« Sentences you absolutely, definitely must forget | Main | Out Stealing Horses »
Defeat the modernity
Sadly the Dutch are turning back:
In cities across the Netherlands, mayors and town councils are closing down shops where marijuana is sold, rolled and smoked. Municipalities are shuttering the brothels where prostitutes have been allowed to ply their trade legally. Parliament is considering a ban on the sale of hallucinogenic "magic mushrooms." Orthodox Christian members of parliament have introduced a bill that would allow civil officials with moral objections to refuse to perform gay marriages. And Dutch authorities are trying to curtail the activities of an abortion rights group that assists women in neighboring countries where abortions are illegal.
The very interesting article ascribes these tendencies to growing unease about globalization and immigration. Here is another shift of opinion:
"In the past, we looked at legal prostitution as a women's liberation issue; now it's looked at as exploitation of women and should be stopped," said de Wolf, sitting in the offices of the medical complex where he works as an HIV-AIDS researcher.
This article can be read as illustrating many different points of view. I'll start with two points. First, people [voters] need to feel they are in control, even if they indulge this preference irrationally. Second, Europe will sooner become like the United States than vice versa.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 24, 2007 at 07:01 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
As decadence leads to boredom, the search for meaning
returns to the traditional.
Posted by: Chris at Jun 24, 2007 9:21:38 AM
Modernity is bull, the Dutch were progressing into the abyss. Obsessed for so long with irrelevant secular fads like gay marriage and dope legalization, they ignored the wider, more important issues, like the disintegration of the family and the Islamic conquest of their country. Good to see they've finally come to their senses, in the end natural selection will weed out the progressives and gays because they don't have babies - the future is conservative, in Europe as well. The Islamic conquest will be halted, as will the progressive one.
Posted by: adrian at Jun 24, 2007 9:36:56 AM
Care to elaborate on the closing line? I happen to hold the opposite view, and very strongly at that.
Posted by: Erik at Jun 24, 2007 9:45:26 AM
I don't know about the Netherlands in particular but in much of Europe (and in the US) prostitution is deeply tied up with forced trafficing of women. Part of the trouble is it's rarely possible to know with the 'naked eye' (no pun intended) who is doing the work voluntarily and who has been trafficed. Given this, there is a clear set of cases where prostitution is unequivically connected with the exploitation of women and you need not be opposed to "the modernity" or a moralist to see it. If you don't want to take the time to read dry but depressing reports on the subject you can watch the fairly recent film _Lila 4-ever_ to get a taste of how such things happen.
Posted by: Matt at Jun 24, 2007 9:53:47 AM
I'll start with two points. First, people [voters] need to feel they are in control, even if they indulge this preference irrationally. Second, Europe will sooner become like the United States than vice versa.
I think both are very true, but not for any reasons to do with immigration. It's this scary religious fundamentalism that seems to be on the march, and I fear we're heading back to the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, we secularists aren't organized and we certainly aren't mobilized; we're letting our freedoms and our national agendas be shaped by zealots.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 24, 2007 10:04:00 AM
Hint of trends to come in Europe: see the Intelligent Design thread.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 24, 2007 10:06:15 AM
Have to agree with you there about natural selection, Adrian. History shows there was a lot of
homosexuality in ancient Greece and now there are absolutely no homosexuals in Greece as natural selection
has had time to weed out that gene that causes all gayness.
And I didn't actually know Dutch families were disintergrating. At times I wish my Dutch family would
disintergrate as they can be pretty annoying.
As for Europe becoming more like the United States, I can't imagine the Dutch adopting U.S. attitudes
towards sex. I figure why on earth would they want to do that? And unfortunately I can't imagine a
majority of people in the United States adopting Dutch attitudes towards sex anytime soon, despite the
advantages it would bring in lower teen pregnancy rates and lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases.
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Jun 24, 2007 10:10:45 AM
Why is tribalism (the root of the fear of immigration) so bound with social conservatism? Is it simply that there must be some stronger national identity (even if it is enforced by law) than living in the same country and sharing a language? Must everyone's mores be uniform so that we can feel comfortable against a surge of immigrants?
Posted by: Urstoff at Jun 24, 2007 11:07:51 AM
"In the past, we looked at legal prostitution as a women's liberation issue; now it's looked at as exploitation of women and should be stopped"
Banning prostitution to benefit prostitutes would seem akin to banning drug dealing to benefit the drug dealers.
I don't know about the Netherlands in particular but in much of Europe (and in the US) prostitution is deeply tied up with forced trafficing of women.
Why is stopping this different to stopping any other form of slavery? If it is illegal whether you use slaves or not, that would presumably shift the economics of the trade to favour the use of slaves. After all, there would be less to lose.
Posted by: ad at Jun 24, 2007 12:10:09 PM
Adrian, you dont see any ethical dilemas in having the government legislate culture? Im usually disgusted by such social conservatism.
Posted by: John Pertz at Jun 24, 2007 12:19:41 PM
whats so uninvigorated about Europe? I was there a couple of weeks ago. It was nice.
