatment' for gay and lesbian individuals, and segregation in the American south.
It is often only with trial and error that we gather the evidence to rule out maladaptive and unjust practices. For example, we now know that curative therapy for gay people is ineffective and harmful, but in the past people thought they were doing these 'ill' individuals a service. We now know that forced adoptions, and the associated practice of secretive adoptions was a tragedy, but similarly in the 1950s the experts thought that was a good thing to do. Therefore, adaptation taking time to perfect is an inevitable thing.
5. Therefore, the most efficient and painless and the only just way for adaptation to happen is with maximal freedom of conscience.
In light of the above, any response (or lack of response, for example refusal to legislate for marriage equality) society has collectively made in response to new developments may be severely unjust and harmful, especially in the earlier phase of the response. Therefore, such collective decisions must not be forcibly applied to any individual, consistent with the 'do no harm' idea. The decision to be part of a response or not must be voluntary. Therefore, maximal freedom of conscience must be granted to every adult citizen in a society.
A model of 'free market of ideas' also allows ideas to be experimented on in parallel and selected through competition, thus increasing the speed in which a response becomes adaptive, and hastening the awareness and removal of any unjust aspects. Of course, such a market also functions best when proper debate, without requirements for political correctness and with respect of all parties, can occur in society. Therefore, this should be encouraged.
6. Maximal freedom of conscience comprises of a balance of negative and positive freedoms.
The provision of this maximal freedom of conscience must include a balance of negative and positive freedoms. Negative freedoms are freedoms that occur when the government does not interfere against them, and positive freedoms are freedoms that can only be guaranteed with suitable intervention, for example anti-discrimination laws and economic safety nets.
The concept of 'positive freedom' is required, because otherwise we would have a tyranny of the rich and powerful. Poor individuals could essentially become slave-like in their existence and forced to conform to whatever demand from the rich just for survival. The rich and powerful will then be able to shut out the voices of the poor in any debate. However, a strong concept of 'negative freedom' is also required, as it guarantees that people will not be required to go along with a practice just because it has been collectively determined as 'good'.
This is a rough rule that can be used to assess this balance I have proposed: governments should only be able to intervene and thus take away some 'negative freedom' when it will result in the net gain of 'positive freedom' or at least no net loss of freedom overall in society, and the redistribution is just, i.e. from a party having more freedom to a party having less freedom, with the result of the distribution not reversing this relationship. This rule can be used to justify welfare programs and anti-discrimination laws, whilst limiting the ability of the government to tax excessively or run forced adoption programs again.
The rest of this manifesto will address just how we can achieve these objectives.
1. Continued adaptation in policies and politics will always be necessary.
The world is always changing, and further change is inevitable. The world now is different from the world in the 1910s, which was different from the 1810s and the 1710s. There's no reason to suggest that things will look any less different in the 2110s. Technology certainly has a central role in this change, and it is only accelerating.
We also discover new things about the world every now and then. For example, just 50 years ago most people thought that being gay was a lifestyle choice, and that interracial marriage was bad for families. In light of new facts, it would be unjust not to change some pre-existing arrangements. The best example of this is the recent marriage equality movement. Whilst we may think we are civilised now, there may still be many things we don't know yet. People in the 1600s considered themselves very civilised too.
In light of the above factors, society will need to continue to adapt to new environments and newly emerged facts of life for the foreseeable future. There is no use running away from this fact. Therefore, a framework for adaptive politics, i.e. how society should best adapt to changes, is needed.
2. Adaptation must be principled, else it will become maladaptive.
When we respond to things, we must do so in a principled manner, with those principles informed by our values. Using 'maintenance of the status quo' as the ideal (a common theme of conservative politics) is therefore counterproductive. Maintaining the status quo in light of new developments may mean the introduction of blatant injustice into our culture. By conserving the literal status quo no matter the price, our pre-existing social values like justice, fairness and compassion often disintegrate.
Note that this does not preclude one from responding to certain things using traditionalist or even 'reactionary' principles. But the application of the principle must be consistent, rather than shying away from the new development and pretending that it does not exist.
