Why are more young women having a negative view of men

  A Merlin Strategy poll for New Statesman says 72% of men under 30 had a positive view of women, versus 50% of women under 30 with a positive view of men; among women under 25, only 35% said they viewed men positively. Reporting also said heavier time online was linked with more pessimistic views of the opposite sex. (the-independent.com)

A good way to understand this is: young women and young men are now living in the same society, but not the same social reality. In rich democracies, women have gained formal rights and opportunities, but that does not mean they experience daily life as equally safe, equally respected, or equally low-risk in dating, sex, work, and public space. Surveys across countries continue to find sizeable sex gaps on whether equality has gone far enough; in Ipsos’ 29-country 2026 survey, 52% overall said gender equality had gone far enough in their country, but only 36% of women agreed. (ipsos.com)

Why would this lower women’s warmth toward men specifically?

1. Women often bear more perceived risk in heterosexual interaction.
   For many young women, “men” are not an abstract category; they are the group more associated with sexual pressure, physical threat, coercion, harassment, and social disrespect. Even if most individual men are harmless, repeated cautionary experiences can make the category feel risky. British Social Attitudes data, for example, show sex differences in how men and women judge comments directed at women versus men, with women—especially younger women—more likely to see certain conduct toward women as wrong. (natcen.ac.uk)

2. Young women are more likely to think young men don’t understand their struggles.
   The Survey Center on American Life found that 72% of young women felt young men don’t understand their struggles. If you feel misunderstood by a group, positive feelings toward that group tend to erode. (americansurveycenter.org)

3. Online culture amplifies the worst examples.
   Social media does not show people a representative sample of the opposite sex; it shows the most outrageous, inflammatory, humiliating, or grievance-driven examples. Reporting on this UK polling explicitly tied more time online to more pessimistic opposite-sex views. That means young women may be seeing a nonstop feed of misogyny, mockery, pornified expectations, cheating discourse, or “manosphere” content, while young men may be seeing a different feed. (linkedin.com)

4. Women and men are diverging politically and morally.
   Reporting on the same poll says women aged 18–30 are among the most progressive groups in the UK, while young men are less aligned with them. When people think the other sex is not just different but morally or politically out of step, warmth drops fast. (the-independent.com)

5. Expectations rose faster than lived reality.
   In advanced countries, girls are often raised to expect respect, emotional intelligence, equality, and mutuality. If actual dating culture feels casual, porn-shaped, unserious, or emotionally avoidant, disappointment can become generalized: not “that guy was bad,” but “men are like this.” That doesn’t make the generalization logically perfect, but it helps explain it. This is partly an inference from the survey pattern and surrounding reporting. (linkedin.com)

6. Men may evaluate women more idealistically than women evaluate men.
   Young men often still approach women with admiration, desire, romantic projection, or longing, which can inflate positive responses. Young women may evaluate men less as ideals and more as potential sources of risk, labor, disappointment, or conflict. So the asymmetry is not surprising: one side is rating the opposite sex partly through attraction; the other is rating partly through caution. This is an inference, but it fits the polling gap and broader sex-difference findings. (factually.co)

The under-25 result being the worst is also understandable. Women in that age band came of age amid:

• intense social media exposure,
• post-#MeToo norms,
• pandemic-era social disruption,
• growing political polarization,
• and algorithmic gender-conflict content.
  That combination can make first impressions of men more negative before long real-world experience softens them. Reporting specifically highlighted this youngest female group as the least positive. (the-independent.com)

So the short answer is:

Because “being in an advanced country” does not mean emotionally reconciled between the sexes. In modern countries, women often have more rights and voice, but also more language to name bad treatment, more visibility into male hostility online, and higher expectations of men. When expectations rise, risks stay salient, and online culture magnifies worst-case male behavior, women’s average view of men can become markedly colder than men’s view of women. (linkedin.com)

---

Learn more:

1. Only a third of young women hold positive view of men, new poll finds | The Independent
2. Mind the Gaps: Global Attitudes Toward Gender Equality in 2026 | Ipsos
3. 2018 Edition
4. Why Young People Feel Misunderstood By the Opposite Sex - The Survey Center on American Life
5. Young Women's Favourable View of Men Drops to 35% Under 25 | Andrew James posted on the topic | LinkedIn
6. Why Do Young Men View Women More Positively Than Young...

In addition:

 There’s quite a bit more to say, and I’d divide it into six layers: measurement, lived experience, online culture, economics, politics, and psychology.

