I’m currently in Monaco, which is a remarkable place for two reasons.
- First, it is has an unusual economic model. There is no income tax, and you won’t be surprised to learn that I think this helps to explain why it is the world’s richest jurisdiction. Makes me wish we could reverse that terrible day in 1913 when the income tax was imposed in the United States.
- Second, there are a lot of beautiful people in this small nation, especially relative to the small overall population.
With one exception, I’ve never commented on the looks of a population for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with public policy.
But that may be changing, in part because some ostensibly unattractive young men (known as “incels” because they are involuntarily celibate) are dealing with their frustration by killing others.
That strikes me a crazy reaction. I’ve endured many periods of involuntary celibacy in my life and it never occurred to me to murder anyone.
But let’s deal seriously with this issue. There’s no question that some people are lucky because they won the genetic lottery. If you’re naturally attractive, you have many more relationship options, whether you’re looking for one-night stands or marriage. And it’s not just sex and relationships. Being physically attractive makes life easier in all sorts of ways.
That’s not fair. But does that unfairness justify intervention?
Professor Robin Hanson of George Mason University doesn’t think so, but he wonders why people concerned about income equality aren’t similarly concerned about access-to-sex equality.
I’ve long puzzled over the fact that most of the concern I hear expressed on inequality is about…income inequality… many seem to be trying hard to inform those who rank low of their low status. Their purpose seems to be to induce envy, to induce political action to increase redistribution. …They remind the poor that they could consider revolting, and remind everyone else that a revolt might happen. This strengthens an implicit threat of violence should redistribution be insufficient. …One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. …personally I’m not very attracted to non-insurance-based redistribution policies of any sort, though I do like to study what causes others to be so attracted.
Hanson’s column generated a lot of response.
Ross Douthat addressed the topic in a column for the New York Times.
…it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous? …Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims… Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. …like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.
Writing for Slate, Jordan Weissmann had a very sour reaction to Hanson’s column.
If you’ve ever heard of George Mason University economist Robin Hanson, there’s a good chance it was because he wrote something creepy. …Last week, Hanson was back at it again. In a post that left many readers agog, he decided to use a heinous incident of misogynistic violence as an opportunity to contemplate the concept of “redistributing” sex to men who have trouble getting laid. …His brief post is more or less a lame attempt to compare people who worry about income inequality with incels who worry about “sexual inequality,” and suggest that they’re maybe not so different. …Some people have read Hanson’s piece and concluded that he believes women should be forced to have sex with men who strike out on Tinder, like some sort of giant socialized harem. I don’t think that’s the case. The professor, again, leans libertarian and, as he clarified on Twitter, opposes all sorts of government redistribution, including in this case.
By the way, I can’t resist commenting on the absurdity of Weissmann stating that he doesn’t “think” that Hanson believes in coerced sex redistribution.
Of course he knows that Hanson is opposed to that route. But since Weissmann presumably believes in coerced income redistribution, he wants to lash out at Hanson for pointing out that there’s an unseemly link between the two ideas.
I’ll close by pointing out that attractiveness helps with income as well as sex. And Omar Al-Ubaydli of the Mercatus Center asks, in a column for the Washington Examiner, whether that justifies redistribution.
Do attractive workers get paid more than unattractive ones? Some labor economists think so, having clearly demonstrated the existence of the “beauty premium,” which shows attractive workers have higher wages and more job opportunities. So, should we look to implement a “ridiculously good looking” tax? …what truly leads to higher wages for our photogenic friends. Is it because our beautiful colleagues are more effective at their jobs? Or is it because we are biased toward them… If physical attractiveness brings about superior productivity…then the beauty premium is morally justifiable. Employers pay for productivity… But if, on the other hand, earnings differences can be attributed to bigoted oppression of those blessed with less beauty, then there may be moral grounds for some positive discrimination and equal-pay legislation.
But if there’s a tax on beauty, what about other natural traits, like athletic skill?
If I deserved a subsidy from Gisele Bundchen for being less beautiful, would I deserve one from Lionel Messi for being a less capable soccer player?