3. Adaptation methods can be progressive or reactionary. Both have their value, and both can be dangerous too.
Two main categories of ways to respond to new challenges, which can be equally principled (or not), are progressive ways and reactionary ways. Progressive ways aim to invent new solutions, and reactionary ways aim to bring society back to its original principles. Therefore, both can be valid. However, both can be dangerous too. Fascism came from reactionary impulses, and eugenics came from progressive impulses. Both were classic cases of each form of impulse 'overreaching'.
4. No adaptation method is perfect from the start. All adaptation attempts have to learn from plenty of previous mistakes, often horrible mistakes.
Especially in the beginning, attempts at responding to new developments often overshoot in either, or even both, of the directions described above. Therefore, they are maladaptive at least to a significant degree. Although the mistakes made are rarely as big as fascism and eugenics, they often include a huge amount of injustice, often necessitating official apologies from future administrations. Examples include forced adoptions during the post-war era, racist immigration policies in the 20th century, attempts to provide 'treatment' for gay and lesbian individuals, and segregation in the American south.
It is often only with trial and error that we gather the evidence to rule out maladaptive and unjust practices. For example, we now know that curative therapy for gay people is ineffective and harmful, but in the past people thought they were doing these 'ill' individuals a service. We now know that forced adoptions, and the associated practice of secretive adoptions was a tragedy, but similarly in the 1950s the experts thought that was a good thing to do. Therefore, adaptation taking time to perfect is an inevitable thing.
5. Therefore, the most efficient and painless and the only just way for adaptation to happen is with maximal freedom of conscience.
In light of the above, any response (or lack of response, for example refusal to legislate for marriage equality) society has collectively made in response to new developments may be severely unjust and harmful, especially in the earlier phase of the response. Therefore, such collective decisions must not be forcibly applied to any individual, consistent with the 'do no harm' idea. The decision to be part of a response or not must be voluntary. Therefore, maximal freedom of conscience must be granted to every adult citizen in a society.
A model of 'free market of ideas' also allows ideas to be experimented on in parallel and selected through competition, thus increasing the speed in which a response becomes adaptive, and hastening the awareness and removal of any unjust aspects. Of course, such a market also functions best when proper debate, without requirements for political correctness and with respect of all parties, can occur in society. Therefore, this should be encouraged.
6. Maximal freedom of conscience comprises of a balance of negative and positive freedoms.
The provision of this maximal freedom of conscience must include a balance of negative and positive freedoms. Negative freedoms are freedoms that occur when the government does not interfere against them, and positive freedoms are freedoms that can only be guaranteed with suitable intervention, for example anti-discrimination laws and economic safety nets.
The concept of 'positive freedom' is required, because otherwise we would have a tyranny of the rich and powerful. Poor individuals could essentially become slave-like in their existence and forced to conform to whatever demand from the rich just for survival. The rich and powerful will then be able to shut out the voices of the poor in any debate. However, a strong concept of 'negative freedom' is also required, as it guarantees that people will not be required to go along with a practice just because it has been collectively determined as 'good'.
This is a rough rule that can be used to assess this balance I have proposed: governments should only be able to intervene and thus take away some 'negative freedom' when it will result in the net gain of 'positive freedom' or at least no net loss of freedom overall in society, and the redistribution is just, i.e. from a party having more freedom to a party having less freedom, with the result of the distribution not reversing this relationship. This rule can be used to justify welfare programs and anti-discrimination laws, whilst limiting the ability of the government to tax excessively or run forced adoption programs again.
On Complex Families
Recently, sections of the right wing have been increasingly vocal about championing the traditional nuclear family as the 'gold standard' of family, saying that it is better than blended families, step-families, single parent families and same-sex parent families.
