***I’m off to Arizona next week to give eight lectures on “The Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution” for Jordan Peterson’s online education platform, Peterson Academy. If you’re in the Phoenix area and would like to attend, you can sign up here. I may then be off to Canada to visit my parents and when I get back, we launch our two-week “intellectual boot camp,” the John Adams Fellows Program. All of that is to say, my publications for the next month may be less than regular.

The audio recording of “Postmodern Marriage” is at the bottom, and I am making it available to all subscribers, paid and unpaid.

Share

Now that we’ve examined what marriage is (see here, here, and, most importantly, here), we should consider what marriage is not. There are many pretenders to the throne, but marriage is something definite, something real, and something worth defending. There are those, however, who would use the idea of marriage as a Trojan Horse to corrupt and destroy the meaning, importance, and living reality of what marriage is.

We live in a postmodern age that seeks to change or destroy the core principles and institutions that are at the foundation not just of the West but of all civilizations. Under the long shadow cast by Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Herbert Marcuse, we live in a time of nihilistic totalitarianism (nihilism is the means and totalitarianism is the end) that has as its direct goal the dismantling of those ways of living grounded in metaphysical reality.

Let’s begin by putting our concerns in a broader context. Those who seek to destroy marriage, do so in the name of an ideological passion.

When early twentieth-century Marxists realized that there would never be a proletarian revolution of oppressed workers because the working class was the greatest conservator of the bourgeois way of life, they recalibrated their strategy and decided that the values most important to the working class would have to be destroyed first and foremost. This led the twentieth-century Left on its “long march through the institutions” to extinguish those moral values and institutions that were suppressing and holding back the Marxist-Leninist revolution foretold by the laws of dialectical materialism. That’s when the Left discovered Nietzsche and Freud and began to wheedle away at the soul of Western man.

After the Left captured and transformed the universities, schools, media, Hollywood, and various professional associations, etc., they went for civilization’s jugular. The single greatest scalp won by the Left in the last twenty years has been their corruption and transformation of the institution of marriage. The postmodern Left is now giggling as their minions have stripped marriage of its necessary component parts and left it corpse dangling for all to see and mock. (Apologies for mixing my metaphors!)

The postmodern view of marriage is radically different from the reality of metaphysical marriage. They are essentially different things. Indeed, the difference between marriage and all other forms of romantic association (e.g., same-sex, polygamous, polyamorous, inter-species, etc.) is not one of degree but one of kind. They are not identical or even similar kinds of relationships; indeed, postmodern unions are a simulacrum of true marriage. The metaphysical and postmodern views differ over the purpose of marriage as well as its fundamental characteristics and functions.

Let’s take a closer look.

Marriage true and false can be distinguished in two major ways. First, in contrast to the metaphysical view of marriage, the new postmodern definition is thoroughly subjectivist in nature. It is not grounded in the facts of reality. It does not refer to a basic human reality with a defined identity, structure, function, and purpose. Indeed, it is disconnected from the necessary facts of reality that give rise to marriage in the first instance and is thus emptied of the necessary content and meaning that define marriage. Postmodern marriage is infinitely malleable. Its purpose is, according to its most vocal proponents, to serve an ideological-political agenda.

To start with, the postmodern view says that marriage is genderless; that a wedding does not require a bride (which must, by definition, be a woman) and a groom (which must, by definition, be a man), that a husband does not require a wife; that a child does not require a mother (which must, by definition, be a woman) or a father (which must, by definition, be a man). Nor is the postmodern view of marriage defined by the magic number, two. The new understanding defines marriage as the union of one or more consenting adults. (In 2012, a woman married herself in Las Vegas.) Lastly, the postmodern view of marriage regards the old-fashioned characteristics that once defined marriage, such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence, as outdated and therefore optional. In fact, according to Elizabeth Brake, a professor at the University of Calgary, a major goal of postmodern marriage is, as she said, to “denormalize heterosexual monogamy as a way of life.” Thus, the postmodern view is open to married “throuples” (a three-person couple), and of course polygamous and polyamorous marriages, “monogamish” couples who limit their marriage to two people but who are permitted to have sexual relations outside their marriage, and limited-term or temporary marriages as defined by “wedleases.”

