In a feminist critique of John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum claims that the traditional family is not “natural,” essentially because the state and the laws regulate it.

Strange.

1. The institution of the family may be called natural, insofar as it may be the culmination of thousands of years of social evolution. It may have proven itself successful over many trials and tribulations. The legal regime surrounding the family may then be the accommodations that contribute to the “natural” family’s usefulness and stability rather than arbitrary whims of the rulers or deliverances of philosophers.

2. From the fact that the state does involve itself into the family Nussbaum surprisingly derives the conclusion that it ought to so involve itself; even more, that the state’s power to shape the family ought to be unlimited. Presumably, we should put her in charge of government and let her remake family law. What a non-sequitur.

The worst thing about identity politics is that it’s a distraction from ideological politics which is what politics, if we are to have it at all, should be.

Stop people from considering ideas and divide them up into warring tribes, and the looting will continue uninterrupted.

“Trump is a racist!” scream the headlines.

Well, who cares? The self-esteem of your wretched race — whatever it is — is not anyone’s concern.

We need to create a single individual super-oppressor of whom everyone is a pathetic victim.

Since all victims are allowed to be exclusive, to discriminate, and so on, this will serve to instantly restore freedom of association for all.

This one horrible bogeyman is then to be forever denounced, hated, and denied all rights, but it’s a small price to pay.

In fact, let’s elect this monstrous creature and then blame it for all earthly ills. “You see, Timmy?” mothers would tell their children, “He is why you got sick.” This of course is a terrible burden for anyone to bear, so we’ll do it once every 4 years or so.

I think at least 20 prominent people have already by now demonstrated they’d take the job.

Mutually assured destruction: Americans are slaves of the US president X, and the Chinese are slaves of the Chinese president Y.

Y would love to extend his dominion and grab X’s slaves, but X threatens to wipe out Y’s slaves for such an attempt. Y is deterred. And vice versa.

Peace is assured, and the property rights of both X and Y are secure, because armed slave owners are polite slave owners.

In addition, though it is hardly important, the slaves are content.

Biden:

We’ve got to recognize that kid wearing a hoodie may very well be the next poet laureate and not a gangbanger.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are too many black men, and I might add women, in prison.

Next poet laureate? What? A diamond in the rough? Street rat-cum-prince? Aladdin?

Only in the movies, dude.

And what does it mean, “too many” in prison? What do raw numbers have to do with the case?

If some are in prison unjustly, then they must of course be released. But perhaps on the contrary, numerous gangbangers are walking the streets freely, having committed major crimes. They then deserve to be punished.

For all we know, there are too few blacks in prison. If Biden had argued against the drug war, he might have made an important point. Far be it from him to say anything useful, though.

The more things change…

… there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (Lk 2:1, KJV)

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (Same passage, NIV)

That’s what the census is for: you are being counted for looting. Get rid of it!