What Is the Ideal Sex Ratio?

As I have noted previously, men will eventually go the way of the dildo...er...dodo as a result of the Y-chromosome deteriorating with each generation of men.  According to Dr. William Sykes, this will happen in 125,000 years or so, while some others put the timeframe as little as 3000 years or as much as 5 million years.  So the sex ratio (i.e. the number of males per 100 females) will eventually drop to zero, but that will take thousands of years.  So in the meantime, what does the research on natural experiments of the effects of varying the sex ratio actually show?   Here, we humorously explore two scenarios, "Surf City" (i.e. "two girls for every boy"), versus "Land of Confusion" (i.e. "too many men, too many people, making too many problems").

First, we examine Surf City, with a low sex ratio (more females than males).  Here, we see that, all else being equal, Women have more structural power than men due to strength in numbers, while at the same time they have less dyadic power (i.e. individual bargaining power) in the dating market due to supply and demand given the shortage of males.  This of course tends to lead to men being at least somewhat more likely to "play the field" than to seek committed and monogamous relationships, and thus casual sex tends to increase as a result as the relative "cost" of sex decreases for men and the social acceptability of such activity increases for Women.  In fact, some authors have even blamed the relative excess of Women on college campuses for driving the so-called "hook-up culture", though this idea remains controversial to this day.  Whether or not this is a good thing or bad thing really depends on what you are personally into in that regard.  The scarcity of men does create a sort of "musical chairs" for Women looking for a mate, which is the flip side of men having an easier time finding one.  But one cannot argue with the benefits of strength in numbers in terms of strucutral power, or the fact that Women are really leaving men in the dust in terms of educational attainment.  Regardless, Surf City is in every possible way the kind of place that would make the notorious anti-feminist campaigner Phyllis Schlafly (on whom Serena Joy in The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood is partly based) spin in her grave.

So how about "Land of Confusion", with a high sex ratio (more males than females)?  Or should I say, "Land of Confucius", given that China's (only recently-ended) one-child policy has unfortunately led to exactly that result due to female infanticide and sex-selective abortion.  India has a similar problem as well.  On the surface, if you believe the Date-onomics theory, this should be beneficial for Women--even if they lose structural power, they undoubtedly gain bargaining power in the dating market due to supply and demand, right?  Indeed, an excess of males does tend to lead to less casual sex and more committed monogamous relationships for precisely that reason.  Men are more likely to settle down sooner than later as a result, since they don't want to be the "odd man out" in the game of musical chairs, and it would appear that they would treat Women better since they fear losing them.  Marriage and (nuclear) family formation are thus more likely and more stable.  Even for Women who don't want to settle down yet, there is a seemingly endless array of men to choose from if they want to "play the field" themselves.  Sounds like a virtual utopia for Women at first until....

Until you see men's dark side, that is, which they simply tend to be better at hiding (at first) when Women are in short supply.  But it is still there nonetheless, and merely having a more difficult time finding a partner does not in itself make men more virtuous. (Markets are amoral, after all.)  On the contrary, at least some studies show that an excess of males is statistically associated with increases in crime, violence, social unrest, gambling, alcohol and drug abuse, rape, bride abduction, prostitution, and human trafficking.  And while not all studies agree, this does seem to make sense. And while men may seem to be more protective of Women when they are scarce, that is a double-edged sword, since that very same scarcity also leads men to become more jealous and controlling as well, leading to the "gilded cage" phenomenon.  Patriarchy is a protection racket, after all, and Women (and children) rarely if ever seem to get any of the benefits of so-called "traditionalism" for free.  And let's not forget that the ancient Romans also had an excess of males as well, as did the Greeks (except for Sparta) as well as the American Wild West--need I say more?