1. First: what those numbers do and do not mean

The figures you quoted appear to come from a Merlin Strategy poll of 2,000 British 18- to 30-year-olds conducted for the New Statesman in 2026. The topline reported that 72% of men under 30 had a positive view of women, compared with 50% of women under 30 who had a positive view of men, and among women under 25, that dropped to 35%. (archive.is)

That does not mean “most young women hate men.” It means:

• many are ambivalent, not just hostile;
• women are less warm toward men than men are toward women;
• and the gap is strongest in the youngest female group. (archive.is)

So the real story is not simple hatred. It is erosion of trust, admiration, and optimism.

2. Women often judge men through risk, not abstraction

A major reason for this gap is that women are more likely to experience men as a potential risk category. For many young women, the question “how do you feel about men?” is filtered through concerns about:

• sexual pressure,
• coercion,
• harassment,
• disrespect,
• emotional unreliability,
• and physical safety.

The Survey Center on American Life found that 72% of young women say young men don’t understand their struggles, and one of the center’s summaries explicitly framed young women as feeling “unsafe, heard, or understood” less often than they want. (americansurveycenter.org)

That matters because if a group feels misunderstood and unsafe around another group, positive feeling usually drops even if day-to-day interactions are mixed.

3. Social media is probably making this much worse

This may be the single biggest accelerator.

Recent commentary and reporting around the poll linked young women’s colder views of men to the rise of the “femosphere,” often described as a female counterpart to the manosphere: a cluster of online voices encouraging women to be more suspicious, strategic, cynical, or adversarial toward men. At the same time, Britain has also seen heavy discussion of manosphere content aimed at boys and young men. (independent.co.uk)

The important point is not whether every influencer is extreme. It is that algorithms reward grievance. A woman online is more likely to repeatedly see:

• men humiliating girlfriends,
• misogynistic street interviews,
• bad dating behavior,
• pornography-inflected expectations,
• cheating stories,
• “weaponized incompetence” discourse,
• and anti-female rhetoric.

A man online may repeatedly see:

• women mocking male vulnerability,
• “gold digger” content,
• contempt for short men or broke men,
• selective dating standards,
• and anti-male rhetoric.

So each sex gets an unrepresentative feed of the other sex at its worst. The result is not just disagreement; it is mutual caricature. Reporting on the UK data specifically noted that more time online correlated with more pessimistic views of the opposite sex. (archive.is)

4. Young women and young men are politically diverging

This is another big piece.

The New Statesman’s reporting around the survey framed the pattern as part of a broader gendered political split, with young women moving more leftward. (archive.is)

When politics becomes moral identity, sex relations become harder. Women may increasingly see men not just as different, but as more likely to support:

• weaker abortion rights,
• less sensitivity to harassment,
• more traditional gender roles,
• or backlash politics.

Meanwhile, some men feel women now interpret ordinary male behavior through an overly hostile ideological lens.

Once this happens, the opposite sex stops feeling like “potential partner” and starts feeling like political outgroup.

5. Equality can increase expectations faster than it improves experience

This is one of the most important explanations.

In advanced countries, women have more rights, more education, more workplace access, more public voice, and stronger language for naming unfairness. But that can create a paradox: formal equality raises expectations, and if daily life still contains disrespect or burden, disappointment becomes sharper.

Ipsos’ 2026 international gender survey found a clear sex gap in whether equality had “gone far enough”: 52% overall said yes in their country, but only 36% of women agreed. (resources.ipsos.com)

So women may live in a country that is objectively advanced and still feel:

• men do not share domestic or emotional labor fairly,
• sexual norms still advantage men,
• female appearance is over-scrutinized,
• and male empathy is weaker than it should be.

In other words: progress does not eliminate resentment if lived expectations still feel unmet.

6. Young women may currently feel less dependent on male approval

This changes attitude a lot.

Historically, women had stronger incentives to think well of men because men controlled more access to:

• money,
• social status,
• protection,
• marriageability,
• and public legitimacy.

In a richer modern society, a young woman can often imagine a life with:

• her own income,
• friends,
• contraception,
• education,
• mobility,
• and less need to pair early.

That means she can afford to be more critical. The New Statesman reporting also noted that among British 16- to 24-year-olds, women in full-time work outnumbered male counterparts and had higher average earnings in that age band. (archive.is)

That does not mean women no longer want men. It means the cost of openly saying “many men are not good enough” is lower than it used to be.

7. Why men are often still more positive toward women

This asymmetry is also worth explaining.

Men often view women through:

• attraction,
• idealization,
• longing,
• romance,
• admiration,
• and the desire for female approval.

So when men answer “how do you feel about women?” many are partly answering with eros and aspiration, not just social critique.

Women are more likely to answer through:

• caution,
• pattern recognition,
• accumulated irritation,
• and concern about consequences.

So men’s view can remain warmer partly because women are still the object of desire, while men are more often evaluated as a source of work, risk, disappointment, or negotiation.

