Young People Have Too LITTLE Personal Autonomy, Actually

With the Epstein scandal now finally in the foreground at long last, many people are wondering how the hell were these atrocities allowed to happen for so long?  There are a number of reasons, of course, but the two biggest ones are 1) power of the perperators, and 2) lack of personal autonomy of the victims. 

The first is painfully obvious, as power lets perpetrators get away with far more than they would have without such power.  And of course, they are surrounded with rape apologists, enablers, and guilty bystanders as well.  Natch.  But denying young people autonomy and civil rights in the name of "protecting" them also not only fails to really protect them from predators, but actually puts them at greater risk.  As a very different Dr. Robert Epstein (no relation!) has famously noted, teens have fewer rights than convicted felons, and in fact have ten times more restrictions.

True, it is very nuanced, and the correlation is probably NOT linear or even monotonic.  Sometimes, a supposed "middle ground" is in fact the most dangerous place of all.  Recall the "most murder in the middle" theory, where the midpoint (known as anocracy or semi-democracy) in the transition between full democracy and full autocracy is in fact the most violent of all.  A similar analogy likely holds here as well, as in the abysmal status quo where young people are granted JUST barely enough agency to be blamed, shamed, and gaslighted for being victimized, but not nearly enough agency to actually empower them.  And the solution is NOT to take more rights and autonomy from young people, but rather to give them MORE rights and autonomy.  And of course, we must actually hold the perpetrators fully accountable regardless of their wealth, power, and social status.

So what are we waiting for?

P.S. And let's not forget to "thank" the peddlers of the previous moral panics from the Satanic Panic all the way to Pizzagate and QAnon, for crying "WOLF" so many times, that now that the wolf actually IS at the door, people are hesitant to believe it now.

(Mic drop)

Never Ask Meme (Re-Post)

There is a good meme that I found recently on Reddit about the, shall we say, shadow side of so many famous and otherwise "great" philosophers throughout recorded history:

And to that, we would like to add the following:

Never ask 57% of Michiganders, what they voted for in November 1978.  

(Hint:  it set into motion a sweeping national trend since then, a very dubious, toxic, illiberal, and ageist trend that might not otherwise have occurred, and without it, the USA would have most likely been more like Canada in that regard.  Seriously.  The agony of regret indeed....)

The Law of Eristic Escalation Revisited (Re-Post)

Or, "Politics In One Lesson"

Happy New Year, everyone!  Just thought we should share this re-post of a very timeless article that remains just as relevant now.

There is an eternal law of nature that at once explains just about everything, and even makes politics possible to finally understand. It is called The Law of Eristic Escalation:

Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos

By that, it pertains to any arbitrary or coercive imposition of order, which at least in the long run, actually causes disorder (chaos) to escalate.  Fenderson's Amendment further adds that "the tighter the order in question is maintained, the longer the consequent chaos takes to escalate, BUT the more it does when it does."  Finally, the Thudthwacker Addendum still further adds that this relationship is nonlinear, thus rendering the resulting escalation of chaos completely unpredictable in terms of the original imposition of order.

We see the real world consequences of this in everything from Prohibition to the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs to zero tolerance policies to Covid lockdowns to sexual repression and so much more.  And, of course, especially in the ageist abomination that is the 21 drinking age.  Any short-term benefits that these arbitrary and coercive impositions of order may provide is entirely outweighed when they inevitably backfire in the long run.  Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and Males (1986), etc. illustrate this very nicely in the case of the 21 drinking age.

Perhaps that is why most bans on various things have historically had a track record that is quite lackluster at best.  Ironically, bans tend to give more power to the very things that they seek to ban.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, you finally understand politics.

P.S.  The Dutch seem to understand this better.  They even have a proverb:  "when you permit, you control", which is the antithesis of the American proverb, "when you permit, you promote".  Carl Jung would also likely have a field day with that as well.