But if marriage is not between one man and one woman, by what principle can it be defined and limited? Why should it be thought of as something particular, as something with defined characteristics that distinguish it from all other forms of romantic relationships? Postmodern marriage is therefore a fill-in-the-blank institution, and of course it is the loudest voices and government officials who fill in the blanks. Judith Stacey, one of its leading academic proponents, ably summed up the postmodern view of marriage:

If we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise. . . . Two friends might decide to marry without basing their bond on erotic or romantic attachment. . . . Or, more radical still, perhaps some might dare to question the dyadic limitations of Western marriage and seek some of the benefits of extended family life through small-group marriages arranged to share resources, nurturance, and labor.

The postmodern view is grounded on emotional needs, feelings, and desires; its principal function is to satisfy intimacy and commitment; and its ultimate purpose is to promote self-esteem and to acquire social and political status in a world governed by the tastes of the notoriously hip and the congenitally envious.

The postmodern view of marriage was first sanctioned legally in a 1993 opinion of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which declared, “This court construes marriage as “‘a partnership to which both partners bring their financial resources as well as their individual energies and efforts.’” According to Andrew Sullivan, one of the leading “conservative” proponents of the postmodern view, marriage is nothing more than the vehicle by “which two adults affirm their emotional commitment to one another.” Marriage in the new dispensation is defined simply as companionship, as an emotional union, as a partnership, or as a super-duper friendship.

Postmodern marriage is about one or more people who love themselves or each other or who share a strong emotional bond formalizing a long-term commitment to one’s self or to one another, a commitment that lasts as long as it suits the feelings and interests of the adults involved. The definition of marriage has changed in Andrew Sullivan’s view: “From being a means to bringing up children” to being “a way in which two adults affirm their emotional commitment to one another.” Elsewhere, Sullivan has written that “the essence of a good marriage is not breeding or even the romantic love that can blind us while it overwhelms us,” but rather “a unique and profound friendship.” But if companionship is the definition of marriage, then there simply are no limits on what marriage can or should be except that some people should feel a strong emotional union with oneself, with another person, or with many people.

Marriage defined as partnership, friendship, or companionship does not explain, however, the deeper purposes of postmodern marriage. Andrew Sullivan captured the meaning of those deeper purposes when he wrote in Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality that unless gay marriage is legalized “a whole segment of humanity” will be denied “personal dignity.” Sullivan’s argument—hereby dubbed the argument from guilt—received official sanction in 2003 when the Ontario Court of Appeals’ decided in a case that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms required that same-sex couples be issued marriage licenses:

Marriage is, without dispute, one of the most significant forms of personal relationships. . . . Through the institution of marriage, individuals can publicly express their love and commitment to each other. Through this institution, society publicly recognizes expressions of love and commitment between individuals, granting them respect and legitimacy as a couple. This public recognition and sanction of marital relationships reflect society’s approbation of the personal hopes, desires and aspirations that underlie loving, committed conjugal relationships. This can only enhance an individual’s sense of self-worth and dignity.

The new postmodern definition of marriage, then, is about promoting the “self-worth and dignity” of people who engage in a certain kind of partnership, friendship, or companionship. In other words, postmodern marriage is driven by a kind of identity politics, the purpose of which is to elevate the “self-worth and dignity” of a protected class. But surely dignity and self-worth are not defined by social recognition, sanction, and approbation. As much as I wanted to compete in the Olympics when I was a young man, the fact that I didn’t in no way damaged my dignity and self-worth. Finally, as a married man, I can assure you that neither my dignity nor my self-worth is connected to my being married. My wife makes sure of that!

In sum, there is no relationship between marriage and human dignity, nor is marriage a “human right.” Self-esteem is not the basis of marriage, nor should unearned guilt be the means by which a counterfeit concept corrupts a legitimate one.