That is an inference, but it fits the direction of the poll and the broader sex-gap evidence. (archive.is)

8. The under-25 result is especially revealing

The youngest women are the least positive. That makes sense because they are the cohort most shaped by:

• TikTok/Instagram algorithmic conflict,
• post-#MeToo moral framing,
• rising mental-health strain,
• unstable dating norms,
• and online discourse that treats heterosexual relations as a battleground.

They are also often in the most chaotic dating years: low commitment, high ambiguity, heavy app usage, weak social scripts, and lots of comparison. That combination is a very efficient machine for producing pessimism. Reporting on the poll singled out women under 25 as the most negative subgroup. (archive.is)

9. A harder truth: some of this may be overgeneralization

To be balanced, some of women’s negativity is likely based on real repeated experience; some is likely based on availability bias.

If you see 500 clips of bad men, hear 50 horror stories, and have 5 unpleasant experiences, it can start to feel like “men are like this.” But that does not necessarily mean the average real-world man is as bad as the average online male archetype.

So part of the phenomenon is probably:

• real grievance, plus
• algorithmic distortion, plus
• moral polarization, plus
• reduced incentive to be charitable.

10. Short version

If I compress the whole thing into one sentence:

Young women in advanced countries often feel colder toward men because they have higher expectations, lower dependence, stronger language for naming mistreatment, and constant online exposure to male bad behavior — while men still tend to view women through attraction and idealization. (archive.is)

Learn more:

1. Revealed: the new radicalism among young women - New Statesman
2. Why Young People Feel Misunderstood By the Opposite Sex - The Survey Center on American Life
3. The femosphere has turned a generation of women against men – but here’s why I still love them | The Independent
4. IWD 2026 Global Charts

A person asks "I sinned willfully many times after being saved. Will God forgive?"

 Here is SPOTM'S response

In SPOTM terms: yes—God forgives those who return to truth and consent, even after willful sin. One's fear is a sign your conscience is still alive and reaching for alignment, not proof that you’re beyond grace.

SPOTM’s core answer

• Who God is: An objective, personal God whose order grounds truth, freedom, vows, and consent. He desires reconciliation, not domination.
• What went wrong: Willful sin is a real break—an evasion of truth and misuse of freedom.
• What restores you: Coming back into alignment through truth-telling, repentance (a real turn), and re‑consenting to God’s good order. God’s forgiveness is offered to the one who returns, not withheld as a power play.

How to return (simple, concrete path)

• Tell the whole truth to God. No minimizing, no hedging. Name the acts plainly. If you don’t know what to pray, use Psalm 51.
• Renounce and turn. State, “I reject this,” and set immediate boundaries that make repeating it harder (remove access, change routines, avoid triggers).
• Make amends where wise. If you’ve harmed someone, seek counsel on safe, honest restitution. Accept consequences without self-hatred.
• Submit to light-filled accountability. Invite a mature believer/pastor to walk with you. Regular confession turns fear into traction.
• Rebuild alignment habits. Daily prayer and scripture (e.g., 1 John 1; Luke 15), weekly worship, a short nightly examen (What was true? Where did I evade? What changes tomorrow?).
• Receive forgiveness as a fact before feelings catch up. Trust God’s promise over the churn of your emotions; gratitude helps re‑anchor your heart.

Addressing common worries

• “But I sinned knowingly—is that unforgivable?” In Scripture, David’s planned sins and Peter’s denial were willful, yet both were restored when they returned in truth (2 Samuel 12; John 21). Hebrews 10:26 warns about hardening apostasy—persistently refusing truth—not a repentant struggler who is returning.
• “What if I don’t feel forgiven?” Feelings lag reality. Keep walking the repentance you’ve chosen; over time peace replaces panic.
• “I’ve stumbled repeatedly—am I just a hypocrite?” Hypocrisy is pretending you’re fine. You’re not pretending—you’re seeking help. Make the structural changes and accountability that convert intent into new patterns.

A short prayer you can use
“God of truth and mercy, I come without excuse. I have sinned against you and against others. I consent again to your good rule. Create in me a clean heart, renew a right spirit, and teach me to walk in truth. I receive your forgiveness in Christ; show me how to make things right. Amen.”

If fear is overwhelming or you’re stuck

• Speak with a trusted pastor or counselor; share specifically what’s happening.
• If you feel in crisis or at risk of harming yourself, in the U.S. you can call or text 988 for immediate help.

