While I am not a conservative by any stretch of the definition, and while I am in fact opposed to most of Vance's social beliefs, his analysis that a bunch of childless crazies with no skin in the game of building a long-term sustainable society are the ones deciding what happens to the children of those who have them, is spot on. It's a massive problem.
I say that as someone who doesn't have kids, but with the conviction that my position that the State should not be powerful enough that the form of government or the policies enacted by government matter at all (if it must exist at all in the first place). That also means that my in principle lack of skin in the game should also be irrelevant (as should the opposite).
I agree but my problem is even if Vance had his way and the cat ladies were ejected, give it 50 years and they’ll be back in charge.
Democracy is the vehicle that enables socialism. The European monarchs weren’t out there redistributing people’s wealth to others in the societies they ruled over, they extracted wealth for their own extravagance and war, but they had to have skin in the game in that system too for their heirs.
Anyone in Bitcoin knows it’s a lot easier to cut off one head (of a bad Monarch) than take on a hydra (democracy/oligarchy). Yet whenever I say something like this the statism will shine through from plenty of Bitcoiners who can only conceive of reforming this system with no understanding that it’s always going to revert to the same.
I think that instead of preaching against democracy, illustrating the need for smaller government (and eventually even no government), and for smaller autonomous territorial and administrative units with more homogeneous and tight-knit communities is a lot more productive.
The emotional attachment to democracy that people have in the West especially is due to the conviction that the government has some sort of inherent right or need to intervene in all aspects of life. That's what we need to fix really.
Oddbean new post about login | logout