It should be obvious by now that the argument for same-sex marriage is fundamentally incoherent. If feelings, companionship, love, and self-esteem are the defining ingredients of marriage, if marriage is a fill-in-the-blank institution, on what grounds would you not recognize polygamous, polyamorous, and non-sexual unions as marriage? Other than sheer bigotry, why should marriage be limited to the number 2? Why shouldn’t a bisexual man marry a man and a woman if that’s his and their choice? Why shouldn’t a “throuple” be allowed to adopt children? Other than sheer bigotry, why shouldn’t five men and five women be allowed to marry? Why shouldn’t the ten people of a polyamorous marriage be allowed to adopt children? Other than sheer bigotry, why shouldn’t a man or a woman be allowed to marry his or her sister, brother, mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, adult son or daughter, or another married person if they claim to be in love? Other than traditional taboos, why shouldn’t a father and an adult son be allowed to marry and adopt if they love each other? Other than sheer bigotry, why shouldn’t two heterosexual sisters be allowed to marry for the benefits that accrue with marriage? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to adopt? Surely such a prohibition represents discrimination and a violation of the “privileges and immunities,” “due process,” and “equal protection” clauses of the 14th Amendment, according to the proponents of postmodern marriage.

Other than sheer bigotry and old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy taboos, why should we not celebrate such relationships? In fact, why shouldn’t we be required or even forced to celebrate such relationships? Surely it is immoral to state a moral preference for one form of family arrangement over another. If male and female are not immutable characteristics of marriage, why should number, exclusivity, permanence, choice, or even species limit marriage? Presumably the only forbidden form of marriage would be to oneself, but then again, why not? And in fact, such a wedding has, as we’ve seen already, occurred recently. And why should marriage be limited to persons? Why can’t we have interspecies marriages? If we can kill and eat animals, surely a humane society would allow us to love and marry animals? This may sound absurd but there are individuals who want to marry animals and have either done so or attempted to do so. Several years ago, a man in Missouri sought a license to marry his horse. And in 2006, a British woman, Sharon Tendler, married a male dolphin named Cindy. (It is not known if “Cindy” is transgendered.) Tendler made it clear that she did not expect Cindy to be monogamous. And why should marriage be limited to sentient beings? In 2013, a woman in France married a 500-year-old bridge.

Ultimately, the postmodern definition of marriage is open-ended and therefore unintelligible. It has no objective referents other than whims and feelings; in fact, it represents an attempt to rewrite reality. But a concept that means everything means nothing. Ultimately, the argument for same-sex marriage is a case of ideological wish-fulfillment.

Second, if the postmodern view is simply the product of human will, wish, and whim unconnected to any metaphysical realities or necessities, it necessarily follows that the postmodernists see marriage as something created and defined by government (i.e., jus dare), which means it is the creature of force. And of course, that which government has the power to create and define can also be recreated and redefined by government at will. This means that government can change at its pleasure the identity, function, and meaning of marriage, including the sex and number of those marrying as well as the other fundamental characteristics of marriage, e.g., exclusivity, monogamy, and permanence.

In 1648, the 2^nd Earl of Pembroke famously said, “A parliament can do any thing but make a man a woman, and a woman a man.” The postmodern view says nonsense to that, and so has the British Parliament in the twenty-first century. The postmodern view says that marriage is whatever government says it is and therefore that government can declare a man a bride and a woman a husband. And if government can do that, why can’t it define a bridge or a dolphin to be a spouse. The postmodern concept “marriage” is defined by arbitrary human invention.

Thus, the postmodern view of marriage takes a top-down, central planning approach. It says that what was once established and accepted over millennia by innumerable and radically different societies and literally trillions of people should now be redefined by a small elite at one moment in time and enforced by the coercive power of the State (I capitalize this word to capture its Germanic quality). According to four justices on the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in its 2003 same-sex marriage ruling, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, “the government creates civil marriage.” Two years later, a federal trial court in Nebraska declared marriage to be a “creature of statute.” As such, the postmodern view of marriage comes in the form of a government dictate. The State now defines what marriage is, which means that the government defines all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and it is now using its coercive force to uphold its definition of marriage. (I will have more to say on this topic in later essays.)

