Does Capitalism lead to “Heterosexism”?
Over at Volokh, David Kopel asks:
do VC readers know of any serious research about a link between heterosexism and capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege? My initial impression is the cause and effect theory of heterosexism is quite wrong. Communist dictatorships, for example, are often quite hostile to homosexuals; yet Communist states are not capitalist, generally have legal equality of men and women, and (outside Europe) are run by non-whites. Conversely, ancient Greece was relatively tolerant of some forms of homosexuality, and yet was patriarchal, dominated by whites, and had a primitive free market.
(Via Instapundit.) Seems some of our readers might be aware of such research.
I am with Glenn and David Kopel on this one; it does seem the “most tolerant societies are capitalist.“
In socialist societies, change comes from the state, but in capitalist societies, changes comes from private institutions and associations which can more readily respond to social change as we see in the increasing number of corporations offering domestic partnership benefits and adopting non-discrimination policies.
Yep, this big evil corporations are way ahead of the state.
So, I answer the question posted in the post’s title in the negative. And add, the more freedom we have, the better it is for gays. As didn’t some sage economist, a Nobel Prize winner, say that capitalism and freedom were pretty much the same thing?
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Capitalism and freedom *are* pretty much the same thing, as per Friedman and others (e.g., Rand). Real capitalism is individual economic freedom; that is:
(1) Freedom of initiative - freedom to start a business, take a risk, change employers, invent, discover, etc.
(2) Freedom to bear the consequences - freedom to fail in one’s business or work if it isn’t useful to others.
(3) Freedom of property - freedom to create or acquire property as a consequence of one’s success (or a benefactor’s), and to dispose of one’s property.
America today doesn’t live under real capitalism; more of a Frankenstein mixture of socialism, fascism (government direction of business), corporatism, and pockets of capitalism.
One’s ultimate property is, of course, one’s very self. Capitalism rests on universal *self-ownership*: each individual having the freedom to dispose of themselves.
The other freedoms - social, political, artistic, religious, sexual, etc. - can’t exist without the individual economic freedoms. Show me the bureaucrat or politician who rules you economically, and I’ll show you who rules you in every other area. On the other hand, show me the boss who rules you at work, and I’ll show you the boss you’re going to leave if he ever tries to rule you in any other area. Bureaucrats and politicians are backed by the force of law (ultimately the police); they don’t deal with people as free agents. Businesses have to deal with people as free agents - and, says capitalism, rightly so. Respecting people is how you get the best work out of them.
So. Since capitalism rests on self-ownership, or individual freedom and equality before the law… it inherently tends to work against all of the oppressive “isms”: racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. They just don’t pay. Examples:
- In the U.S., it was the capitalist North that (rightly or wrongly) compelled the South to give up on slavery in the 19th century, and on Jim Crow in the 20th.
- In the late 1800s, it was growing businesses and the rising living standards generated by capitalism that ended child labor - almost entirely before the so-called “progressives” past the first laws against it.
- In the 1990s, it was the business world that created Domestic Partner benefits for gay and lesbian employees - years before government got in on the act. (I’m proud to say, I had a small part in it as a gay activist at a certain very large, trend-setting corporation.) Capitalism has been an engine of gay liberation.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 6, 2008 @ 1:50 pm - September 6, 2008
Hello? Freedom and capitalism mean choice.
Yes. It is that simple….
Comment by Peg — September 6, 2008 @ 1:57 pm - September 6, 2008
Peg said it better
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 6, 2008 @ 2:02 pm - September 6, 2008
This is a “must read” book. It has the great O’Rourke humor and it is a brilliant explanation of what Adam Smith wrote (which precious few people have actually read.)
I am one of the nerds who has read and attempted to use The Wealth of Nations in my teaching. Like the works of Marx, it is an enormous challenge. O’Rourke is no slouch in the I.Q. department and he managed this incredible task with great skill and dexterity.
Liberals and democrats will not like this book because it gives socialism a rough time and picks away at named democrats.
Capitalism and freedom are both based on “utility.” To the gist of this post, if a homosexual is otherwise engaged in actions of practical utility, he is no detriment to either capitalism or freedom. Socialism, on the other hand, is a directed society and quite subject to all forms of prohibitions and censorship. It is necessary in order for its group directed dynamics to work. Tyranny need not be discussed.
Read the book. You won’t be sorry.
Comment by heliotrope — September 6, 2008 @ 2:24 pm - September 6, 2008
If you could see my post in the spam filter, you would be amazed.
Comment by heliotrope — September 6, 2008 @ 3:15 pm - September 6, 2008
To consider this concept, you have to recognize what constitutes tolerance. In regards to homosexuality, one of the biggest barometers is same-sex marriage and from what I know, there is no direct correlation to capitalism. The countries that provide for same sex marriage represent a mix of economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation’s annual survey of economic freedom although they do favor capitalist economic structures. However, there are several countries considered to have the most free economies in the world that do not provide for same sex marriages.
Another barometer would be discrimination laws. And again, there doesn’t seem to be a direct relation between capitalism and discrimination protection though countries with capitalist economies seem more likely to enact such laws.
When comparing tolerance of countries regarding homosexuality, the most compelling correlation seems to be a mix of two things. The countries that seem at the forefront of homosexual tolerance, notably Scandinavian countries, have proliferated their historical tolerance of homosexuality (Denmark was the first country to decriminalize it in 1933) to their northwestern European counterparts and to the anglicized countries of the UK Commonwealth. Simply an enlightment on homosexuality due to integration and recognition into society at large. The most recent Eurobarometer Survey for Europe indicates the most tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality are felt in the Scandinavian countries, followed by northwestern European nations and that corresponds to laws for same sex marriage and discrimination laws.