Or a tax on height?
If the idea of a beauty tax seems strange or unlikely, then you may be surprised to learn that several respected economists have argued in favor of a height tax, whereby tall people are forced to subsidize the short.
As a libertarian, this isn’t a difficult issue. Like Robin Hanson, I don’t believe in coerced redistribution, whether for sex or money.
I have zero sympathy for violent “incels”, but I also recognize that life can be very unfair for people who lost the aforementioned genetic lottery. This is not a problem with a solution, but it’s one of the reasons I support legalized prostitution.
P.S. The U.K. actually has decided that some people have a right to sex, though fortunately there’s no coercion (other than the threats needed to collect taxes).
[…] there’s a serious point to be made. As noted by Prof. Robin Hanson, there is a great deal of attractiveness inequality yet nobody seriously (at […]
[…] what are the policy implications of this research? And the other research that I cited back in 2018 […]
[…] what are the policy implications of this research? And the other research that I cited back in 2018 and […]
Anal is passe ! I present Oral and NASAL and other innovations – as per the Hindoo scriptures !
I present the Kinky sex of the Hindoo Limpets – Oral and Nasal Fellatio ! and More !
Fellatio – also was origined from the Hindoos ! dindooohindoo
Case 1
It starts with Lord Shiva who asks “women to eat his testicles”
Devi refused this disgusting food, and finally Siva said, ‘I will give “you something never tasted”, by anyone else: the “wo balls resembling fruits below my navel”. Eat the testicles that hang there and be satisfied.’ Delighted by this gift, the goddesses praised Siva.” — Padma Purana 5:26:91-125; cf. Linga Purana
Case 2
Then we have Sage Dirghatama who asked the wife of King Bali to “lick every part of his body” !
”After that, King Bali appeased that sage and was furious with his wife; and sent her again well-dressed, after her toilet, to the sage, when the seer said. ”O. Devi!Cast off your bashfulness and then “lick the whole of my body with your tongue”, after rubbing it with salt, curds and honey; you will then attain your wish and get sons.” Matsya Purana 48.67-76
Case 3
As per the Puranas ,When a Hindoo Rani is not sure ,”if she is being fucked”, by her limpdick husband – then “oral sex is the best practice” or NASAL SEX
“O sage, in the course of the sexual activity she suspected him to be another man.
Hence she received the semen through the mouth into the nostril.
Thence were born the twin gods Asvins, the foremost among physicians”.
Shiva Purana, UmaSamhita 5.35.32-34 (Bala Kandam, Chapter 14. For more details on yaham,refer to the book “Gnana Surian”,published by Kudi Arasu Press)
Case 4
Then we have the “birth of Ayappa/Karthik Niggpa” when the “sperm of Shiva”, entered into Agni’s mouth ! How did that happen ? I wonder !
[…] year, I wrote a column that investigated why the left is fixated on the unequal distribution of income and wealth, yet […]
Many people are poor because they aren’t willing to work, or to work very hard. Not all poor people are poor because they’re lazy and irresponsible, of course, but many. I have a lot of sympathy for someone who loses his job because of grand economic forces beyond his control that he doesn’t even understand. I have little sympathy for someone who spend the day lying on the sofa watching TV and doing drugs, who then complain because their neighbor, who works hard all day and saves his money, has more than they do.
Likewise, many people are unattractive because they eat too much and get fat, generally don’t take care of their bodies, and dress like bums. I read an article in a magazine once by a woman who entered a beauty contest and then complained that all these people were telling her how to eat and what to wear and how to fix her hair. Umm, did she expect to eat pizza and cake until she weighed 300 pounds, and then just roll out of bed one morning, cut her hair with rusty hedge clippers, pull on her sweat pants and army boots, stumble onto the stage, and be handed first prize? I have a lot of sympathy for someone who is unattractive because they were born with a deformity or are struggling with a medical problem. I have little sympathy for someone who is fat because they overeat outrageously, who wears ugly hair styles and uglier clothes, and then complains that they can’t find a boyfriend or girlfriend.
