Without normal married men, there is no welfare state.

If the marriage rate for normal couples was the same as the rate for homosexual couples (about 5% of that population), there would simply not be enough tax revenue at any level to fund the massive apparatus of federal, state and local programs.  The two main sources of net personal revenue are married men with SAHMs and “power couples” earning 75k+ each.

It would behoove all the gay marriage boosters to think the math of making marriage have cooties through a bit more.  Probably not going to happen though.  Everywhere that gay marriage is legalized country-wide, the heterosexual marriage rates take a dive.  No matter what people assert in a survey or on facebook memes, they do think marriage gets gay cooties on it if gay marriage is made national.

And the income earned by people cohabiting or living in civil unions is nowhere as high as what married households bring in.  It turns out that it’s not just a piece of paper and it’s also not something that can be between else but a man and a woman.

Funny how that works.  Natural, normal marriage is what you have to have in order to support a robust welfare state.  Without it, you can’t fund much of anything.

Advertisements

Sarah Palin is Lisa Jackson

In both cases the people in question were slack about doing their jobs and that is why they had the ‘secret’ email accounts.  Less paperwork/weeding through hundreds of emails.  Less…work.

Also, both nailed by their own provincialism.

I picked these two examples because the media treated one example verrrry differently than the other, both the mainstream media and the right wing media.  The mainstream media tried to present Sarah Palin as specially corrupt, while the right media tried to present Lisa Jackson as specially incompetent and affirmative-actionish.  Both women, despite being quite on opposite sides politically, were actually playing standard roles.  Government officials, both elected and unelected these days seem to think doing their jobs is beneath them, but by gum y’all had better be ready to pay more taxes/vote in more bond issues.

I would also note that for complicated tribal reasons, a surprising amount of doxxing was done to both women which resulted in their having to suffer some consequences for their slackness.  Just think of the possibilities if this was done As A Rule for government officials!

Nobody thinks of government as containing people who are fellow community members anymore.  It’s all very atomized and deracinated.  Nobody, especially conservatives, seems to want locals as their government anymore.  But that’s also real community and real authority, not bouncing around all over the country for promotions just like in the terrible private sector.

Something to consider when conservatives go on their tears about the evils of “government”.  It’s supposed to be their very neighbors, friends and relatives, but they are too blinded by ideological haze to think of it that way.

An example of where the Bureaucrat Wiki would sure come in handy (graphic content warning in link)

Someone who took the time to find out which employees are doing these things (they are listed in a search-only directory, it would require Nerd Power to do online-only, some phone calls to the Denver EPA office otherwise) would be doing a pretty impressive job of setting up a means to demand accountability from government employees who think they can literally do whatever the poop they want.  That link is pretty gross, because the people involved are doing appalling scatological things in their workplace.

Just posting all the EPA employees by working through the search-only directory with contact phone numbers would be a powerful and useful act.  Better than pointing and laughing followed by laments that “these people can’t be fired.”

I talk about the Bureaucrat Wiki as an idea in its own permanent page.

5 reasons why it’s good (and traditional) for SAHMs to pay for housecleaning.

  1. Establishes a consistent and reliable baseline that suits your household.
  2. Helps train you, the SAHM, in the classic art of delegation. Delegating frees a SAHM up to do more complex organizational tasks and decorating to make the house more of a home.  Modelling specialization is healthy and a sign of civilization.
  3. Makes it easier to teach the children basics of housecleaning because you aren’t worn out from constant maintenance/fire-putting-out cleaning.  SAHMs who try to do it all have a much harder time raising children who have any experience with household chores.  The kids just get used to watching Mamma drudge through everything.
  4. Provides employment and builds community relations by keeping money in the community and by not being as strict an employer/employee setup, but something more casual and with the opportunity to build acquaintance and properly ordered mingling of social classes.
  5. Shows the children there are many ways to make a living that are respectable and decent paying and strikes a tiny but noticeable blow at the modern cult of the makework desk job as only “real” job.

Mindless defense of business interests doesn’t help conservatives

 

In this article about ridiculously high property taxes in Austin (excerpted or copy-pasted from a paywalled newspaper, it’s not entirely clear), the commenters are all lol liberalz iz dum, but don’t see that it’s commercial property owners who are milking the system to get Other People’s Money to pay for their services on the backs of single family homeowners.  This type of reflexive implicit defending of business interests doing the same thing environmental and social justice groups do in large cities is a big obstacle to conservatives having a shot at normal life.  Conservatives should actually be putting on their small government hats here and asking why it’s ok for commercial property owners to game the appraisal system to avoid millions in taxes.

Instead, every link I found referencing the original paywalled article was from a conservatively oriented site and consisted of laughing at the homeowner who was not really that silly.  SFHs should not be bearing disproportionate costs of local services at all, even if they vote for increased services.  Yes, I said it.  Even if someone votes for more taxes, they shouldn’t bear a disproportionate amount relative to their own property’s market value.  This is what’s going in Austin.  Commercial interests (developers and medium to large corporations) are skating by and paying taxes on a fraction of their market value and all these supposed conservatives can say is that “a woman is stupid, hahaha”.  A system where voting homeowners have 40% of the property but pay 60% of the taxes is not really a time to tribally laugh at liberals.  It’s time to maybe be serious and ask why property taxes seem to be a type of tax that routinely has this kind of death spiral and regulatory capture.