The second factor is the role of separation of church and state (not secularism itself) since in the same survey Scandinavians were actually more in favor of religion in society than other countries that do not favor more homosexual tolerance. It seems tolerance can flourish when religion is removed from influencing government policy without necessarily removing religion from society.
There also seems to be a correlation with the prevalent religion of a nation. Those countries dominated by Protestantism seem at the forefront of gay tolerance although it’s not a defining feature either.
So to me that seems to be the combination, a mixture of civil tolerance towards homosexuality combined with an separation between religion and the state (where Protestantism is the main religion), that allows for this kind of tolerance to flourish. We see capitalist countries with the most free economies that are behind the advances of others in tolerance, we see more secular countries with less tolerance of homosexuality, we even see more socialist countries ahead of the tolerance of more developed nations (notably Central and South America) but I can’t see a direct relationship between capitalism itself and homosexual tolerance like the article might indicate.
Some further considerations: a number of socialist countries decriminalized homosexuality before their capitalist counterparts, although this decriminalization does not seem to be followed up with subsequent protections or homosexual rights advancements. Also, the “capitalist” countries at the forefront of gay rights do not always represent the most free economies. Canada and Spain, where gay marriage is legal, both have economic structures that lean more toward socialism than other modern, Western, less tolerant counterparts for example. Japan, which neither has gay marriage or gay discrimination laws, is considered to have one of the most free economies in the world, but it has a very different consideration of homosexuality. There is a greater historical tolerance for homosexual acts without identifying individuals as homosexual, similar to other historical societies like ancient Greece.
Comment by Countervail — September 6, 2008 @ 4:42 pm - September 6, 2008
To consider this concept, you have to recognize what constitutes tolerance. In regards to homosexuality, one of the biggest barometers is same-sex marriage and from what I know, there is no direct correlation to capitalism. The countries that provide for same sex marriage represent a mix of economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation’s annual survey of economic freedom although they do favor capitalist economic structures. However, there are several countries considered to have the most free economies in the world that do not provide for same sex marriages.
Another barometer would be discrimination laws. And again, there doesn’t seem to be a direct relation between capitalism and discrimination protection though countries with capitalist economies seem more likely to enact such laws.
When comparing tolerance of countries regarding homosexuality, the most compelling correlation seems to be a mix of two things. The countries that seem at the forefront of homosexual tolerance, notably Scandinavian countries, have proliferated their historical tolerance of homosexuality (Denmark was the first country to decriminalize it in 1933) to their northwestern European counterparts and to the anglicized countries of the UK Commonwealth. Simply an enlightment on homosexuality due to integration and recognition into society at large. The most recent Eurobarometer Survey for Europe indicates the most tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality are felt in the Scandinavian countries, followed by northwestern European nations and that corresponds to laws for same sex marriage and discrimination laws.
The second factor is the role of separation of church and state (not secularism itself) since in the same survey Scandinavians were actually more in favor of religion in society than other countries that do not favor more homosexual tolerance. It seems tolerance can flourish when religion is removed from influencing government policy without necessarily removing religion from society.
There also seems to be a correlation with the prevalent religion of a nation. Those countries dominated by Protestantism seem at the forefront of gay tolerance although it’s not a defining feature either.
So to me that seems to be the combination, a mixture of civil tolerance towards homosexuality combined with an separation between religion and the state (where Protestantism is the main religion), that allows for this kind of tolerance to flourish. We see capitalist countries with the most free economies that are behind the advances of others in tolerance, we see more secular countries with less tolerance of homosexuality, we even see more socialist countries ahead of the tolerance of more developed nations (notably Central and South America) but I can’t see a direct relationship between capitalism itself and homosexual tolerance like the article might indicate.
Some further considerations: a number of socialist countries decriminalized homosexuality before their capitalist counterparts, although this decriminalization does not seem to be followed up with subsequent protections or homosexual rights advancements. Also, the “capitalist” countries at the forefront of gay rights do not always represent the most free economies. Canada and Spain, where gay marriage is legal, both have economic structures that lean more toward socialism than other modern, Western, less tolerant counterparts for example. Japan, which neither has gay marriage or gay discrimination laws, is considered to have one of the most free economies in the world, but it has a very different consideration of homosexuality. There is a greater historical tolerance for homosexual acts without identifying individuals as homosexual, similar to other historical societies like ancient Greece.
Comment by RogerDodger — September 6, 2008 @ 4:44 pm - September 6, 2008
#5 - We did, and we are!
I hate the ubiquitous term “heterosexism” that the libtards like to throw around like party favors. What exactly is heterosexism? The fact that one’s personal preference dictates how they live their lives?
I guess that means some - no, make it ALL - GayLeftLibs are “homosexists.”
Touche.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 8, 2008 @ 12:09 am - September 8, 2008
Seems to me one of those things that are patently obvious, who needs a study? Under Capitalism every citizen is a “customer,” to be served regardless of their nature, within limits of acceptance decided by society in general, with the incentive to include more over time to increase the customer base (the fewer you oppress, the more they can participate). Under Socialism every citizen is a “subject,” to be told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, which means they are subject to the nature of their oppressors, whose limits of acceptance change only when the oppressors themselves change, and they have little or no incentive to do so (the MORE you oppress, the more control you have).
Comment by DoorHold — September 8, 2008 @ 11:44 am - September 8, 2008