Posted by: josh at Jun 24, 2007 12:27:59 PM
"Second, Europe will sooner become like the United States than vice versa."
Not the trajectory I'm seeing, but let's hope you're right.
Posted by: Methinks at Jun 24, 2007 12:29:56 PM
Ad, I think the question the Dutch are asking themselves is the opposite one: if legalizing prostitution was supposed to improve the lives of the prostitutes themselves, and what we see in reality is continued abuse of and trafficking in women, then why are we keeping it legal? After all, making it illegal would almost certainly reduce the total amount of prostitution going on, while (apparently) not making much difference in the lives of the remaining prostitutes.
As to why that is, I'd guess it has to do with the legal status of the women willing to work as prostitutes in the Netherlands. This is just speculation, but I'll bet prostitution by non-EU citizens is still illegal and subject to deportation, so the women who would have been willing to work as legal prostitutes (Russians, Africans, etc.) can't get into the country. This leaves an opening for criminal organizations to bring women in from outside, and also gives them the leverage to keep them under control and hence control the industry as a whole.
There's another problem with being the first to legalize alcohol, drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.. You tend to attract all the worst elements of that trade - the junkies, addled potheads, creepy sex-tourists, and the rest - from neighboring areas, who bring their problems with them. It's one thing to say in the abstract, "things would be better if X were legal," quite another to actually take the plunge and legalize it in a small area. I'm surprised the backlash took this long to form, actually.
Posted by: five toed sloth at Jun 24, 2007 12:49:24 PM
The Islamic conquest will be halted, as will the progressive one.
I guess I'm missing something here. How is banning gay marriage/civil unions, banning drugs, and banning prostitution supposed to halt Muslims from coming to your country? They hate all those things, banning them would make them more likely to enter your country and stay there, not less likely.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Jun 24, 2007 1:02:05 PM
adrian: "natural selection will weed out the progressives and gays because they don't have babies - the future is conservative, in Europe as well."
adrian is a pretty primitive conservative troll. Let's check some simple facts about Europe and fertility. The source for the following is Eurostat (2005 data).
Countries with HIGH fertility & LIBERAL/secular culture:
UK (TFR = 1.8), Denmark (1.8), Norway (1.84), Sweden (1.77), Finland (1.8), Netherlands (1.73), Belgium (1.72), France (1.94), Iceland (2.05)
Countries with LOW fertility & LIBERAL/secular culture:
Germany (1.34)
Countries with LOW fertility & catholic/conservative culture:
Spain (1.34), Italy (1.34), Portugal (1.4), Greece (1.28)
Countries with HIGH fertility & catholic/conservative culture:
Ireland (1.88)
The outline is that the northern liberal countries do not have a fertility problem while the catholic south does. The only notable exception is Ireland. Secondly, northern liberals have about the same fertility rate as the US whites, despite US whites being much more religious & conservative.
The fact is that we now live in a world where the number of children depends on what _women_ want them to be, and the society has to accommodate to that. The northern liberal countries have been much more successful in this, with policies like free childcare, long maternity leaves etc. In fact the liberal, secular, godless women that you so much despise, _want_ (according to surveys) to have on average 2.3 children. Only difficulties with career/family adjustments prevent them from realising this.
And a final shocking point. Over the last 10 years, Europe has been the ONLY major area in the world, where fertility rates have increased. Everywhere else, they have been decreasing.
Posted by: UK_Econ at Jun 24, 2007 1:10:18 PM
A few random thoughts.
First, people do need to feel in control of their lives to be happy, and the Netherlands is better than most of Western Europe in this respect: in the Netherlands, people are free to rent or buy a home suitable to their income and their comfort. The situation is dramatically different in Denmark or England (especially England).
Second, the way I look at it, the Dutch are the most American of Europeans: they are very direct (unlike those devious Brits, Belgians, Nordics, and Swiss) and pragmatic (unlike the philosophical Germans, French, and Italians); and most of them have a sense of responsibility. I like that.
Third, Adrian's thinking is too simplistic for my taste, but I admire his flexibility: he embraces both Christian fundamentalism AND natural selection.
Posted by: Arthur at Jun 24, 2007 1:31:44 PM
It's this scary religious fundamentalism that seems to be on the march, and I fear we're heading back to the Middle Ages.
I'm a libertarian agnotheist, but I have to say, you're off your freaking rocker. Put down the Chris Hedges and take a chill pill. The United States isn't nearly as religious as it was in the first half of the 20th century or throughout the 19th, and the US has never been anything like a theocracy (Plymouth colony predated the United States). You made quite a fool of yourself in the unintelligent design thread, so maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones at the glass houses of the unwashed masses.
weed out that gene that causes all gayness.
Recent studies by Bailey show the concordance among identical twins to be only about 20%. Natural selection has had way more than enough time for such a huge fitness drain, that's why I find Greg Cochran's pathogenic theory the only plausible one I've heard so far. He recently popped up to discuss the subject in this thread at Gene Expression.
Just curious what in particular you have against Islam when fundamentalist Christianity will look pretty similar if these people have their way.