In fact, one can even argue that the social problems that result from a scarcity of Women are the reason why most societies, even highly patriarchal ones, eventually decided to abolish polygamy.  On the surface, that doesn't make sense, since the alpha males in charge benefit from having many wives.  But one-sided polygyny creates an "artificial scarcity" of Women, since the wealthiest and most powerful men hoard a disproportionate share of the Women for themselves, with the rest of the men competing fiercely for a shrinking pool of Women, and many omega males left in the lurch.  That creates the aformentioned social problems (crime, violence, etc.), which led the patriarchs in charge to replace it with monogamous marriage--or more accurately, a one-sided open marriage for men in many cases since historically only Women were expected to be faithful in practice.

Even if one were to argue that Surf City has a downside, it really pales in comparison with that of the Land of Confusion.  And even then, the downside can be reduced simply by jettisoning the idea of compulsory heterosexuality.  Since we know that Women tend to have a more fluid sexuality than men, many can indeed go lezzie or at least bisexual as a result.  We see this in the "college lesbian" phenomenon, which is apparently more common than the "When in Rome" phenomenon for men.  Not only would this solve the musical chairs problem, but men would now have serious competition--and now be expected to be able to pleasure Women as well as Women can pleasure each other.  And interestingly, men don't really seem to get particularly jealous in that regard, in fact they are more likely to get zealous instead.

In other words, Surf City has more Eros and less Thanatos (more sex and less violence), while Land of Confusion has more Thanatos and less Eros (more violence and less sex).  The trade-off between sex and violence should not come as much of a shock, given how in men, both are driven by testosterone.  And while men's demand for sex is relatively inelastic, Women's demand for sex is far more elastic. True, men have a dark side regardless, but when they have less incentive to hide it, as in Surf City, they tend to show it to Women early on, so at least you kinda know where you stand.   And Women have more incentive to better themselves via educational and economic empowerment in Surf City as well, so as to be less dependent on men.  Thus, on balance, I would argue that Surf City is better for both Women as well as men.  This is true even in a patriarchal society, and I believe would be even more true in a Matriarchal society.

Prostitution: The Oldest Profession, or The Oldest Oppression?

Short answer:  perhaps a bit of both, as there is a great deal of nuance to the issue of sex work.

Last year, I wrote an article for this blog titled "What the 'Nordic Model' Gets Wrong", basically arguing against the model and maintaining that sex work in general should be fully decriminalized or legalized, at least as long as Women are the ones who control it.  This is still what I generally prefer.  However, after doing some more research on this highly fraught and complex issue since then, however, I now realize that I may have been a bit too harsh on the Nordic Model and those who support it, even though I still don't entirely favor it overall.

For those who don't know, the Nordic Model (also known as the Sex Buyer Law) refers to the policy currently in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland (and now Canada, France, South Korea, Northern Ireland, and Ireland as well) of 1) decriminalizing the sex workers themselves, while 2) criminalizing the buyers (i.e. the "johns" or "punters"), and 3) providing support and exit services for those currently in prostitution.  This is also combined with effective laws against pimping and trafficking as well.  In contrast, full criminalization (such as in the USA, except Nevada) criminalizes both buyers and sellers of sex, full decriminalization (such as in Denmark, New Zealand and parts of Australia) removes all laws prohibiting both buyers and sellers of sex, as well as pimps and brothel owners in some places, but does not regulate such activities, and legalization (such as the Netherlands, Germany, and parts of the state of Nevada) where the state completely legalizes and regulates the entire business of prostitution.  Still other countries have it where which prostitution is "quasi-legal" or decriminalized to one degree or another.  Examples include the UK and several European nations, as well as the aforementioned ones before they changed their laws in 1999-2003.

On the supporters' side, there is a very good website called "Nordic Model Now!" that explains the benefits of the model in contrast to the other models, and much of what they say seems to be very true overall, even if I don't necessarily agree 100%.   They have a good slideshow and handout that explains their overall position very well and contrasts it with the other models mentioned above, which I recommend reading.  Also of note is one of the pages on their site (trigger warning!) full of actual quotes from "punters" ("johns") on the site Punternet detailing how they really feel about (and treat) the Women that they buy (spoiler alert, it isn't good), and it becomes clear that 99% of these guys give the other 1% a bad name.  After all, the genesis of the Nordic Model is the idea that prostitution is inherently violent and exploitative, and that the sex workers are in fact victims of both the pimps and the "johns".  The sex trade, whether legal or illegal, clearly has a dark side as long as men are in charge, and the distinction between "forced" and "unforced" is not always as clear-cut as it may seem.