Whilst I have long been a champion of stable family structures, I simply believe that it is inappropriate to pit one form of family against another, as long as it is a stable structure. I have long believed that large extended families are much better than isolated nuclear families for the purposes of raising children. Should I disparage isolated nuclear families then? No, because those families are still clearly of much value to their members and to society. Furthermore, each form of family has its pros and cons, and cannot be easily compared. For example, families headed by lesbian parents are often believed to be better at caring for young children and raising boys to respect women as adults. Children in step-families and co-parenting agreements have two sets of parents looking out for them.
Also, whilst I believe in stable family structures, life isn't always ideal. I am a firm believer in giving your all to preserve a marriage, always. But there are situations where people have no choice but to walk away, for example where there is domestic violence, emotional abuse or other severe problems that cannot be resolved. Families have to do their best to survive in these situations, and we have to applaud them for their efforts.
All families should be celebrated, and none should be disparaged.
Whilst I have long been a champion of stable family structures, I simply believe that it is inappropriate to pit one form of family against another, as long as it is a stable structure. I have long believed that large extended families are much better than isolated nuclear families for the purposes of raising children. Should I disparage isolated nuclear families then? No, because those families are still clearly of much value to their members and to society. Furthermore, each form of family has its pros and cons, and cannot be easily compared. For example, families headed by lesbian parents are often believed to be better at caring for young children and raising boys to respect women as adults. Children in step-families and co-parenting agreements have two sets of parents looking out for them.
Also, whilst I believe in stable family structures, life isn't always ideal. I am a firm believer in giving your all to preserve a marriage, always. But there are situations where people have no choice but to walk away, for example where there is domestic violence, emotional abuse or other severe problems that cannot be resolved. Families have to do their best to survive in these situations, and we have to applaud them for their efforts.
All families should be celebrated, and none should be disparaged.
Marriage Equality and Family Values
Consistent with my commitment to multiculturalism and the free market of ideas, I've often been one to say that whilst marriage is a good foundation for a family, it surely isn't the only one. Yet I have also said that marriage equality is essential for the promotion of family values. If a family can be formed by other kinds of partnerships, why would marriage equality still be essential then?
There are two reasons. Firstly, marriage is a bright beacon of family values, and has always been. Whilst families can be formed by other means, marriage is still a major representation of how family values culture is seen. If any part of marriage is discriminatory, even if just in the processes of the government rather than the views of the wider culture, family values culture itself is tainted in the eyes of many people. We cannot allow that to happen.
Secondly, upholding family values means supporting the formation and sustenance of families. Whilst it is possible for gay and lesbian couples to start a family by civil union or cohabitation, for example, that may not be what they really want to do. Forcing a couple to settle for a solution that they don't really want is not a really supportive thing to do. It's for the same reason that I have been supporting opening up civil partnerships to straight couples in the UK and other countries. The foundation to a family must be something the couple must be willing to believe in. We must support them in each and every case.
There are two reasons. Firstly, marriage is a bright beacon of family values, and has always been. Whilst families can be formed by other means, marriage is still a major representation of how family values culture is seen. If any part of marriage is discriminatory, even if just in the processes of the government rather than the views of the wider culture, family values culture itself is tainted in the eyes of many people. We cannot allow that to happen.
Secondly, upholding family values means supporting the formation and sustenance of families. Whilst it is possible for gay and lesbian couples to start a family by civil union or cohabitation, for example, that may not be what they really want to do. Forcing a couple to settle for a solution that they don't really want is not a really supportive thing to do. It's for the same reason that I have been supporting opening up civil partnerships to straight couples in the UK and other countries. The foundation to a family must be something the couple must be willing to believe in. We must support them in each and every case.
Answering Critics of Marriage Privatization
1. Marriage Privatization May Affect Marriage Culture
Some people have raised concerns that marriage privatization may affect marriage culture. But just how that effect will be is still debated. Some contend that marriage culture will be weakened. However, there is no evidence nor any inherent logic that the non-use of the 'marriage' word and its replacement with 'civil unions' will weaken marriage culture in any way, since 'marriage' will be around in our culture for at least centuries to come either way. Conversely, many people also say that marriage privatization will strengthen marriage culture. When couples can set their own terms for their own marriage, it is logical that there will be more ownership of marriage in our culture, and therefore there will be a stronger marriage culture. There is a third option too - that marriage privatization would not change marriage culture in any way. As culture is not really reliant on government, except in the fantasies of authoritarian types, this is not unlikely too.