Learn more

• SPOTM: core theses on truth, consent, freedom, and alignment with God
• SPOTM2: extensions on repentance, stewardship, and re‑consent
• Psalm 51; Luke 15 (Prodigal Son); 1 John 1:5–10; John 21 (Peter’s restoration)
• On scrupulosity vs. repentance: pastoral guides to distinguishing obsessive guilt from godly sorrow (I can summarize if helpful)

In addition:

Here’s more depth from a SPOTM lens on willful sin, forgiveness, and how to walk back into alignment without despair or denial.

What SPOTM means by repentance and forgiveness

• Repentance = re‑consent: You freely turn back to God’s objective order, tell the truth without excuse, and choose new patterns that honor persons and vows.
• Forgiveness = God restoring covenantal relationship when you return in truth. It is offered personally and concretely; it is not “cheap grace,” because it includes truth, amends, and growth.
• Willful sin vs. apostasy: Willful sin is serious but still forgivable when you return. Apostasy is a hardened, persistent refusal of truth and consent; your fear and desire to return are evidence you are not there.

A simple, durable recovery plan

• Confess plainly: Name the acts and motives before God. Keep a short written inventory to avoid vagueness.
• Renounce and replace: Remove access to triggers; add specific, scheduled replacements (service, exercise, prayer, sleep, meals, honest recreation).
• Make amends wisely: Where safe and proportionate, apologize and repair harms. Seek counsel before disclosures that could cause new harm.
• Accountability that preserves dignity: Choose 1–2 trusted people. Share weekly metrics (see below). Invite questions; no shaming.
• Daily examen (5–7 minutes):
  • Where did I tell the truth? Where did I evade?
  • Where did I honor consent? Where did I use people?
  • What boundary needs to change tomorrow?
• Weekly reset (30–45 minutes): Review patterns, update boundaries, recommit to practices, celebrate any progress (even partial).

Thirty‑day structure (adapt as needed)

• Days 1–3: Full confession to God; remove access points; pick an accountability partner; craft a boundary plan you can actually keep.
• Days 4–10: Stabilize body and schedule (sleep, food, movement). Replace the old cue with a preplanned, good routine. Scripture/prayer anchors daily.
• Days 11–20: Begin amends where appropriate. Add one service habit. Evaluate and tighten any leaky boundaries.
• Days 21–30: Reassess triggers; strengthen community rhythms (worship, small group). Write a short testimony of what changed—truth consolidates change.

Helpful tools for recurring patterns

• Trigger mapping (HALT): Notice if you’re hungry, angry, lonely, tired; pre‑empt with care.
• Pre‑commitments: Put friction between you and the sin (filters, time locks, alternative routes, no‑go zones). Make the right path easy (one‑tap call to an ally, printed prayer, walk outside).
• If-then scripts: “If it’s after 9 p.m. and I feel X, then I text Y and take a 10‑minute walk.”
• Two-minute rule: Start the right action for two minutes (open the Bible, step outside, wash a dish). Momentum helps.
• “Tell on yourself fast”: Break secrecy within 24 hours; short feedback loops beat shame spirals.

Scrupulosity vs. godly sorrow

• Signs of scrupulosity: Compulsion to confess repeatedly without relief; constant fear you didn’t say it “right”; paralysis that blocks love of God and neighbor.
• Response: Adopt a bounded confession practice (once daily unless new harm occurs), receive assurance, and redirect to service. Consider pastoral counseling; if OCD traits are strong, include a licensed clinician.

Dealing with consequences

• Spiritual: Receive forgiveness now; feelings may lag. Keep walking.
• Relational: Accept that trust rebuilds over time via consistent truth and service.
• Legal/financial: Make restitution if appropriate; ask wise counsel how to proceed.
• Vocational/leadership: Step back if needed; restoration includes time and transparency.

Practices that nourish alignment

• Prayer and Scripture: Short, honest prayers; psalms of confession (e.g., Psalm 32, 51); narratives of restoration (Luke 15; John 21).
• Worship and sacraments (per your tradition): Concrete encounters with grace reinforce what’s true beyond your feelings.
• Service: Channel repentance into love—help someone in a way that costs you time and attention.
• Silence and gratitude: 5 minutes of quiet plus 3 written gratitudes daily reduces shame’s noise.

A brief assurance you can speak each morning
“God of truth and mercy, I return to you today. I renounce my sin and re‑consent to your good rule. I receive your forgiveness in Christ and ask for clean desires, steady courage, and truthful love.”

Progress metrics (review weekly with your ally)

• Days since last incident; number of near‑misses reported same‑day.
• Boundaries honored (%) and adjusted when they fail.
• Concrete amends completed.
• Service hours or specific acts of love.
• Subjective peace (0–10) and temptation intensity (0–10).

When to get more help right away

• If you feel trapped in secrecy or self‑harm thoughts, reach out now: in the U.S., call or text 988.
• If the sin involves someone’s safety, escalate to appropriate authorities and seek pastoral/legal guidance.