So what are the practical results of each of the models under discussion here?  While I have noted that the Nordic Model does have its downsides and that its success has been called into question, there is some evidence suggesting that 1) In Sweden, the prostitution market dropped by roughly half since 1999 when the model was first implemented, and that human trafficking decreased there as well, at a time when both seemed to be increasing in other European countries, and 2) In the Netherlands and Germany, both the legal and illegal prostitution markets increased significantly in the years following full legalization in 2000 and 2002, and it appears that human trafficking also increased there as well.  The reason is simple--under the Nordic Model, demand goes down, while under the Dutch/German Model, demand goes up, and the market adjusts to meet the demand.  Evidently, while men's demand for sex in general is typically quite inelastic, it appears that their demand for commercialized sex is far more elastic, at least for a significantly large subset that seems to be driving the market.  Based on the page of quotes from "johns", it seems that this subset consists of mainly narcissists who are buying sex in order to feed their own egos.  And when it becomes too costly or risky for them to do so, they simply don't do it anymore, or as much.  Even if some of the market remains relatively insensitive to price and risk, that seems to be true for a fairly large chunk of it.  (Caveat lector, though, as such statistics have been disputed.)

What about full decriminalization, then?  That is the model that groups like Amnesty International currently endorse, and its currently in effect in Denmark, New Zealand, and parts of Australia.  Though the data are a bit less clear, it seems that the effects can be similar to those of full legalization, though in some ways marginally better as regulation can indeed backfire on the sex workers.   Note again that full decriminalization also often decriminalizes the pimps and brothel owners too, so that might have something to do with its effects as well.  That said, when done properly, full decriminalization does seem to be, on balance, the least-worst choice overall.

Interestingly, a natural experiment in (partial) decriminalization was in fact conducted by accident in the state of Rhode Island from 2003-2009, when the courts discovered a big loophole in the law that had been in place since 1980.  Apparently, there was no law on the books that specifically prohibited the act of prostitution itself, as that law was inadvertently deleted in 1980.  Thus, indoor prostitution was effectively decriminalized for both the buyers and sellers from 2003 until 2009 when a new law was passed to close that loophole and re-criminalize both.  So what were the results of that natural experiment?  While the indoor prostitution market appears to have increased somewhat, most notably the rates of both rape and sexually transmitted diseases went down in Rhode Island during that time.  There was a 39% drop in gonorrhea rates and a 31% drop in the number of rapes reported to the police, which is a fairly large effect size.  As for trafficking, there was not enough data for the study to determine what effect, if any, the policy change actually had.  Overall, though, the Rhode Island model seems to have been an improvement over the status quo ante of full criminalization even if it wasn't perfect.

True, the sex industry is notorious for great evils, especially human trafficking.  No argument from me there.  But we need to get to the root causes of such evils--and those root causes are (surprise, surprise) capitalism and patriarchy.  From the desperation that Women and children are driven to as a result of such systems, to the fact that men dominate the industry (and world), these are the real issues, and the evils of the industry are simply symptoms of such wholesale and systemic evil.

In light of the above facts, I still prefer at least partial, if not full decriminalization as the least worst choice.  Ideally, the sex trade should be controlled entirely by Women, not men.  And what prevailed in Rhode Island from 2003-2009 indeed points us in that general direction.  However, at the same time I no longer oppose the Nordic Model being implemented in the USA either, as it is still a step up from the status quo--even if I don't agree with it entirely.  It seems any model is better than the status quo.

But back to the question in the title of this article:  the real question is, who has the power?  When men are in charge, the results can indeed be disastrous for Women.  But when Women are in charge, sex work can be a very good thing indeed. The patriarchy has always had a love-hate relationship with sex work due to its dual nature.  They want to use the sex trade to use, abuse, and control Women, but also fear the power that Women can gain from it too.

