Misogyny Theater is back with Episode 4!
If you paid any attention to A Voice for Men’s recent conference in – well, near – Detroit, you probably heard about the guy who was ejected from the conference after reportedly “petting” a reporter and a number of other men. (You can read about him here.)
In this episode of Misogyny Theater, we return to the Man Going His Own Way who calls himself Sandman to hear his highly speculative theories about this gentleman and his activities.
Sandman also warns Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers that if they get together in large groups, they will inevitably attract opportunistic sex-seekers eager to take advantage of the man surplus for their own perverse ends. Apparently, angry dudes who hate women are like catnip to gay men and straight ladies alike.
The audio for this little cartoon of mine comes from Sandman’s video “Men’s Rights Molester.” I have indicated edits in the audio with little scratchy sounds. And I’ve bleeped out the name of the alleged molester. Otherwise it’s all straight Sandman.
My previous Misogyny Theater episode featuring Sandman can be found here.
Crowd chatter and buzzer sounds from FreeSFX.
Cassandrakitty,
They aren’t. The problem is that most Glibertarians don’t actually know what the hell “Libertarian” means. It has the word “liberty” in it so they think it must be great!
This was my thought also.
Wouldn’t a libertarian consider a mandatory minimum income “socialism,” and thus, “evil?”
While we’re on the topic of jobs, can we find something more honest to call “right to work”?
Wouldn’t a libertarian consider a mandatory minimum income “socialism,” and thus, “evil?”
There’s an alternative to a mandatory minimum income I’ve seen suggested that you could argue is fully libertarian – essentially a 100% estate tax, with the monies collected redistributed to teens at the age of eighteen (or stuck in a trust at birth and released sooner if need be). Nobody has inherited wealth; everyone starts off with (say) $100,000 or so. Spend it to buy an education, or put a deposit on a house, or blow it on hookers and beer – it’s up to you.
EVERY time I’ve suggested this in a mixed forum, I’ve seen ideological right-wingers huffing and puffing about it without being able to articulate exactly WHY it’s so evil. They goes double for those who love waffling on about “equality of opportunity”.
Argenti: Under the socislist system, those who are unable to work due to disability are cared for. Even those who are able to work, but have a disability, get a stipend from the government. My ex’s sister is still in school, for extremely gifted girls, but has a neuromuscular disorder, so she gets a stipend from the government and always will.
There are also state sponsored daycare programs. I was in one during the Soviet era after my mother’s lengthy maternity leave was up. It got my mom back to work and started a largely unsuccessful indoctrination campaign, when my mind was the most pliable.
Capitalism is about sucking as much money and labor out of each citizen, at the least possible cost. Socialism is about supporting each citizen, so they can make the greatest contribution possible.
<3
I assume libbies hate this idea because Someone (ie, the government) would have to distribute the money, when the only moral way to determine who gets what money is to have private individuals distribute it however the hell they want.
“essentially a 100% estate tax,”
Could you explain this?
Nova — in ideal land, or, apparently, functional socialist countries, yep. In the US in the 21st century? Where psychs consider it okay to flat out lie on disability paperwork when the gov’n is trying their damnest to make it impossible to get disability if you aren’t actively dying? Not gonna happen. Personally? I’d be totally fine with a socialist model.
100% estate tax? Please and thank you. Me? I’d have spent it studying art and buying myself a nice little place to make art and keep fish and a greenhouse. $100k in Pittsburgh with NO other income? I could be comfortable for a decade.
But no, Richie Rich worked for his money, why should somebody else’s kid get to benefit? They deserve to suffer if their parents’ made less than he did! His kids earned that money because, uh, he earned it for them!
You know, that mindset — the generational wealth is my right one — is very much like the MRA “men made history so worship men” mindset. Yes dear, your grandfather was an inventor and millionaire, what have you done?
As it is now, in the US, any money left in your estate when you die is taxed a certain percent before being given to your heirs. If you die with millions, they’re still gonna walk away rich. With a 100% estate tax none of that goes to your heirs directly, it all goes into a big gov’n pot if you will, from which everyone receives a payout. So you get money for existing, instead of for existing as the kid of a rich person. Less money, but spread evenly.
“But no, Richie Rich worked for his money, why should somebody else’s kid get to benefit? They deserve to suffer if their parents’ made less than he did! His kids earned that money because, uh, he earned it for them!
You know, that mindset — the generational wealth is my right one — is very much like the MRA “men made history so worship men” mindset. Yes dear, your grandfather was an inventor and millionaire, what have you done?”
I often think regular non-rich people can beat the system and bleed the beast instead of making the rich richer. What about entire extended families (or a group of friends for those who don’t want to live with or near kin) pooling their resources, buying land, building houses and growing their own food? That land stays in the family. When the older peeps die, the young ones and their new generation fill their rooms. Money is saved by simply not buying what Big Corporate pimps: the cosmetics, soap, toothpaste, shampoo, etc can all be made from scratch. Nobody shaves or waxes (that also kills that silly “beauty standard” in one swipe), whatever cars are needed are shared, clothes are upcycled and/or made by hand, etc. This will starve millionaire and billionaire CEOs of both a labor base AND a consumer base all in one!