There is another aspect to this argument too. When marriage is in the hands of the government, they have an increased power to mould it any way they like. All the conservatives who don't believe in marriage privatization will regret it if one day the government allows polyamorous marriages. I believe that one of the reasons some of them are so paranoid about marriage equality, to the point of inventing a slippery slope argument, is because they are just too aware that whenever government favours on definition of marriage over another, they can further change the definition at any time. But this has nothing to do with marriage equality itself - it's just the natural consequence of letting government control marriage. When marriage returns to the collective hands of the public, no future government will be able to impose a new definition of marriage on the people without majority support.
In short, whilst there is plenty of debate about what kind of impact, if any, marriage privatization will have on marriage culture, the case for a stronger marriage culture under marriage privatization is at least as strong if not significantly stronger than the case for the opposite. Marriage culture is weak enough as it is, with the 40%+ divorce rates, and many would agree that there needs to be a change. Many believe marriage privatization should be part of that change.
2. Marriage Privatization May Lead To Bigger Government Through Welfare
This is an argument made to convince small government libertarians, but I believe it is just a conservative argument dressed up to appeal to libertarians. Firstly, believing in the result of increased reliance on welfare depends on believing in a weakened marriage culture under marriage privatization, something clearly not agreed by any supporter of marriage privatization that I know. Therefore, this is speculative opinion only. Conservatives often make and support policy on feeling rather than hard evidence, whilst libertarians are more likely to look at evidence. Hence the differences on things like the drug war. Therefore, acting on speculative opinion is essentially conservative and totally unlibertarian.
Plus it is against libertarian principles to use the ends to justify the means. It is a very conservative but not libertarian thing to do. For example, plenty of libertarians, myself included, do believe that legalising marijuana may have adverse effects on societal productivity and welfare dependence. Yet only conservatives, not libertarians, believe that the status quo of criminalising marijuana should be maintained because of this. The conservative worldview generally supports using anti-liberty means to achieve desired outcomes, whilst the libertarian worldview requires one to support liberty as a principle. Another great example is where conservatives often support wars to 'spread liberty and democracy' but libertarians almost never do, even though they too believe in liberty and democracy.
Therefore, I believe arguments like these are purely conservative and incompatible with libertarian thinking.
3. Marriage Privatization Is Impracticable As A Political Goal
This argument is often put forth by liberals and libertarians who believe that there is nothing we can do about government control of marriage. I have to disagree here. I believe we are not going to achieve the ideal of getting the word marriage replaced by the word civil unions everywhere in law in the next 30 or more years. But that doesn't mean that we cannot have a change in culture and even some changes in law that supports the idea of marriage as a cultural institution defined by the couple and their families and community first and foremost. We need to lay the groundwork and win the cultural argument first.
In the West, marriage has been in the hands of the government for a few centuries. Marriage privatization will take time. It will definitely be a much longer term thing than reforms like marriage equality. I believe full legalisation of marijuana and euthanasia will even come before legal marriage privatization. But one day its time will come. We just have to be patient.
Some people have raised concerns that marriage privatization may affect marriage culture. But just how that effect will be is still debated. Some contend that marriage culture will be weakened. However, there is no evidence nor any inherent logic that the non-use of the 'marriage' word and its replacement with 'civil unions' will weaken marriage culture in any way, since 'marriage' will be around in our culture for at least centuries to come either way. Conversely, many people also say that marriage privatization will strengthen marriage culture. When couples can set their own terms for their own marriage, it is logical that there will be more ownership of marriage in our culture, and therefore there will be a stronger marriage culture. There is a third option too - that marriage privatization would not change marriage culture in any way. As culture is not really reliant on government, except in the fantasies of authoritarian types, this is not unlikely too.