Regardless, there is ultimately only one solution, short of Women taking over--society must welcome sex workers of all varieties back into the fold unconditionally, and refrain from mistreating them in any way.  If you can't be nice to them, then leave them alone.  And it should go without saying that we must concretely address the adverse social and economic conditions that drive far too many into "the life" out of sheer desperation.  Anything less would be uncivilized.

2018 UPDATE:  A new study finds that legal prostitution zones in the Netherlands seem to reduce rape rather than increase it.  This dovetails quite nicely with what the aforementioned Rhode Islanders have already known.

Happy International Women's Day!

Today is International Women's Day, a day to honor and celebrate the better half of humanity.  Celebrated on March 8 every year since 1909, this year it takes on even greater significance than in the past given the "Day Without A Woman" and the International Women's Strike taking place today, in which many participating Women refuse to do any paid OR unpaid work today.  Unfortunately not every Woman is privileged enough to be able to do this, and this fact has led to some criticism but those who cannot will likely do other actions (wearing red, avoiding shopping except at small, Women-owned and minority-owned businesses, etc.) instead in a show of solidarity.  The more Women that participate in one way or another, the more likely it will be to effect lasting social change overall.  To paraphrase Voltaire, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

Part of the impetus for such an action this year come from the unfortunate result of 2016 election, and the misogynist-in-chief who is now in charge.  But Women's grievances under patriarchy have clearly been simmering for a long time before that as well.  Both today's actions as well as the successful Women's Marches on the day after the innauseation...er...inauguration can be considered watershed moments for the recently-revived feminist movement.

It is also worth noting that the nascent movement for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee is a textbook example of a serious feminist issue as well, not least of which because, as Judith Schulevitz notes, it's "payback time for Women" given their long history of underpaid and unpaid work that continues to this day.  A UBI would also effectively make women less economically dependent on men, reducing the chances for abuse of all kinds.  And aside from general concern for social justice, a UBI also a way to defuse the ticking time bomb known as men, who are becoming increasingly redundant as time goes on.  Men are most dangerous when either 1) they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) they are desperate for money.  A UBI would go a long way to solving all of these problems.

VIVE LA FEMME!  VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!

Would a Sex Strike Actually Work? (Post-2016 Edition)

What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common?  All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less.   These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata.  In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women?  Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps?  Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way?   Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so.  While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders.  As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run.  While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first.  Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike.  (Women often forget just how much power they really have!)  And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try.  Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.

So the answer to the question is most likely yes.  That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well.  But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold.  Especially now that "President" Trump (!) has actually become a reality.  Thus, I would not be shocked if The Big One happens within a few years.

The Women's March Was A YUUGE Success!

The Women's March on Washington, along with it's sister marches all over the globe, was more successful than anyone could have imagined.  It broke all records as the largest protest march in all of history, with at least half a million in DC alone and nearly 3 million nationwide.  Some estimates are even higher than that.  And it took place on all seven continents around the world, including Antarctica of all places.  Yes, really. And it was a highly diverse crowd of mostly Women (and male allies).

The peaceful protest march, which took place the day after the innauseation--er, inauguration--of Donald Trump, also boasts another great statistic:  ZERO ARRESTS.  Of course, the vast majority of participants were Women.  Contrast that to the over 200 arrests the previous day, nearly all of whom were men.   Even though the protests during the inauguration were mostly peaceful, that really says something.  And I am not surprised, as Women are far less likely to commit acts of violence, vandalism, or rioting than men, especially political violence.

Of course, going forward, much more needs to be done as well.  A day or two of protesting, while good, is clearly far from enough. Women, along with their male allies, need to continue to resist Der Trumpenfuehrer and his racist, misogynistic, xenophopbic, homophobic, plutocratic, right-wing authoritarian agenda.  Sustained protests and direct action by Women did work to remove the corrupt Silvio Berlusconi from power in Italy, after all.  This particular march may have ended, but now is NOT the time to abandon our efforts!  Failure is simply not an option anymore considering what is at stake these days.

VIVE LA FEMME!  VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!