The result is that marriage is no longer an institution of civil society connected to the metaphysical needs and realities of human life and recognized by government; it is now an institution created by government. And if the State has the authority to create marriage, it shall also have the power to define and create families. Why should families be defined by a mother and father? If government can define what marriage is disconnected from reality, it can certainly define what a family is disconnected from reality. This is the very definition of statism.

The postmodern marriage movement is not and has never been a grassroots movement in the same way that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was or the current homeschool revolution is today. Instead, the postmodern marriage movement is more akin to a top-down ideological putsch promoted by powerful elites in the universities, media, Hollywood, and the courts. It is, we might say, a movement of the 1 percent for the 3 percent. The metaphysical view, by contrast, says that marriage is a naturally and spontaneously evolved social institution that grew from the bottom up in every society known to man. The constituent truth and moral reality of marriage would exist whether it was recognized in the law or not.

In a free society, the law should not create marriage; it should only recognize and sanction it based on metaphysical reality and necessity.

Share

Conclusion

Metaphysical marriage and postmodern “marriage” are not just different things. They are fundamentally different things. One is naturally grounded in the factual (i.e., biological) requirements of human life; the other is grounded in subjective feelings and desires. One defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman; the other says that marriage is entirely open as to number, sex, gender, species, and duration. One has essential attributes (e.g., monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence) and therefore a fixed definition; the other has open-ended attributes and a fluid definition. One protects the rights of children; the other serves the whims of adults. One serves an objective purpose; the other serves subjective purposes. One is recognized by government; the other is created by government fiat. One derives its autonomy from the natural order and voluntary association; the other derives its authority from the coercive power of the State. One protects the rights of individuals; the other violates individual rights. One requires no government force to be experienced and lived out; the other requires the initiation of physical force to be experienced and lived out. One is logically consistent; the other is logically incoherent.

Given the massive difference between metaphysical and postmodern marriage, the fact that both call for “love” and “commitment” means very little. But why should love and commitment be requirements of postmodern marriage. That metaphysical and postmodern marriage share a few superficial similarities (sometimes) does not change the fact that they are essentially different. They are not the same thing. They are different in kind. And precisely because they are fundamentally different, we need different concepts and definitions to denote and define them.

Ultimately, the postmodern view of marriage is built on two logical errors. The first disconnects the concept marriage from the biological reality on which it necessarily depends. The idea of same-sex marriage, for instance, is based not on perceptual reality and truth but on whim and wish. It has nothing to do with the objective purposes and characteristics of marriage; it has nothing to do with the human problem that marriage seeks to solve; and it has nothing to do with the solution marriage provides for the universal human problem. This is not to say that same-sex, polygamous, and polyamorous relationships are not something real; nor is it to say that they can’t or shouldn’t receive some kind of legal recognition. It is only to say they are not and cannot, by definition, be marriages. They are something else. That they are something else does not diminish what they are (i.e., romantic relationships), it just identifies them correctly.

Second, to expand the definition of marriage disconnected from its metaphysical roots and mixed with various emotional states is to disconnect it from its purpose, function, and characteristics. The proponents of the postmodern marriage must ultimately say that marriage is a relationship between people. It wouldn’t even have to be a romantic relationship. The sex difference, the number, the exclusivity, and the permanence are now all optional or open-ended. Marriage can be between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, and innumerable other permutations; marriage can be based on limited-term contracts, and it can be open to multiple sexual partners. Same-sex, polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous, and inter-species “marriages” have now been classified as, and made equal to, traditional marriages. And yes, why shouldn’t a woman’s dignity and self-worth be recognized and celebrated if she wants to marry a dolphin!