I really don’t think they’ll get the message until a critical mass just ups and quits and says “Fuck it! We don’t need your jobs or your materialistic products!”
Yeah, this doesn’t actually work.
On a “why the fuck does a CEO get paid so much” note, has anyone sat through an episode of Undercover Boss? These corporate bigwigs can’t even do the menial jobs they pay people minimum wage to do. Nor do they have any idea who’s working for them.
Truly sad.
@CVC : See this for an overview – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset-based_egalitarianism . Funding it with a 100% estate tax was an idea floated in The New Statesman (a British political mag) a while back, and makes sense from an egalitarian perspective
– Why SHOULD people inherit unearned wealth from their parents, above and beyond the advantages of being bought up rich?
– Why SHOULDN’T everyone have the same (monetary) opportunity when starting out in adult life, to use, invest, blow, or buy an education as they see fit?
– What property rights can people assert when they are DEAD?
Of course, there are problems with implementing it – but I present Paris Hilton as a problem of the current situation by comparison.
You realize that in the cases where this model has been tried (usually by hippies) it’s always ended up being the women who do all the making of stuff from scratch AND all the childcare AND all the cooking and cleaning, right? Which is exactly what would happen if the average family tried it now.
As far as just pooling family resources to buy property, people do that now, they’re just not usually white people.
@ kittehsurf:
Oh, bother !
The Chartreuse Vegan Capsule — I’ve looked into going off grid, self-sustaining, and the amount of space and work required to being fully self-sustaining food wise is simply impractical. Fuck the electrical companies, go solar? Sure. Make clothing from old clothes/fabrics, or from off the bolt cloth? Easy enough if you can sew. Sewage even is doable if you’re careful and do your homework. Food though? Even for a vegan diet the space required is just silliness. Plus the canning and such for winter stores, and, of course, the work to get grains and such into a useable form.
And as for the estate tax, what could I do with 100k? *looks at shelves* …I’ve got the plans fully drawn up for an eco friendly modular handicap accessible house, with off grid options. I just need to sort out how to add on infinite rooms for kids (or at least a way to fit multiple beds in one charge unit while maintaining accessibility — need the kids’ beds to be accessible by a wheelchair using parent, and a bathroom with things sized for handicapped kids). 100k? It goes from being a dream to a show house, a few times over (excluding the cost of labor, the whole thing specs to under 20k, for the off grid version…and that’s using solar panel prices from 2010~)
Charge unit? Cargo unit. Thing’s built around recycled cargo containers.
Grumpyoldnurse — I find a google image search for pickup artists pea cocking does wonders for that feeling!
Thanks, Argenti Aertheri! (Also, thanks for not mocking my pitiful blockquote non-skills!)
And as for the estate tax, what could I do with 100k?
Wrong question. What could you AT AGE 18 OR THEREABOUTS do with 100k?
Answers include starting your own business, getting an education – debt-free, travelling around, putting down a down payment on a house, or buying an Xbox and spending a few years playing video games in your underwear. You’ll notice that a society that forces people to live with the consequences for those decisions they make might well be superior to one that forces people to live with the consequences of who they’re born to.
::puts on Crocodile Dundee hat::
GrumpyOldNurse, that’s not a blockquote fail. This is a blockquote fail.
For a vegan diet the land requirements are greater than for a non-vegan diet. Using balanced planting (as with the Meso-American style of mixed agriculture; still used in many parts of Mexico) of bean, peppers, squash, corn, two acres will provide a relatively balanced diet for people who also eat dairy. Add eggs and you get more protein in the mix.
If you aren’t vegetarian life gets a little easier, and 5 acres will provide for a family of 4-6. If you can get to 10 then you can have fruit/nut trees.
But it’s work. It’s becoming a farmer. It means clearing ground, and breaking soil. It means reading the weather for the earliest time you can safely put plants in the ground. It might mean starting early plants, and transplanting them. It means keeping an herb garden to make the food less dull.
If you want to have lumber, you need to plant the trees (and the same if you want wood to burn). You need to know how to plow, and sow, and reap. You have to know how much seed to put up for next year, and how to store the edibles. If you are going to have any cushion you need to know (and be on good terms with) your neighbors. If at all possible you need to have some surplus, so you can sell it, so you can buy the things you can’t make for yourself.
If you don’t manage mixed plantings (I have my peppers growing in with my beans) you have to rotate the crops. You also need to compost, so you can keep the soil from going to dust, and then to the river (this is why so much of the land in the middle east is poor… too many centuries of mis-management from a lack of understanding the finest points of how to keep topsoil from washing away).
Being a subsistence farmer is work.
@ kittehserf
Thanks! You just took some serious sting out of a really tough day.