There is another aspect to this argument too. When marriage is in the hands of the government, they have an increased power to mould it any way they like. All the conservatives who don't believe in marriage privatization will regret it if one day the government allows polyamorous marriages. I believe that one of the reasons some of them are so paranoid about marriage equality, to the point of inventing a slippery slope argument, is because they are just too aware that whenever government favours on definition of marriage over another, they can further change the definition at any time. But this has nothing to do with marriage equality itself - it's just the natural consequence of letting government control marriage. When marriage returns to the collective hands of the public, no future government will be able to impose a new definition of marriage on the people without majority support.
In short, whilst there is plenty of debate about what kind of impact, if any, marriage privatization will have on marriage culture, the case for a stronger marriage culture under marriage privatization is at least as strong if not significantly stronger than the case for the opposite. Marriage culture is weak enough as it is, with the 40%+ divorce rates, and many would agree that there needs to be a change. Many believe marriage privatization should be part of that change.
2. Marriage Privatization May Lead To Bigger Government Through Welfare
This is an argument made to convince small government libertarians, but I believe it is just a conservative argument dressed up to appeal to libertarians. Firstly, believing in the result of increased reliance on welfare depends on believing in a weakened marriage culture under marriage privatization, something clearly not agreed by any supporter of marriage privatization that I know. Therefore, this is speculative opinion only. Conservatives often make and support policy on feeling rather than hard evidence, whilst libertarians are more likely to look at evidence. Hence the differences on things like the drug war. Therefore, acting on speculative opinion is essentially conservative and totally unlibertarian.
Plus it is against libertarian principles to use the ends to justify the means. It is a very conservative but not libertarian thing to do. For example, plenty of libertarians, myself included, do believe that legalising marijuana may have adverse effects on societal productivity and welfare dependence. Yet only conservatives, not libertarians, believe that the status quo of criminalising marijuana should be maintained because of this. The conservative worldview generally supports using anti-liberty means to achieve desired outcomes, whilst the libertarian worldview requires one to support liberty as a principle. Another great example is where conservatives often support wars to 'spread liberty and democracy' but libertarians almost never do, even though they too believe in liberty and democracy.
Therefore, I believe arguments like these are purely conservative and incompatible with libertarian thinking.
3. Marriage Privatization Is Impracticable As A Political Goal
This argument is often put forth by liberals and libertarians who believe that there is nothing we can do about government control of marriage. I have to disagree here. I believe we are not going to achieve the ideal of getting the word marriage replaced by the word civil unions everywhere in law in the next 30 or more years. But that doesn't mean that we cannot have a change in culture and even some changes in law that supports the idea of marriage as a cultural institution defined by the couple and their families and community first and foremost. We need to lay the groundwork and win the cultural argument first.
In the West, marriage has been in the hands of the government for a few centuries. Marriage privatization will take time. It will definitely be a much longer term thing than reforms like marriage equality. I believe full legalisation of marijuana and euthanasia will even come before legal marriage privatization. But one day its time will come. We just have to be patient.
What's Wrong with Marijuana Positivity
Some celebrities like Miley Cyrus and Rihanna are well known for their positive attitudes towards marijuana. In fact, they have deliberately shown it, for example by wearing stuff with marijuana leaves on them.
I feel very uneasy about that, really. In my mind, marijuana is dangerous. Legal or not, I am never going to touch that stuff, therefore. I also feel that I should share what I think on this matter with my friends, and I certainly would be happy if they also share my point of view. I would also be worried if I ever found out a friend was using marijuana - not judgemental as you may think, but just worried for them. I believe that marijuana has potential bad health effects. I also believe that a life lived under its influence is not the best lifestyle. Therefore, I really don't like the idea of glorifying it. It's not really like saying you love ice cream and chocolate, you know.
Another thing is the double standard for those praising marijuana vs those expressing an unfavourable opinion of it. In many sections of culture, people like Miley and Rihanna are celebrated, whilst people like us are stigmatised as prohibitionists, even though we don't support the 'war on drugs' either. I hope that this double standard is removed. Those of us who advise our friends against using marijuana are speaking from our hearts too, and want the best for our friends. It doesn't mean we support the continued ban on marijuana in most places, or the 'war on drugs'. We are expressing an opinion, and we are not persecuting anyone. Why should there be a stigma against us speaking out?
