Actaeon

In this context, I strongly urge restraint in stating what you "know." I assume you do realize that "knowing" is an epistemological term referring to a very specific status of a concept. The ideas expressed here were earlier introduced as an hypothesis. I further note that they arose (apparently) by reading some rather interesting studies. All of this is good; a person should enjoy his interest in a topic and his desire to learn more. But to go on to state that sexuality is a metaphysical-this, impossible-that, social-reality-some-such-other-thing, and so on, represents some enormous levels of confidence about topics that have only been lightly introduced. Furthermore, I know professionally some very brilliant and learned scientists who would not dare to speak with such confidence about their theories of sexual origins and the status of sexual identity. This is not because they are wimps. Far from it. It's because they work in a field that recognizes and actively enforces the meaning of "knowing". It's not the same as "believing." By the way, this is not intimidation. If you do in fact know these things, then post away. By all means, tell the world what you know.

Felix, I see in your messages what appears to be a pretty strong assumption that capitalism is indeed utopian, despite your question to that effect. Does every rich person need to be like Hank? That sounds to me like the stirrings of an all-or-nothing, utopian point of view. A little corruption automatically means no more system? Even in a constitutional system of government? No more checks and balances whatsoever? Totally powerless? Wow. Once again, sounds like an all-or-none utopian point of view to me. So nearly everyone must be (pretty fully?) on the morality of rational self-interest? The culture can absorb absolutely no ups or downs over the course of time? Is that really what's needed to keep such a nation ticking, as if things could never get better once there's something bad in it? Wow. Once again, sounds like an all-or-none utopian point of view to me. No way for corruption ? My goodness, that statement alone is a full-on utopian, all-or-nothing premise. One of the key purposes of the system is to deal with violations. Why would this be necessary if violations "weren't possible"? Of course a laissez-faire system can end. But what does that have to do with its beginning or with its many, many hundreds or even thousands of years of relatively good service to its citizens—unless, of course, you're on the all-or-nothing utopian premise? Your own message contains the seeds of contradiction. Sure we have an income tax. That's why we call this a mixed economy. But we still have many (if not most) of our rights intact, and it's been that way more or less for a couple hundred years. Besides, even taxation is not a wholesale divestiture of all property rights. Thanks to our culture, we Americans—and those in the West generally—have it better than most people have ever had. Let's keep moving forward. Our ideals show us a path to a better way of life, and we constantly recognize the impediments along the way and strive to overcome them. Only someone firmly convinced of the need for utopianism would abandon the better ideals just because we may never see them fully realized without exception.