I’m not a particularly handsome man. I’m overweight and balding and flabby. But it’s no mystery why: I eat too much and don’t work out and generally don’t take care of my body. So I don’t complain that women don’t fall at my feet. If I cared enough, I’d do the work to make it happen.
The only true equality is equality of opportunity.
It seems that when you explore in detail, most people want fairness rather than equality. Many if not nearly everyone see that unfairness, rather than inequality, is the problem. Isn’t that why crony capitalism is so reviled?
It’s a great question that Hanson asks, and the socialist response that it’s just stupid does not engage with the question. Health inequality is a talking point du jour here, but to achieve it involves interventions in peoples lives – tobacco taxes, sugar taxes, alcohol duty, tax-funded health improvement programmes, taxing congestion as a proxy for pollution. The last one is probably a good idea. But if it matters, then surely sexy time inequality matters too, except that someone has to be coerced into providing it, which is worker exploitation.
Which leads into the question of what if the workers say they are not exploited and provided a few safety concerns are met, they are willing to provide sexual outlets for others for a mutually agreed price.
Well that last option is equivalent to asking for economic freedom under the rule of law. Which is neoliberalism in a nutshell.
And that simply will not do in the controlling leftist mind.
I’ve had the same bewilderment as professor Hanson. Especially since there’s a general admission that the correlation between money and happiness is rather weak, while perhaps not the same can be said about sex. Just look at all the stupid things rich and famous people do for sex.
Perhaps less naughty, what about the “obligation” to bear children for those who cannot? (Which in a broader sense may actually involve half the human population, after all…. and due to exponentially advancing biotechnology this asymmetry is unlikely to survive the end of the century…but that’s another story).
Also, unlike money, there seems to be very little voluntary charity when it comes to sex. Or progressive altruism for that matter. When is the last time you heard: “Joe is a really hot and smart guy and he’d also make an excellent rich husband and father, but poor Jill also likes him, so I’ll withdraw my interest, since I’m a member of the Pope Francis foundation for a fairer gentler greener world”. Happens all the time, doesn’t it?
For whatever it’s worth, I think money is more tangible quantifiable and controllable, that is why a redistribution mechanism becomes possible. Otherwise we would likely have some sort of sex and partner redistribution too, perfectly legally and democratically.
But come to think about that we do have such forms of non monetary redistribution. Even some brutal forms of redistribution. E.g. The strong and able have their abilities harvested, rounded up and sent to war to serve the interests of the community, where they will be killed by the thousands, and often millions, by (gasp!) assault weapons. But those are the assault weapons of “the people”, the good, the approved guns, so all is ok. …Or, more importantly, those who are killed no longer vote, so they have little influence on the political process, and so who really cares? We raise the flag once a year in their honor, “Very grateful, thanks very much for you life, lets now go back to Starbucks and discuss lofty ideals”. It is also ok to have those who refuse to serve been put to trial by a wartime court martial and throw them in jail or just summarily execute them. BTW, that is what they do in that gentler more caring and gun free continent across the Atlantic, where there isn’t a square mile where several young boys haven’t had their brains blown up. People, killed by people, using the people’s assault weapons, legally, democratically, coercively. Perhaps our personal assault weapons on this side of the Atlantic have provided an ultimate backstop that helped American history steer clear of that fate? …But anyway, I’m digressing…back to redistribution.
We even have some regressive programs where the less fortunate subsidize the more fortunate. Like Social Security and Medicare. Where the short lived work to support those luckier ones who will outlive them by several decades! Again, the common theme is that once the unlucky die then they don’t vote any more — and so who cares! The actual number of electoral years the unlucky spend in the know that they are unlucky are typically very few. A short time typically passes between diagnosis of a fatal disease and actual death. Too short of a time to significantly affect the democratic political process — so, again, who cares! Socialism for me but not for thee! … let’s have another latte and let me explain to you your obligation to grow organic tomatoes on your balcony!
Just shows how ridiculous wealth redistribution is.
Hi Dan. Interesting read!