It is critically important, however, that we distinguish marriage from companionship. They are different things that deserve different names and definitions. The postmodern view of marriage is a conceptual farrago that is in the process of diluting and destroying a special and vitally important institution. It claims to support and democratize a venerable institution while it ignores and denies the metaphysical foundations on which true marriage is grounded. But there is no good reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

In a free society, men and women will have the freedom to associate with whomever they choose, and they will have the right to form private contracts that define the rights and responsibilities of their particular associations. That’s what a free and just society would do.

Audio Recording: I’m not sure what happened to the nice English gentlemen who usually reads my essays. Instead, we have a very clear and direct American woman reading the essay, and she does a fine job!

Have a great day!

Alan Greenspan, dubbed by Ayn Rand as "The Undertaker."   Ultimately, he took the job that John Galt refused: economic dictator

"Alan Greenspan died [earlier this week], and the man who spent two decades inflating bubbles will be eulogised as a maestro. Fitting, because he understood exactly what he was doing. 

"In 1966 a younger Greenspan wrote an essay called 'Gold and Economic Freedom.' [In it, he states that the gold standard is essential for economic freedom.] He laid out the case with precision. The gold standard protected savers from confiscation by inflation. Welfare statists hated gold because it stood in the way of their deficits. He wrote that the abandonment of gold made deficit spending a "scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth." He was right. He knew it. Then he took the job running the printing press.

"From August 1987 to January 2006 Greenspan sat atop the Federal Reserve and did the opposite of everything that essay defended. After the 1987 crash he flooded the banks with liquidity and taught a generation of traders that the central bank would catch them every time they fell. They named the reflex after him: the 'Greenspan put.' He cut the federal funds rate to 1 percent by June 2003 and held it there, and you watched housing prices detach from any sane relationship to income. Mortgage credit gushed. He went on television in February 2004 and suggested Americans consider adjustable-rate mortgages, roughly eighteen months before he started hiking rates into those very borrowers. The man who warned in 1966 about the hidden confiscation of wealth engineered the largest credit distortion in postwar history. 

"Then came the apology that wasn't one. In October 2008, sitting before Congress as the wreckage smoked, Greenspan confessed he had found 'a flaw' in his model of how the world worked. He was 'shocked' that lenders [licensed to print money] had not policed themselves. You don't get to spend twenty years pricing risk at zero and then act surprised when men respond to the incentives you built. Any committee of economists cannot set the price of money better than a market can. 

"Greenspan knew the answer at 40 and spent the next half century pretending he'd forgotten it. The savers he warned about in 1966 paid for that performance. ..."

"Every Fed chair since Greenspan has discovered this truth the hard way. Bernanke cranked rates to zero after 2008, then Yellen kept them pinned there, then Powell printed $4 trillion more during COVID. Each crisis demanded bigger interventions than the last."

~ Handre

"Greenspan was the Robert Stadler of our age: the brilliant man who knew the right principles and betrayed them, certain his own genius could control the evil he agreed to serve. 

"He was a member of Rand's inner circle. His essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" appeared in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. He argued, correctly, that the gold standard protected savers from confiscation, that statists hated gold because it blocked their deficits, and that abandoning it turned deficit spending into a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. 

"He even understood that Social Security was a Ponzi fraud that would help bankrupt the nation. He knew all of it. Then he took command of the Federal Reserve and did the opposite of everything he had written. 

"The 'Greenspan put,' rates held at one percent, the housing bubble, the very confiscation he had warned of, engineered by his own hand. 

"Here is the irony. Greenspan knew 'Atlas Shrugged' intimately. He watched Rand create Stadler, the genius who lent his mind to the looters' Institute believing he could outwit them, and who lived to see his knowledge weaponised as Project X. Greenspan studied that warning at the source, from the author herself. He understood the character completely. Then he walked the identical road and became the man the novel was written to expose. 

"When the wreckage came in 2008, he told Congress he had found 'a flaw' in his model. There was no flaw in the model. The flaw was in the choice to abandon what he knew. Some men meet the virus and are consumed by it. Greenspan had the answer at forty and spent the next fifty years pretending he had forgotten."