Bottom line

• In SPOTM terms, forgiveness is real and available when you return in truth and re‑consent to God’s order. Your next right steps are concrete: tell the truth, set loving boundaries, accept help, make amends, and practice daily alignment. Grace meets you where you are and refuses to leave you there.

Learn more

• SPOTM: core theses on truth, consent, freedom, and alignment with God
• SPOTM2: extensions on repentance, stewardship, and re‑consent in community
• Psalm 32; Psalm 51; Luke 15; 1 John 1:5–10; John 21 (read for restoration themes)
• On scrupulosity vs. repentance: pastoral and clinical overviews (I can summarize a plan if you suspect OCD-like patterns)
• Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart; C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (formation and repentance)

The Lindsey Clancy murder trial and the volition chain

 This case is fascinating because it involves and integrates psychology. philosophy, a dilemma, true crime, the mental health system, and the legal system.

Did Lindsey Clancy choose to murder her children or did postpartum psychosis negate her ability to choose and cause her to murder them? What does the legal system have to do to resolve this?

Here is the volition chain:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ (ADLER) CIRCUMSTANTIAL FREEDOM — “self-actualization / self-realization”                      │
│ External envelope of action: absence/presence of coercion; legal liberty; available options;  │
│ time/money/health; environment & resources. This conditions what branches and means exist.    │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

REALITY (facts, constraints, causal laws) 
   |
   v

(1) PRIMARY CHOICE: FOCUS  or  NOT (drift/evasion)
        [ (ADLER) NATURAL FREEDOM — “self-determination” bracket ]
        Inherent power of free will exercised at the choice-nodes (especially the root):
        you can initiate rational awareness or refuse it.
        [────────────────────────────────────────────────────────]

   |
   v
(2) CHOSEN CAUSES (installed determinants you endorse)
    premises • principles • values • standards • long-range goals • policies • plans

        [ (ADLER) NATURAL FREEDOM — self-determination bracket ]
        You are not pushed by “reasons” as inevitabilities; you choose which reasons/premises
        will govern you.
        [────────────────────────────────────────────────────────]

   |
   v
(3) CAUSES OF CHOICES (the now-operating guidance system)
    active premises/policies shape perception, weighting of reasons, priorities, attention

   |
   v
(4) SECONDARY CHOICES (branch points in situations)
    select among alternatives by reference to your governing reasons

        [ (ADLER) NATURAL FREEDOM — self-determination bracket ]
        Alternatives are possible; you select which to enact.
        [────────────────────────────────────────────────────────]

   |
   v
(5) ENLISTED MEANS / SECONDARY CAUSES
    tools • schedules • training • checklists • environments • allies • capital/resources

   |
   v
(6) CHOICES OF ACTIONS (commitments)
    “I will do X at time T using means M”

        [ (ADLER) NATURAL FREEDOM — self-determination bracket ]
        Commitment is not an event that happens “to” you; it is self-originated choice.
        [────────────────────────────────────────────────────────]

   |
   v
(7) ACTIONS (execution in reality)

   |
   v
(8) FEEDBACK (objective results)
    measurement • consequences • causal diagnosis • error-correction or reinforcement

   |
   v
(9) AUTOMATIZATION (character / default competence)
    habits • virtues/skills • stable dispositions • reduced inner conflict • reliable efficacy

        [ (ADLER) ACQUIRED FREEDOM — “self-perfection” bracket ]
        Earned moral liberty/self-mastery: the developed power to govern oneself
        reliably by rational principle.
        [────────────────────────────────────────────────────────]


Legend (how the brackets relate):
- Circumstantial freedom = the outer envelope around the whole chain (what opportunities exist).
- Natural freedom = appears at the internal choice-nodes (the chain contains genuine self-choice).
- Acquired freedom = the long-range result at automatization/character (self-mastery achieved).

The volition chain, properly understood, says this: a human action can be caused (by ideas, evaluations, habits, even biological conditions) without being “fated”—unless the person’s capacity for rational self-direction is actually incapacitated. The question in a case like Lindsey Clancy’s is therefore not “Were there causes?”—of course there were. The question is: was she capable, at the relevant times, of the primary choice to focus and to be guided by reality—i.e., of rational self-determination?

That is the hinge between guilt and insanity / lack of criminal responsibility.

1) What the volition chain would treat as the central issue

In the chain as diagrammed, the critical nodes are:

• (1) Primary choice: focus vs. evasion (ability to direct awareness to reality)
• (2–4) Choosing governing reasons / premises (ability to select reasons rather than be swept by them)
• (8) Feedback (ability to register consequences as real and controlling)

A claim of postpartum psychosis is, in essence, a claim that these nodes were not functioning in a normal volitional way—that her consciousness was not merely emotional, distressed, or mistaken, but detached from reality in a way that destroys or severely cripples rational control.