Will The Coming Crash of 2017 (or 2018) Accelerate the Transition to Matriarchy?

Last year, I posted an article on the True Spirit of America Party blog titled, "Is the Crash of 2016 Upon Us?", as well as an article on this blog titled, "Will the Coming Crash of 2016 Accelerate the Transition to Matriarchy?".  In the first, I outlined the various reasons why I predict that author Thom Hartmann was probably right in that there will be another financial crisis and stock market crash in 2016, perhaps even one that that will make 2008 and even 1929 look like a walk in the park.  Looks like that didn't materialize in 2016, as that year is now in the rearview mirror, but can still happen in 2017 or 2018 at the latest.  Yes I know, I could in fact be wrong.  But recent events are making it look increasingly likely every day.

So what does that have to do with Matriarchy and the inevitable transition in that direction?  Turns out, a lot in fact.  Basically, in order for Women to finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, men need to surrender to them.  And most men will not surrender until they truly hit rock bottom.  It's just our nature that way.   Of course, even with the most cursory look at the statistics (and an open mind), we can all see the writing on the wall.  Women are rising, while men are falling.  In fact, Women have already crossed the Rubicon in terms of education and are well on their way to becoming the richer gender, meanwhile us fellas are falling away and falling apart.  We are being gradually replaced by both Women (for higher-skilled jobs) as well as robots/machines/AI (for less-skilled jobs), our wages have been falling, our once-great labor unions have been busted by the powerful men at the top who threw the bottom 80-90% of us under the bus, and we are thus are becoming increasingly redundant.  And the past two recessions, especially 2008-2009, have basically been dubbed "mancessions", in which men got hit significantly harder than women in terms of un(der)employment (excluding of course the "austerity" government budget cuts that happened in 2010-2013, that hurt Women more than men).  We must note, and it bears repeating, that this is NOT the fault of Women, but rather the result of our very own karma.

Thus, if the next crash is like 2008 or worse, I predict that men will likely be collectively hit so hard that they will never fully recover.   We still haven't fully recovered from the last one, so this time would likely be the ultimate death blow for us.  Sooner or later, it is only a matter of time before men will literally be begging women for a bailout.  And when that happens, Women would then be in the power position.  Not right away, but we can see how this could accelerate the transition.

Donald Trump will unfortunately be the new POTUS as of January 20, 2017, as he "won" the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.  That will likely set the Women's movement back quite a bit, at least in theory.  But remember that Janet Yellen is still Chairperson of the FERAL Reserve, and her term does not expire until early 2018, so she has another full year to go.  And she is (arguably) the real most powerful person in the world, and has a LOT of economic leverage.  So Der Trumpenfuehrer better not make her mad, lest Yellen end up doing what Paul Volcker did in the early 1980s.  If she really wanted to, she could single-handedly crash the economy by jacking up interest rates to high levels, choking off the money supply and thus throttling the (very bubble-laden) economy until it goes limp.  Talk about Girl Power!

So fellas, it is time to do some serious soul-searching.  If you have not yet renounced the demonic patriarchy in all of its forms, now is the time to do it.  God willing, we will soon need Women to rescue us.  Because let's face it, we have dug our own graves and will be in over our heads in no time.  It will happen sooner than you think.  And when Women finally do take over, they will remember exactly how they were treated, so it really behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday.  

Why We Need A Universal Basic Income Yesterday

I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic utopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all.  At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely.  To wit:

1. First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women".  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.   As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.
2. Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women.  When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  And this will only increase in the near future.  This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later.  Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions:  1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money.  Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one.
3. A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy.  No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God.  It's simply a basic human right, period.  And it would be far less costly in the long run.
4. As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology.  And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you.  And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.
5. Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem.  And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
6. We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
7. With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
8. Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin.  Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life.  And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way.
9. Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve.  This is over and above the effects of poverty alone.  And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty.  (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
10. We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to.  Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like.  A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.
11. And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts".  What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard.   And that needs to change. Yesterday.

In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top.  So why aren't we doing this yesterday?  Because that would make far too much sense.