Two quick off topic points. First, I would stress that you have the freedom to walk down the street in Tehran; burn the American flag and call President Bush names. Second, let me take moment to savor "kudos to him for his coherent thoughts." Ahhhhh.
My point about the women is not original. I have posted that one of the great books to influence my thinking is Robert Wright's "Non-Zero." Wright is an "evolutionary psychologist" and is scary bright. You can see him in person on Bloggingheads.tv with Mickey Kaus. (Note that I don't think he is as good as a political commentator as he is a psychologist.)
One point Wright makes is that monogamy is bad for women, but good for society. Ignoring the emotional costs, it would be better economically for Bill Gates to have lots and lots of wives...or at least better for his wives. As an abstract point, women should have the freedom to go where the money is. Now, of course, if it takes about $1MM to support a family and Bill can support 60,000 wives (!), what of the men who would otherwise marry the 59,999 that are not Belinda?
Well, there is a chain effect that basically leaves the least desirable men in the world without wives. Now, one other salient fact is that married man are generally non-violent. Statistically, you are about as likely to be attacked by a married male as a non-married female. (Okay, I need to find that study.) The point is that frustrated single men without a moderating female influence are FAR more prone to violence. And this cuts across economic status lines.
Now if you have monogamy (eliminating the "Bill Gates gets all the chicks" problem), but do not allow women the freedom to chose a mate, you do not incent men to get a job to support a family. So economic liberty creates jobs, female emancipation creates competition among males to be responsible, ipso facto, less disgruntled single men to wage jihad.
Capice?
No comments:
Post a Comment