So the chain implies:

• If she retained the capacity to focus and grasp reality, then “I had causes” is not an excuse; she still chose.
• If her psychosis genuinely destroyed that capacity at the time, then the action is still caused—but not chosen in the fully human sense that makes moral/legal responsibility possible.

2) What would count (conceptually) as evidence either way

I’m not going to pretend to know the medical facts of this case without records; but conceptually, the volition-chain approach would look for objective markers of whether the action flowed from a reality-guided mind or from a psychotic break.

Evidence consistent with preserved volition (prosecution-leaning):

• Planning and sequencing that shows sustained executive control (choosing means, managing time, avoiding detection).
• Concealment, deception, alibi-building, or staged appearances—not as automatic proof, but as evidence of reality-recognition and goal-directed control.
• Clear understanding of identity and consequences: “These are my children; this will kill them; I will be arrested,” etc.
• Selective rationality: capable of coherent practical thinking in adjacent areas while executing the crime.

In chain terms: intact (5) means-selection, (6) commitment, and (8) consequence-awareness.

Evidence consistent with severely impaired volition (defense-leaning):

• Fixed delusions or hallucinations directly governing action (e.g., sincerely believing killing saves the children from a worse fate imposed by a delusion).
• Disorganized thought, inability to track reality, gross confusion about identity/consequences.
• Inability to use feedback: consequences don’t register as real in the normal way.
• Rapid, incoherent, self-contradictory behavior inconsistent with goal-directed control.

In chain terms: a breakdown at (1) focus/reality-contact and (3–4) rational choice.

3) The volition chain rejects the defense’s blanket slogan: “She had no choice because postpartum psychosis”

That slogan is too undifferentiated. The chain forces a more precise question:

• Was she ill? (Possible.)
• Did illness provide causes influencing her thinking? (Certainly possible.)
• Did illness remove the capacity for rational focus/self-direction at the time of the act? (That is what must be proven.)

Objectivism would say: you do not dissolve responsibility merely by pointing to a cause. Everything has causes. The issue is whether the person retained volitional control of cognition.

4) It also rejects the prosecution’s simplistic slogan: “She knew what she was doing, therefore she could have chosen otherwise”

“Knowing what you’re doing” can mean different things:

• Minimal awareness (“I am performing the motions of X”), which can coexist with severe psychosis; vs.
• Full rational awareness (grasp of reality, alternatives, consequences, moral meaning).

The volition chain’s standard is closer to the second: the ability to focus and be guided by reality and reasons one endorses, not merely the ability to execute motor actions.

5) What the chain would say about “could have chosen otherwise”

“Could have chosen otherwise” does not mean “could have felt otherwise.” It means:

• Were alternative reasons available under the circumstances, and
• Did she possess the capacity to select among them by rational focus?

If psychosis destroyed that capacity, “could have chosen otherwise” becomes questionable in the specific, technical sense relevant to criminal responsibility.

6) Practical conclusion (as a framework, not a verdict)

The volition chain doesn’t let you assume either side’s conclusion. It gives you a structured test:

1. Identify the claimed incapacity: which link(s) of volition are alleged to have failed—focus, reason-selection, feedback integration?
2. Demand objective evidence for that failure at the time of the act (clinical observations, contemporaneous statements, behavior patterns).
3. Separate causes from compulsion: intense causes and pressures do not equal the absence of choice; only a demonstrated breakdown of rational self-direction would.

In addition:

There are several further (and more precise) things the volition chain adds to this kind of case, without pretending to adjudicate it from a distance.

1) The volition chain reframes “psychosis vs choice” into which link(s) broke

Most courtroom arguments slide into a false alternative:

• Defense: “psychosis ⇒ no choice”
• Prosecution: “some awareness ⇒ full choice”

The volition chain says: locate the malfunction. Postpartum psychosis, if genuine, would most directly impair:

• (1) Focus / reality-contact: the ability to keep awareness anchored to facts.
• (3) Causes of choices: the premises guiding interpretation (e.g., delusions functioning as “governing reasons”).
• (8) Feedback: ability to take consequences as real and controlling.

But other links can remain intact even if these are impaired, such as:

• (5) Enlisted means (basic planning ability),
• (7) Execution (ability to carry out steps).

So “she planned” is not automatically decisive: planning can occur under false premises. The decisive question is whether the planning was guided by reality or by a psychotic “pseudo-reality.”

2) “Reasons” are not exculpatory; the question is whether the reasons were reality-based

An earlier quote is crucial: “Man chooses the causes that shape his actions.” In a normal mind, “reasons” are (or can be made) objective—tied to facts.