~ The Rational Animal

"Q: Alan Greenspan passed away [this week]. Alan Greenspan was a close associate of Ayn Rand for a while, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve … these things did not overlap, as people familiar with Ayn Rand’s ideas wouldn’t be surprised to hear. So, Keith, I’m sure you’ve read [Greenspan’s essay] ‘Gold & Economic Freedom’ many times; so let’s get your thoughts on Greenspan’s passing…

"A: For anyone who’s read that essay, which was published in 1966 as part of [Ayn Rand’s] book 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,' and therefore endorsed by Ayn Rand, he had to evade everything he knew in 1966 in order to take the job at the Fed. And ultimately, he took the job that John Galt refused, which was economic dictator.

"Now … everybody is confused about capitalism … but … there is no greater area of confusion than the concepts around money. Both the critics of capitalism and of gold, and the FANS of capitalism and gold will tell you that he was 'a Maestro' — and if you ask “a master of what?’ you’ll be told he was a master of central planning of our economy, and of managing our little lives for us. …

"They’ll say ... ‘he managed a sound money regime’— and the problem with the concept of sound money they use is an anti-concept, that is, [it’s a notion] that destroys and obliterates a legitimate concept in order to smuggle something else in. And what they mean by ’sound money’ is an irredeemable fiat currency jammed down our throats by the government forcing us to use it as if it WERE money, but ‘sound’ because it’s somehow managed to avoid consumer prices going up [by no too much].

"So I’d like people to think about a simple fact, that in every industry seeking greater efficiency, that is, they want to produce more with less — with less cost, with fewer inputs, with less labour, land, physical commodities etc. — and of course that’s happening relentlessly across the entire economy in every sector (unless regulation prevents it…).

"So suppose the average across the entire [economy] is a 2 percent gain in efficiency every year, all else being equal, you’d expect consumer prices therefore to be falling comparatively across industries, as costs are falling. SO your expect consumer prices tl be falling roughly 2 percent per year.

"So imagine it it were possible as the manager of the currency to debase the currency at a matching rate. Now, this is pure fantasy [hoho!]; this is only interesting as a thought experiment … but suppose it were possible to debase the currency at a matching rate so that every company from Intel to US Steel to Rolls Royce making aircraft engines is cutting costs at 2 percent, [while] you are debasing the currency at a matching 2 percent, and the nett result is CPI = zero. Would anybody call that SOUND?

"I wrote an article called ‘Sound Money is Not What You Think It Is,’ and I had a picture that I took from Norman Rockwell [above, with customer and butcher both cheating] … and I asked if that would be considered a sound measurement of the weight of the chicken, and therefore a sound price to pay … And at best, that’s what Greenspan did."

~ Keith Weiner from Monetary Metals, interviewed on the 'Daily Objective'

Learn how we inspired thoughtful students to explore Objectivism and consider an intellectual career

The post AynRandCon Spreads Objectivism in Europe appeared first on New Ideal - Reason | Individualism | Capitalism.

"A spectre haunts debates about governance: the idea of benevolent and efficient dictatorship. Where democratic leaders haggle, delay, and pander, the authoritarian ruler simply acts. Where elected governments bend to lobbyists and electoral cycles, a dictator [it's alleged] is in for the long haul. ...

"Beijing officials invoke it to explain the rise of China; climate activists to argue that the planetary emergency demands that we put democracy on pause; populists to suggest that current institutions are broken and that a fresh start and setting the popular will free requires a firm and unchecked hand. ...

"However, a large body of studies of how democracies and autocracies actually perform across regions, over centuries, and in domains ranging from economic growth to military effectiveness to environmental protection have questioned this story. They do not show autocracies to be superior—on the contrary, the autocratic temptation is, in most domains, a mirage, or even a trap. Not only are democracies morally preferable because they recognise the political equity and dignity of citizens; they also tend to work better. ... 

"Countries that successfully consolidate free and fair elections face substantially lower risks of civil war ... Citizens who can kick out the opposition at elections are less inclined to take to the streets with weapons.