Conservatives also might pause to ask why Republicans are the ones pushing all those exceptions through in Austin, though the exceptions for commercial interests also happen in blue states and counties.   I also find the lack of concern for individual home owning citizens very telling coming from people who are generally fulsome in their praise of single family households.

ETA 6/4/14: the paywalled article got unlocked after the mainstream right wing (Hot Air, Instapundit and the like) got the tribal bit in their teeth and rushed to gloat collectively.  So that happened.

What living near each other could look like

I sometimes read a little group blog called The Orthosphere.  It’s run by a bunch of conservative men who seem really sincere about promoting traditionalism.  The problem is that they profoundly misunderestimate what kind of polemic would serve to promote traditionalism as an abstraction.  A recent post there is a case in point, but what this post is about is not the abstract, overlong attempt at conversion rhetoric, but a comment following the post about living more normally/traditionally.

http://orthosphere.org/2014/04/21/you-need-to-be-a-traditionalist-conservative/#comment-43968

Here’s the relevant half of the comment:

“…living correctly is not currently allowed. It’s politically incorrect. But individuals can score small victories in their everyday lives. They can refuse to agree with what they know is wrong. They can act rightly in their own lives or, when forced by overwhelming power to act wrongly, they can do so minimally, under protest. Perhaps we should open a new thread where people are invited to share the ways they resist the current order, act rightly, and maintain their sanity. We must not lose heart because our ideals have been declared thoughtcrime. Current conditions will not last.”

This assertion is correct in that living correctly in a piecemeal, cafeteria fashion is policed and getting increasingly difficult to do if one is conservative.  But this commenter misses the observed reality that doing so in a complete fashion, with a real parallel system is still on the table.  That is the gist of my post here.

Serious conservatives could be buying properties like this with a few other families and setting up a practical agrarian/distributist lifestyle and even potential spouses for their children and a real possibility of grandchildren and future inheritance.  That property has multiple single family homes and enough acreage for each family to “own” one of several crops (livestock is a potential crop, not just plants) and use that specialization opportunity to maximize returns.  Also, with several families living near each other but having their own homes, household tasks could be split up and rotated in traditional agrarian fashion so that nobody was overwhelmed.

Since the property is located in the super-boonies, living near several like-minded families would make the stresses of driving 2-4 hours to the “big cities” to sell the farm products a great deal more tolerable.  And the small core of families could still build relationships and friendships with the locals, but wouldn’t be demoralized if those social ties never formed to a deep extent (which is sometimes the way of things in isolated rural areas).  Living far away from one’s biological relatives would have a lot of the sting taken out, as the redundancy of multiple families means it would be possible to maintain regular visits and contact without the problems that come from leaving crops to do family visiting.  And financially, the property doesn’t require each individual family to have a huge income to pay their portion of a mortgage or massive savings to buy outright.

This is one path to “having all things in common” without ignoring the importance of access to private property and individual opportunities to build wealth and inheritance long-term.  I would also note that there are dozens if not hundreds of these sorts of properties for sale right this very minute, all over the United States.  The work would be hard and challenging, and certainly people have to save up something first, but this is on the table as an option instead of laments about being priced out of the suburbs, where one would have to struggle in a very different and more risky way with a piecemeal approach to living normally.

One doesn’t have to go full Amish, but one does have to set up a lifestyle that lays groundwork for restoration of healthy social structures and institutions by starting with a small group of like minds and branching out from there.  The barnacle approach of continuing to cling to the pieces of liberalism that appeal to you while rejecting the pieces that don’t is not going to continue to be a path for conservatives going forward.  Just as the True Way of faith in Christ is narrow, so too is the list of viable options for preserving normal life for future generations.

Them’s the breaks.  Industrialization and modernity mean we just can’t rely on the old dividends of traditional living.  They’re spent up and we have to just grit the old teeth and give up some precious temporal things now or see our children lose them all.

Political programs won’t restore normal life

Changes must be social, even if formal and systematized.  The politics may follow, but they won’t matter without the social backing coming first.

Thus, it is silly to focus on votes or overturning laws as long as you keep all the liberal, deracinated aspects of modern life in place.  If you won’t take the steps to live normally, you can’t expect the political changes to ever happen or be taken up by your children and their children.

It is extremely improbable that normal life can be restored in a generation, and certainly it won’t happen by the next election cycle.

The closest I get to political promotion is pushing people to demand civil service from their civil servants in their local jurisdictions.  That is something that one can see huge, major changes in and it’s something people with lots of free time can do right now.  In my region of North Cascadia, people are starting to demand this civil service and are seeing good results.  Less harassment, reduced regulatory pressure, more opportunities to run sustainable, long-lasting family-staffed businesses that enmesh themselves in their local towns and become strong, wonderful pieces of the community fabric.  That’s where political energy would best go, rather than campaigns and candidates.