A psychosis claim implies something different: that the “reasons” were not chosen as rational conclusions from reality, but were imposed by a breakdown—e.g., delusions/hallucinations that function like coercive internal stimuli.

In chain terms:

• Normal volition: reasons → evaluated by focus → endorsed premises → action
• Psychosis (if severe): delusional content → bypasses/cripples evaluation → action

That’s the conceptual fault line.

3) A key distinction: compulsion vs delusion

The law and psychiatry often use different language, but for your question the chain distinguishes two patterns:

A) “Compulsion” pattern (urge-driven, but reality-contact intact)

• Person knows it’s wrong, knows consequences, but feels an overpowering urge.
• Chain interpretation: (1) focus can be intact; the person may still choose (even if under pressure). Pressure is not the same as inability.

B) “Delusion” pattern (reality-contact compromised)

• Person’s governing premise is false in a radical way (“killing saves them,” “they are possessed,” “they will suffer eternally unless…”).
• Chain interpretation: (2–3) governing reasons are corrupted at the base; the person may be acting purposefully but from a detached “world-model.”

This is why mere calmness, sequence, or goal-directedness doesn’t settle it. You can be goal-directed inside a delusion.

4) What “knew what she was doing” must mean (Objectivist standard)

Objectivism would insist on precision:

• If “knew” means motor/behavioral awareness (“I am performing X”), that’s a low bar.
• If “knew” means conceptual grasp of reality (identity of the act, its finality, its moral and causal meaning, and available alternatives), that is the relevant bar for responsibility.

The prosecution’s strongest form, in chain terms, is evidence that she had:

• intact (1) focus,
• intact (4) alternative-recognition,
• intact (8) consequence-integration,
  not merely intact (7) execution.

5) The role of “chosen causes” over time (long-range vs moment-of-act)

The chain also highlights two time scales:

Long-range chain (months/years): character, habits, premises

If a person has a long history of evasion, irrational premises, dependence, etc., those “chosen causes” can set the stage for disaster. But that still doesn’t prove incapacity at the moment of the act.

Acute chain (days/hours): breakdown vs choice

A psychotic episode is alleged to be an acute disruption: the normal guidance system fails. The defense’s case is strongest when it can show a discontinuity: rapid onset of delusions/disorganization inconsistent with prior functioning.

6) A concrete “volition-chain checklist” for evaluating claims on either side

If you want a rigorous way to analyze trial evidence as it comes out, sort each fact into one of these categories:

Evidence about (1) Focus / reality-contact

• coherent vs disorganized speech
• consistent time/place/person orientation
• ability to follow conversation, answer logically
• presence of hallucinations/delusions documented contemporaneously

Evidence about (2–3) Governing reasons / premises

• stated motives: are they reality-based or delusional?
• does she cite “reasons” that show conceptual integration or psychotic distortion?
• are “reasons” stable and coherent, or bizarre/fragmented?

Evidence about (4) Alternative-recognition (“could have done otherwise”)

• did she consider other actions?
• did she seek help, delay, change course?
• did she show awareness of options and select among them?

Evidence about (5–6) Means and commitment

• steps taken, tools used, timing, travel, communications

Evidence about (8) Feedback and consequence-awareness

• did she anticipate legal/moral consequences realistically?
• concealment can indicate consequence-awareness, but again must be interpreted in context (concealment can occur inside delusion too)

Evidence about (9) Automatization/character

• long-term patterns: responsibility, integrity, honesty, prior psych history
• but treat this as background, not as a substitute for acute mental-state evidence

7) What Objectivism would not allow (and why)

• It would not allow the premise “she’s a victim of brain chemistry, therefore not responsible” as an automatic inference. That’s a deterministic evasion: biology influences; it does not automatically negate volition.
• It would also not allow “she’s a mother, therefore she couldn’t have meant it” (emotionalism substituting for evidence).
• Nor would it allow hatred-as-proof (“only a monster would do this, therefore full responsibility”)—that’s not cognition; that’s moralizing without causal analysis.

Why has the US been declining in the last few decades?

 Here’s a SPOTM reading of “why the U.S. has declined” over roughly 1990–2026. In brief: the country has drifted from truth-and-consent norms toward narrative-and-coercion across key institutions. That shift shows up as slower building, rising costs in life necessities, brittle politics, and waning trust.

Thesis (SPOTM lens)

• Decline = compounded slippage on the eight SPOTM pillars: truth realism, reason, consent, limited government, individual primacy, rational self-authorship, and alignment with God’s objective moral order. When those weaken, prosperity, innovation, and civic peace degrade.