"[D]emocracies have been accused of weakness in warfare. ... Yet the long-term record is unambiguous: since 1815, democracies have won more than 80 percent of the wars they have fought. ...

"Democratic institutions protect property rights in a way that encourages the private investment that drives productivity. And the open circulation of ideas across universities, a free press, and competitive markets is not a distraction from growth but one of its primary engines. Studies show that, on average, democracies enjoy a modest but robust long-run growth advantage over autocracies, and that this advantage strengthens with the quality and longevity of democratic institutions.

"More telling than average growth rates, however, is the frequency with which disasters strike. Unchecked political authority not merely fails to deliver growth; rather, it periodically produces catastrophes. Mao’s Great Leap Forward between 1958 and 1962 killed tens of millions through an entirely man-made famine, a consequence of ideological fantasy insulated from the real world. The Soviet collectivisation campaign produced similar horrors two decades earlier. Comparable disasters in democratic states are virtually unknown—not necessarily because democratic leaders are wiser or more virtuous, but because they face institutional constraints and public scrutiny that make disastrous policies impossible to sustain.

"The most advanced economies in the world are democracies. The handful of countries that have joined the ranks of wealthy, high-technology societies over the past century, including South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and Ireland, made at least the final leap under democratic governance. Singapore is the sole exception to this rule. Autocratic regimes can mobilise resources to achieve middle-income status, as China has done. But the transition to a knowledge-based economy requires the rule of law, the protection of intellectual property, and the freedom to challenge received wisdom—all of which are systematically undermined under dictatorship. ...

"At a time when open societies face serious pressure from within and without, the temptation to admire their alternatives is understandable. But admiration is not a sound foundation for political judgment, especially not when it is based on a selective reading of the evidence. The autocratic temptation promises fortitude and efficiency—but too often, it only produces chaos and mismanagement; and, occasionally, it delivers disaster."

~ Jørgen Møller from his article 'The Myth of Authoritarian Efficiency'

Who is “struggling” financially, due to price inflation?

To answer that, we need to go behind the price inflation (a rise in the average price of goods and services) to its cause: monetary inflation (the government’s expansion of its fiat currency).

Aside from wars or natural disasters temporarily reducing supply, the only thing that can raise prices is government debasing its own money supply.

Why does everything cost 10 to 30 times more than it did when I grew up in the 1950s? That’s a huge rise, not a minor fluctuation.

Why does the hamburger that back then cost 25¢ hamburger now cost $2.50 to $3.00 at McDonald’s?

Why does the gallon of gas that cost 33¢then cost $4.00 today? And why is it that in 25 years, gas has not been below $1.00?

Why does a men’s white dress shirt that cost $5.00 in the 1950s cost $20 on clearance and $96 at Brooks Brothers?

Why is it that I had to go to Insert Symbols to find a “¢” symbol?

It’s not because the quantity of goods and services has dropped by a factor of 10 or 20. No, obviously the quantity of hamburgers, gasoline, shirts, and just about everything has not dropped but risen.

Is it the greed of businesses? Then greed is something added since the 1950s? And it’s capable of raising prices 20-fold? And the average family can and does pay twenty times more, simply because businesses demand it? Where do they get the money to pay 20 times more? What were they doing with all that money in the 1950s? Sitting on it?

Greed counts for nothing. The greed of the buyer is matched by the greed of the seller. Both want to get more for less. Both are limited by the law of supply and demand.

Here’s the key: in 1955, the median family income in the U.S. was $4,400.

Today those figures are $85,000 (Census bureau) to $103,000 (HUD).

Hugely more families have two wage-earners today, but so what? Cut the numbers in half and the growth in nominal income is still tenfold or more.

In 1955, there were only 267 individual tax returns filed in the United States with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $1 million or more. Today, 360,000 to 370,000 Americans made $1 million or more.

What percent of the US population earned less than $20,000 in 1955? 99%.

Only 1 in 100 were able to achieve the stratospheric income of $20,000.