Where are the theocracies that exist today? Well, there's Iran, there used to be the Taliban and maybe the Sudan qualifies. When was the last time any country was ruled by a Christian theocracy? Zwingli? Even the Puritan Yankees of Massachussets can be seen as the direct ancestors of modern, Ivy League unitarian-style liberalism. Mencius Moldbug has been discussing that for a while.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/our-planet-is-infested-with-pseudo.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/short-history-of-ultracalvinism.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/some-objections-to-ultracalvinism.html
UK Econ, within each country the most fertile people are also the most religious. I don't think this will bring about adrian's dream society (it will most likely latch onto some new variant of Christianity rather than old-line Catholocism and have plenty of Muslims to boot) but I do agree with him that secular liberals are demographically doomed in the long run. I'm thinking a less-absurd and more functional "Idiocracy".
Posted by: TGGP at Jun 24, 2007 1:41:47 PM
"you don't see any ethical dilemas in having the government legislate culture?"
Nope. The initial purpose of nations was ethno-cultural. I see nothing wrong with Sharia in Arab countries, that's what they want, I don't care. What I do care about is them bringing that into the west, undermining the very reason for which nations were invented in the first place. No society, from hunter-gather onwards, ever allowed Total Choice - that leads to anarchy, choice must be circumscribed by culture, stupid decisions (babies out of wedlock etc) punished via shame. That is how societal stability is maintained.
UK Econ, you wily genius, do those statistics give any indication of the religiosity of those giving birth? Because internally, even in liberal countries, one would expect the more religious to have more babies. Philip Jenkins has shown this is the case within Europe, so the Lebanon scenario applies to Europe, only over a much longer time period.
happyjuggler
The Islamic conquest is in league with the progressive one, they are bedfellows. Progressive compassion demands mass immigration, it cannot argue against mass immigration because it cannot use the required tribal language.
Posted by: adrian at Jun 24, 2007 1:46:06 PM
TGGP - I foresee a Catholic Europe. The Protestants have embraced the progressive cause, British elites are converting a lot, the thinking people have united around Pope Benedict, opinion polls showed over 90% of Europeans agreed with his speech on the barbarism of Allah.
Posted by: adrian at Jun 24, 2007 1:56:13 PM
"I admire his flexibility"
The ability to maintain many contradictory thoughts in your brain at the same time is the sign of a healthy, worldly mind. Obsessively self-analyzing, like the current crop of dime store atheists, leads to pointless nihilism. I contain multitudes. And lets not forget most of the people who believe in 'science' and 'evolution', especially pussies like Christopher Hitchens, are creationists when it comes to race.
Posted by: adrian at Jun 24, 2007 2:09:25 PM
"I foresee a Catholic Europe." I do hope not. My Catholic ancestors wanted to burn my Protestant ancestors at the stake.
Posted by: dearieme at Jun 24, 2007 2:16:34 PM
adrian & TGGP - I agree that within countries more religious may have slightly more kids. Still, it doesn't change the outline that the liberal countries are more fertile than catholic ones.
Secondly, I wouldn't extrapolate current fertility rates too far to the future. History just doesn't support that kind of analysis. Fertility rates by ethnic/religious/linguistic groups are constantly changing, and definitions of these groups change as well. It's really premature to say something like "secular liberals are demographically doomed in the long run".
It actually looks like the whole world wants to achieve the same fertility pattern as the "secular liberals", and is being very successful in it.
And in the end, the dynamics of culture (both in EU and US) are strongly against religions, simply because they hold too many statements that are obviously false or don't make any sense, like "Jesus is a son of God".
Adrian:"British elites are converting a lot, the thinking people have united around Pope Benedict"
That statement brings a smile on my face.
Posted by: UK_Econ at Jun 24, 2007 2:26:22 PM
When was the last time any country was ruled by a Christian theocracy?
Spain under Franco, for starters: when all children's names had to have a biblical root. Learn your history before you spout your big mouth off.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 24, 2007 2:54:35 PM
The ability to maintain many contradictory thoughts in your brain at the same time is the sign of a healthy, worldly mind.
Keep flattering yourself. He's mocking you, as he should. Your inconsistencies in logic and reason are dismaying, if not hilarious.
The Islamic conquest is in league with the progressive one, they are bedfellows.
There's proof.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jun 24, 2007 2:57:47 PM
Adrian and Fustercluck: as is often the case, I don't know myself whether I was being serious or sarcastic, when I said that I admire Adrian's flexibility.
The real question is: what has logical priority, Christianity or natural selection?
I am a radical Darwinist, and therefore I approve of Judaism and Christianity because they have survived and prospered. I approve of classical liberalism even more. Marxism and Nazism have not survived: enough said. American "liberalism" and European corporatism might survive, but I am skeptical.
The way I see it, Dawkins is not a real Darwinist: apparently, he doesn't see any role for natural selection in the evolution of morality memes. He believes in Intelligent Design of morality.
Posted by: Arthur at Jun 24, 2007 3:36:53 PM
