Oh good, an “interesting” thought experiment. Robin Hanson, an economist, looks at envy and redistribution:

Incels obsess over their own unattractiveness – dividing the world into alphas and betas, with betas just your average, frustrated idiot dude, and omegas, as the incels often call themselves, the lowest of the low, scorned by everyone – they then use that self-acceptance as an insulation.

Basically, their virginity is a discrimination or apartheid issue, and only a state-distributed girlfriend programme, outlawing multiple partners, can rectify this grand injustice. … Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer, uploaded a video to YouTube about his “retribution” against attractive women who wouldn’t sleep with him (and the attractive men they would sleep with) before killing six people in 2014.  (more)

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. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

I think his point is to mock or discredit the idea of income redistribution more than to praise or credit the idea of “sex redistribution,” but all the same the wording is…let’s say questionable. Income is not sentient; sex partners are. He’s obviously talking about one or more partner-sex, because there can’t be much masturbation inequality and if there were redistribution wouldn’t help. He’s talking about sex with another or others but he doesn’t say so, with the result that the wording makes it look as if “sex” is just something like potatoes or laptops or shoes, that can be redistributed via rail road or air – a commodity. Possibly that was his point, but I doubt it.

14 Responses to “Commodities”