What was the gold price in 1955? $35 per ounce. Today, it is over 100 times that ($4,215 to $4,233)

Prices are cheaper now than in 1955—in terms of gold.

An ounce of gold in 1955 would buy about 100 gallons of gas; today that selfsame ounce will buy 1,000 gallons.

In 1955, 500 ounces of gold bought an average middle-class house. Today, 500 ounces will buy four half-million dollar houses, And the houses will be bigger, and will have air conditioning and a two-car garage.

Paper money prices are about 20 times higher and gold prices are about 4 to 10 times lower.

The problem is with the government’s paper money.

Prices go up because the public, having ever more fiat money, bids them up.

So, who is “struggling” financially, due to price inflation? Those who don’t get the newly injected money fast enough–i.e., before other people who have the new money sooner bid up prices. (This is known as “the Cantillon effect,” after early 18th century economist Richard Cantillon.)

And, in the current inflation, the losers are those who didn’t buy hard assets early enough.

I said to Claude (Opus 4.8):

Inflation helps those who get the new money first and hurts those who get it last. So perhaps the complaints come from those late in getting the new money.

Claude responded:

The Cantillon effect is sound, and you’ve put your finger on a real channel. But I’d push on which version of “late” actually fits this episode, because the simplest reading — wage earners are last because wages adjust slowly — doesn’t match the 2020–2022 data, and the version that does fit is more interesting for your thesis.

Here’s the complication for the simple version. This monetary expansion was atypical. Normally new money enters through the financial system — banks, bond dealers, asset markets — and only later reaches wage earners, which is the classic case where workers are the late losers. But in 2020–21 a large share of the injection was fiscal and went straight to households: stimulus checks, expanded unemployment, the child credit. Money entered near the bottom, not only at the top. And the bottom of the wage distribution then did relatively well — that CAP piece concedes the lowest earners saw wages accelerate, and the broader research on the period documented real wage compression, with the bottom quartile gaining in real terms while the middle lagged. So “wage earners got the money last” is the part that fits worst. If anything the low-wage worker was unusually early this time.

The version that fits beautifully is the asset-price channel. Cheap money and suppressed rates inflated home and equity prices first — that’s pure Cantillon, the earliest recipients being those who already held the assets. Existing homeowners and stockholders captured the gains before consumer prices fully caught up. The people “late” in that chain aren’t wage earners generically; they’re the asset-less: renters, and the young who hadn’t bought in yet. They now face the inflated price level without ever having captured the asset gains that the early recipients pocketed. That maps precisely onto the two facts from before — housing is the loudest complaint, and the under-30s report the worst squeeze. They’re paying yesterday’s monetary expansion forward in the form of a home-price and rent level set by it.

And the textbook Cantillon loser — the saver on a fixed income holding cash, whose claim on goods is silently diluted — fits cleanly too. Retirees and savers got nothing early and absorbed the dilution. They’re genuinely “last,” in the strict sense that they never received new money at all; it just devalued what they held.

Two caveats so the framework doesn’t overreach. First, the current (2026) squeeze isn’t purely monetary anymore. Tariffs are a real relative-price shock layered on top — that’s a tax incidence story, not a money-injection-timing story, even if the felt experience is identical. Second, some of the constraint is physical, as we covered: housing supply genuinely lagged for structural reasons independent of the money. So I’d say your hypothesis is largely right but more precisely stated as: the complaints cluster among those late in the asset-price propagation and among fixed-income holders — not wage earners as such — with a non-monetary tariff-and-supply overlay that the Cantillon lens alone won’t.

The inflation is real. The struggles of the sacrificed portion of the population are real. And the cause is anti-capitalism: anti-capitalist ideas, leading to anti-capitalist opinion-leaders, leading to anti-capitalist government policies.

The solution? I can’t imagine.

Unless it’s capitalism. A system that takes the money supply out of the hands of the government.

​​​​​​​De-socializing money? Letting prices be determined by voluntary consent on a free market? Limiting government to protecting rights?

It can’t be that simple.

Or can it?