I feel very uneasy about that, really. In my mind, marijuana is dangerous. Legal or not, I am never going to touch that stuff, therefore. I also feel that I should share what I think on this matter with my friends, and I certainly would be happy if they also share my point of view. I would also be worried if I ever found out a friend was using marijuana - not judgemental as you may think, but just worried for them. I believe that marijuana has potential bad health effects. I also believe that a life lived under its influence is not the best lifestyle. Therefore, I really don't like the idea of glorifying it. It's not really like saying you love ice cream and chocolate, you know.
Another thing is the double standard for those praising marijuana vs those expressing an unfavourable opinion of it. In many sections of culture, people like Miley and Rihanna are celebrated, whilst people like us are stigmatised as prohibitionists, even though we don't support the 'war on drugs' either. I hope that this double standard is removed. Those of us who advise our friends against using marijuana are speaking from our hearts too, and want the best for our friends. It doesn't mean we support the continued ban on marijuana in most places, or the 'war on drugs'. We are expressing an opinion, and we are not persecuting anyone. Why should there be a stigma against us speaking out?
It's the Culture, not the Waiting Period
There have been talk in recent years in several US states of possibly extending the waiting period for couples who want to get a divorce. Supporters say that this will give struggling families a 'second chance', whilst opponents say that it may make things even more difficult for people trapped in abusive situations.
As a former supporter of 'divorce reform' and covenant marriages, let me say this: I too would like to see a drastic cut in the divorce rates of the Western world, perhaps 4% would be much healthier than 40%. But to justify an increase in governmental intrusion, into an area of life that is deeply personal and private, requires solid evidence to back it up, as well as a strong democratic majority to support it. It would be forcing moral values down others' throats to suggest otherwise.
Let's look at the evidence first. On the evidence, I am unconvinced that barriers to divorce in the form of waiting periods or compulsory counselling have a major impact on divorce rates. In the US each state has a different waiting period, and the data suggests that there is no clear association between waiting periods and divorce rates. Plenty of no waiting period states are below median in divorce rates, whilst Arkansas with its long waiting period has one of the highest divorce rates. If anything, divorce rates appear to be more divided along regional lines, and appear to be particularly high in the South. This suggests that waiting periods provide minimal benefit at best.
And then there was the experience of covenant marriage. Exit from covenant marriages come with a longer waiting period and there may be counselling provisions too. However, evidence I have seen suggest a divorce rate of around 25% from memory. There is a reduction there, but it's around 20% or less. Plus there is sometimes also the option of getting the divorce in a neighbouring state. Given that only very few couples chose covenant marriage in the first place, this represents a self selected group, often more religious and traditional, who definitely take marriage more seriously. You would expect a significantly lower divorce rate amongst this group, frankly. Therefore, I expect the real benefit to be 10% or less, and it is entirely plausible that there is actually no benefit at all.
Let's look at the democratic situation now. Opinion on this issue appears split. A return to fault based divorce appears to be out of favour across the Western world, and mandatory long waiting periods and counselling continues to be strongly opposed by a significant number of people. Democratic opinion alone justifies not changing the current divorce system. The only other option is to provide a two-tiered marriage system as in covenant marriage, but take up rates are low and it may create more problems than it solves.
I would suggest that most people in the 1950s did not divorce not because of the barriers, but because they truly would not even think about getting a divorce unless there was abuse in the relationship, because culturally you didn't walk away from a marriage that was 'becoming boring', or 'simply does not satisfy me anymore'. Everyone knew the expectations of marriage. Such things as Hollywood 'mini marriages' would be considered highly offensive by most. I suggest that we return to this culture. Divorce should be available, but we should all have a cultural consensus that it is only for the unfortunate few suffering abuse at the hands of their spouses. It should be never something to even think about just because you had a minor argument with your spouse. It should never be seen as a common event. One aspect about the 50s view to divorce that I surely don't want back however is discrimination against divorcees. Many divorcees have suffered so deeply, it is only fair that a compassionate society show them the deepest condolences and support. Anything less is judgmental and cold hearted.
