On the two subjects at hand today:
- The Radical Redefinition Of Traditional Marriage
- The Distribution Of Social Justice Entitlements
|Marriage||Social Justice Entitlement|
|Assumptions||Marriage is an important institution that increases the chance that the people living within its grace will have a stable, predictable and structured ecosystem through which many of the other "goods" in life will be expressed - as compared to relationships that are not officially consummated as such||The goal of defining a certain societal standard of living and then providing sufficient assistance to all of "The Least Of These" who's position inside of the capitalistic system that often fails to provide such access to opportunity as a means of them attaining this desired standard.|
|Methodology For Increasing This"Public Good" - The Progressive||Focus Upon Removing In Equality And Discrimination From The Dispensation Of This Public Good, allowing more classes of people to have access where they were once disenfranchised.
An aversion of centralized command and control CULTURAL system.
|Shift the onus to provide this public good from the individual to the centralized state. A progressive taxation scheme to extract money from where there is excess. A centralized distribution scheme where a "redistributor" channels resources where there is need.
A preference for centralized "command and control" DISTRIBUTION systems.
|Methodology For Increasing This Public Good-The Conservative||
Focus upon compelling individuals in your more localized cluster to commit themselves to partaking in this institution. A tendency to leverage the governmental institutions to protect the perceived integrity of the institution by limiting access to disparate groups that are perceived to threaten to erode the integrity of the institution.
A preference for centralized command and control CULTURAL systems.
|Promote a notion of distributed, "rugged individualism" where one's planning, preparation and willingness to adapt to changing market conditions allow them to partake in the advantage of their insight.
Note to all who will listen the importance of promoting "productive actions" and avoiding those which erode their leverage to their ultimate detriment.
An aversion to centralized, "command and control" DISTRIBUTION systems
Though I am right of center - I hope that you trust that in the grid above I tried to remove my thumb from the scale and more accurately plot out what is clearly an IDEOLOGICALLY based set of differing assumptions and "world views".
My issue is that few people will bother to partake upon the next round of analysis.
What Happens When EQUALITY In Access To A Public Good Is Not The Problem, The Problem Shows Itself To Be Individual People With A Choice Choose Not To Partake In This Public Good?
When it comes to distribution of the public good - the right most column - the centralized government can step in and alter the flow of distribution of the public good so that it is more equally distributed.
Since it is reasonable to assume that marriage (the middle column) is a public good and thus barriers to it should be removed - WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES TO NOT PARTAKE IN IT?
I am not talking about the individually wealthy who's resources supplement their lifestyle - regardless of their personal character flaws which might prevent them from sustaining a long term, loving relationship. I am speaking of THE LEAST OF THESE.
If we understand from research that the primary means of decreasing your likelihood of poverty is:
- Graduate with a degree that is advanced as possible (these days an associates/technical degree is the bare minimum for comfortable living)
- Delay child rearing until your mid to late 20's
- Marry and maintain a stable, fulfilling relationship
- Focus on obtaining a career track that provides a pathway for growth
(This is not a political statement - it is an analysis of political assumptions)
When I make the observation that in "Mission Accomplished Cities" where the people have not had their access to the ballot box molested and thus they choose the leadership with the policies that are popular with the masses - but the aggregate environment fails to produce the outcomes that they anticipated .............................................
We look at the ACTIVISTS and note that those who once fought for EQUALITY in the access to the ballot box - are no longer seen acting to confront the people in power by popular appeal on their RESULTS. This bears out my point that EQUALITY /ACCESS is not the sole contributor to FAVORABLE OUTCOMES.
When given the choice of having to confront their assumptions, altering their course so that the desired outcomes are produced - they are seen merely EXPANDING THE DOMAIN of their indictment. The people in power are retained as "their own". They increasingly shift the expectations of what the "conservative" saw as a locally produced "good" through institutions and "behavioral control" over to a nationalized social justice distribution.
In effect the people are insulated from "themselves" as they popularly vote to receive these goods through centralized distributions.
In my assessment this is the case where EQUALITY CHASING is used to mask the incompetency in achieving desired ends THROUGH THE INDIVIDUALS who are competently guided.