Editorial: An aspect of the Equality Act would erase social norms

by Thomas Mitchell

The Equality Act admirably sets out to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected from discrimination in public accommodations and employment.

It is sponsored in the House by all but one Democrat — including Nevada Reps. Dina Titus, Steven Horsford and Susie Lee. A companion bill in the Senate is sponsored by all but one Democrat — including Nevada Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jackie Rosen.

Unfortunately, the bill would curtail free speech rights, religious freedoms and gender privacy for the vast majority of Americans.

As the Heritage Foundation points out the Equality Act would force schools, churches, hospitals, businesses and others to accommodate anyone’s “chosen gender” instead of their actual “biological sex.” This would mean that females would be forced to share bathrooms, locker rooms and dormitories with males who “identify” as women.

It also would mean such males who “identify” as females would be allowed to compete in athletics against biological females, even though biological males tend to be faster and stronger than biological females.

There are already a number of cases across the nation in which males have won championships in various sports at the expense of actual women and girls. Might males snatch athletic scholarships from females? Is that equality?

Heritage further notes, “Medical professionals would be pressured to provide gender-affirming treatments like puberty blockers and hormones — these are irreversible decisions that have not been shown to help mental health while creating a litany of permanent physical health problems. Subjecting children to such radical procedures is even more dubious when one considers that 80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria no longer feel distressed by their bodies after puberty.”

Julia Beck of the liberal Women’s Liberation Front has declared that as written the Equality Act is a violation of basic human rights. “Every person in the country will lose our right to single sex sports, shelters, grants and loans. … We will no longer be able to distinguish between women and men,” she argues.

Beck testified before a House committee that the Equality Act would require admitting male rapists into female prisons, males would have to be allowed into shelters for abused women, men could dominate women’s sports and much more.

Beck told the committee she had no problem with protecting against discrimination due to sexual orientation, but asked that the gender identity portion be struck.

Gender is immutable. It is fundamental down to the chromosomes. To declare otherwise is delusional. To force the vast majority to surrender modesty and safety for the sake of accommodating a tiny deluded minority is just wrong. Separate accommodations for those with gender dysphoria, perhaps, but not access to properly gender segregated facilities and activities.

Our representatives in the House and Senate should rethink this drastic reshaping of social norms.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Source: Editorial: An aspect of the Equality Act would erase social norms


The Cavemen Capitalist: how wealth was created from nothing

By Joe Jarvis – March 14, 2019

The natural state of human existence is abject poverty. That’s the starting point–naked, hungry, and homeless.

Any effort towards survival is the most basic form of wealth creation.

Labor is a key element in creating any wealth. Even cupping your hands together to draw water from a stream is labor. And it is required to survive. That is a rudimentary form of wealth trickling down your throat.

But wealth also requires property. In order to drink that life-sustaining water, you must hold exclusive rights over that water, at that moment.

Your labor turned a previously unclaimed natural resource into your property. And that raised your standard of living… from dehydrating to death, to being quenched.

In a complex economy, you don’t have to do all the labor yourself. You don’t even have to own all the property that you use to create wealth.

But the same basic laws apply:

    • We cannot survive without labor and property (even if you call them something different).
    • Let’s use another primitive example to help us understand how more complex economies develop.

How a Caveman Capitalist Creates Wealth

      1. A stick is a natural resource.
      2. A caveman picks up an unclaimed stick, and it becomes his property.
      3. He uses his time and energy (labor) to sharpen the stick. It becomes more valuable than the stick in its original form (the product of his labor).
      4. And when he impales a rabbit, he has used his wealth (the sharpened stick) plus his labor (the thrust) to produce more wealth (a dead rabbit to eat).
      5. The caveman accumulates more rabbits than he can eat (capital).
      6. So he trades five rabbits for a bow and arrow (the product of someone else’s labor).
      7. Now he can rapidly accumulate even more rabbits (capital).
      8. He trades more rabbits for more bows and arrows. He distributes these bows and arrows to other cavemen under the condition that they give him 1 out of every 3 rabbits they hunt (employment). The entire village is now flush with rabbits.
      9. Rabbit jerky becomes the medium of exchange (money). This means the mushroom gatherer doesn’t have to worry about not having enough protein, and neither does the forager or the fire tender. They can now specialize in what they are good at, and trade their labor for rabbit jerky (which can buy other products and services). The entire village becomes flush with warmth, mushrooms, berries, and greens.
      10. The Caveman Capitalist trades rabbit jerky for materials to build a hut. He trades jerky to workmen to build the hut. He trades jerky for someone to cook for him, and to guard his hut. And all the pretty cavewomen want to get their hands on his jerky.
      11. Now that survival is guaranteed, people can focus on comfort and quality of life. Everyone can afford a hut, someone starts producing medicine, another invents beds, and someone else the wheel. And why forage when you can plant the seed right in your backyard? Now, most village children live past infancy. (The overall standard of living of the village has increased.)
      12. People have so much extra free time without having to constantly fight for survival, some weirdo figures out rabbits will actually keep breeding inside a cage, so you really don’t have to hunt.
      13. Uh oh! How is the Caveman Capitalist going to create wealth now that his industry (hunting rabbits) has been upset? He starts picking the cutest wolves and breeding them (innovation). Turns out, everyone loves the freakish results! And they are actually pretty useful too.
      14. And so on and so forth, until the people with the highest standard of living in human history complain about capitalism on their iPhones.
  • It’s all because this one Caveman Capitalist started accumulating wealth.
  • Discussion Questions:
  • At step 5, does the caveman capitalist become a bad man for accumulating more rabbits than he could eat?
    • Would the village standard of living have increased if he hadn’t?
  • At step 8, should the hunters have been allowed to seize his means of production (the bow and arrow) in order to keep all of the rabbits they hunted?
    • Could they have bought their own bows and arrows if they were able to hunt extra rabbits?
    • What would have happened to the village’s standard of living if they hadtaken his equipment by force?
  • At step 10 should the builders have been able to keep the hut they built for the Caveman Capitalist, even though they agreed to take rabbits in exchange for their labor?
    • How would they have gotten the rabbits they needed without building the hut for him?
    • Do you think they considered building huts more desirable than hunting rabbits themselves?
  • Should the village be able to use their strength in numbers to take all the Caveman Capitalist’s jerky, even without providing him any value in return?
  • Is rabbit jerky the root of all evil?
  1. If you answered Yes to any of these five main questions above, you’re a socialist.
  2. And if you got your way, the entire village would still be in abject poverty.
  3. Nice job commie. (You’re not allowed to be offended by this comment if you are reading this on anything besides scratched tree-bark.)

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

Source: The Cavemen Capitalist: how wealth was created from nothing