Sean_MacCloud wrote:
[...]

> Greg, your pro capitalism nonsense is never going to stop pro fem.
You and
> your ilk need to make a descison about what side you're actually on.

I've already made it.  I just have a different idea of how to go about
protecting the rights of men.

Capitalism won't do it, because capitalism isn't for that.  But one
generally associates capitalism with a free society, rightly or
wrongly, and freedom is what we need.

If we didn't have an overbearing government, lording over us like a
prehistoric mother hen, we wouldn't have to do half the stuff the
government makes us do, and women's leverage would fly right out the
window.  They would have to motivate us to do what they can currently
make us do.  They would have to work with us.  Now they just put bits
in our mouths and yell "Giddyup!!"

[...]

Here's a copy of a blog I wrote on the relationship between men's
rights and limited govt.  Someone had compared the relative amounts of
govt money spent in pursuit of men's health vs. women's health.  Your
comments are welcome:

*****

"Herein lies an example of why the cause of men's rights is inseparable
from the cause of limited government.

Most of the money that pays for the above research is taken from men,
without our permission.  Then the government spends it unequally on
women, because women have the most political clout.  We notice this,
and we point out that they are spending far more on women than on men.
 We should point this out, but should we also attempt to make them
spend the health budget equally?  Is this how we can best improve men's
health?

The govt dresses itself as Robin Hood and takes our money, supposedly
so it can help those in need.  Once they do this, they lessen our
ability to give to whatever charities we choose.  If one of us
discovered that a charity was giving unequally to women, he might
choose a different charity.  But in our situation, we can't choose a
different charity.  The money we can spare is taken and given only to
one, and we have little control how they distribute it.  In response to
this, we can demand that they distribute it fairly, but if we do this,
we set ourselves against women who demand that they distribute it
unfairly, and in women's favor.  Women naturally hold their hands out
and demand support from others, whereas men are naturally
self-sufficient, so we wind up in a contest in which we must do what is
contrary to our nature, and we must do it better than those to whom it
comes naturally.  We must out-beg the beggars, and we can't.

In contrast, suppose they don't take our money from us, and we can
choose which charity to help, or simply to help ourselves.  Then the
government is incapable of helping men or women, and in this situation,
we have the natural advantage, because we instinctively support
ourselves, and they instinctively look to others.  We can keep this
advantage, or give it up of our own free will.  We can ensure that
people have enough money to study prostate cancer, and we can find out
why men die seven years earlier, because there's no one hanging on us.
If women want research done on breast cancer, they can damnwell pay for
it, or we can help them, if we want.

Unfortuately, the latter situation is not our situation, because we
have allowed governemnt to get too big and too powerful, so those who
can make the most noise are coddled at our expense.  The only way to
stop this is to take away the government's ability to coddle, not to
demand that it coddle us too.  We're not the ones who need coddling.
We can help ourselves and other men, if we aren't involuntarily saddled
with the burden of helping women too."



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 1:34:37 PM ---