'Divorce reform' is a non solution that pretends to be a solution, to satisfy those who cannot find a solution but are angry at the sky high divorce rates in the Western world. I suggest that we should look at proper solutions instead. I think the answer lies in culture. Using government to solve a cultural problem is basically anti-libertarian, and before long we are on our way to fascism.
As a former supporter of 'divorce reform' and covenant marriages, let me say this: I too would like to see a drastic cut in the divorce rates of the Western world, perhaps 4% would be much healthier than 40%. But to justify an increase in governmental intrusion, into an area of life that is deeply personal and private, requires solid evidence to back it up, as well as a strong democratic majority to support it. It would be forcing moral values down others' throats to suggest otherwise.
Let's look at the evidence first. On the evidence, I am unconvinced that barriers to divorce in the form of waiting periods or compulsory counselling have a major impact on divorce rates. In the US each state has a different waiting period, and the data suggests that there is no clear association between waiting periods and divorce rates. Plenty of no waiting period states are below median in divorce rates, whilst Arkansas with its long waiting period has one of the highest divorce rates. If anything, divorce rates appear to be more divided along regional lines, and appear to be particularly high in the South. This suggests that waiting periods provide minimal benefit at best.
And then there was the experience of covenant marriage. Exit from covenant marriages come with a longer waiting period and there may be counselling provisions too. However, evidence I have seen suggest a divorce rate of around 25% from memory. There is a reduction there, but it's around 20% or less. Plus there is sometimes also the option of getting the divorce in a neighbouring state. Given that only very few couples chose covenant marriage in the first place, this represents a self selected group, often more religious and traditional, who definitely take marriage more seriously. You would expect a significantly lower divorce rate amongst this group, frankly. Therefore, I expect the real benefit to be 10% or less, and it is entirely plausible that there is actually no benefit at all.
Let's look at the democratic situation now. Opinion on this issue appears split. A return to fault based divorce appears to be out of favour across the Western world, and mandatory long waiting periods and counselling continues to be strongly opposed by a significant number of people. Democratic opinion alone justifies not changing the current divorce system. The only other option is to provide a two-tiered marriage system as in covenant marriage, but take up rates are low and it may create more problems than it solves.
I would suggest that most people in the 1950s did not divorce not because of the barriers, but because they truly would not even think about getting a divorce unless there was abuse in the relationship, because culturally you didn't walk away from a marriage that was 'becoming boring', or 'simply does not satisfy me anymore'. Everyone knew the expectations of marriage. Such things as Hollywood 'mini marriages' would be considered highly offensive by most. I suggest that we return to this culture. Divorce should be available, but we should all have a cultural consensus that it is only for the unfortunate few suffering abuse at the hands of their spouses. It should be never something to even think about just because you had a minor argument with your spouse. It should never be seen as a common event. One aspect about the 50s view to divorce that I surely don't want back however is discrimination against divorcees. Many divorcees have suffered so deeply, it is only fair that a compassionate society show them the deepest condolences and support. Anything less is judgmental and cold hearted.
'Divorce reform' is a non solution that pretends to be a solution, to satisfy those who cannot find a solution but are angry at the sky high divorce rates in the Western world. I suggest that we should look at proper solutions instead. I think the answer lies in culture. Using government to solve a cultural problem is basically anti-libertarian, and before long we are on our way to fascism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
He was the perfect trap the far-left set for us Back in 2018-19, when Jordan Peterson was at his peak, and going around promoting his critic...
-
It simply can't face the reality Let's just say it out loud: the Western Left reeks of more than a century of failure. Their entirel...
-
How Culture War Extremists Destroy Freedom Since the 2010s, left-wing cancel culture has been a major frustration in many contexts. Left-win...