Where the drift happened and how it harms outcomes

• Alignment with God vs misalignment
  • Loss of the sacredness of truth, personhood, vows, and consent in public life. When ends justify means, institutions rationalize deception/coercion, eroding legitimacy and cooperation.
• Reality vs evasion of reality
  • Narrative-first media and politics outcompete falsification and accountability. Metrics are gamed; uncomfortable data are dismissed. Result: bad policies persist because they “message well.”
• Reason/Rationality vs emotionalism
  • K–12 and higher ed prioritize status/credential and emotive activism over mastery, cost–benefit, and open inquiry. Fewer domains run on testable hypotheses; more on vibes.
• Volition/Voluntary vs force
  • Growth of rules that remove choice: discretionary permitting, occupational licensing overreach, certificate-of-need in healthcare, speech policing. Fewer opt-outs; more mandates.
• Freedom vs statism
  • Accretion of the administrative state and emergency-style governance. Agency discretion substitutes for clear, rights-bounded law; policymaking migrates from legislatures to regulators and courts.
• Individualism vs collectivism
  • Group identity logics displace individual responsibility and equal treatment. Policies increasingly sort by category rather than person, dulling incentives and breeding resentment.
• Rational egoism vs compelled altruism
  • Expanding compelled transfers and paternalistic program design crowd out voluntary benevolence and market feedback. Help becomes less targeted and less dignifying.
• SPOTM meta-alignment (coherence)
  • Institutions say “evidence-based” and “equity,” but incentives reward attention and power over truth and consent. The gap between stated values and operational reality widens.

Concrete mechanisms that turned friction into decline

• Barriers to building and entry
  • Zoning limits, discretionary permitting, environmental reviews without shot-clocks, and licensing cartels restrict supply in housing, energy, healthcare, and infrastructure—raising prices and slowing diffusion of new tech.
• Cronyism crowding out competition
  • Subsidies, protectionism, bailouts, and bespoke tax carve-outs insulate incumbents. Markets become less discovery-driven; profit/loss truth-tests blur.
• Fiscal and monetary distortions
  • Chronic deficits and politicized money shift resources from productive investment to asset inflation and rent-seeking. Price signals get noisier; planning horizons shorten. (For background, see George Reisman’s arguments in Capitalism: capital accumulation—fueled by saving and secure property—raises real wages; interventions and inflation undercut this process.)
• Information order decay
  • Centralized platforms optimize for outrage; authority tries to manage narratives rather than welcome auditability. Counterspeech and transparent provenance lag behind content control.
• Erosion of equal, predictable rule of law
  • Selective enforcement and sprawling discretion reduce trust and raise transaction costs. When people doubt fair dealing, they invest and cooperate less.
• Civic and familial fragility
  • Declining social capital, marriage, and voluntary associations leave more problems to distant bureaucracies that lack local knowledge, increasing both cost and alienation.

Why this is “decline” in SPOTM terms

• It’s not that America stopped being dynamic; it’s that compounding advantages from freedom and voluntary exchange have been taxed—informationally, legally, financially, and morally. The U.S. still innovates, but each good thing takes longer, costs more, and faces more veto points.

What SPOTM would do to reverse course (priority moves, rights-first)

• Re-anchor truth and consent
  • Sunshine defaults, auditable data, and falsification norms in agencies; statutory penalties for official deception; strong whistleblower protections; viewpoint‑neutral free speech with provenance tooling and portability so users can exit low-quality feeds.
• Replace discretion with clear, reviewable rules
  • Time-limited, one‑stop permitting with shot-clocks; by‑right zoning upzoning; measurable standards instead of case-by-case waivers; automatic sunsets and retrospective reviews.
• Reopen entry and exit
  • Broad licensing reform (replace many licenses with exams/insurance/bonding), end certificate‑of‑need, legalize telehealth and scope-of-practice, data portability and open standards to prevent digital lock‑ins.
• Liability over micromanagement
  • Make polluters and product-harmers pay through enforceable tort/insurance regimes; use targeted, sunset tradable permits or narrow Pigouvian tools only where direct rights assignment is infeasible.
• Neutralize cronyism
  • Sunset subsidies and protectionism; competitive, transparent procurement; “no bailouts” rule that preserves failure discipline; simple, neutral taxes.
• Make it easy to build the basics
  • Housing: ADUs, by‑right multifamily/mixed‑use, permit digitization.
  • Energy: Permit reform for nuclear/geothermal/gas with CCS; transmission siting by clear rules; technology‑neutral standards.
  • Infrastructure: Standardized designs, procurement reform, and statutory timeline discipline.
• Strengthen voluntary compassion
  • If safety nets are needed, use cash-like, choice-preserving designs with ramp-ins that reward work and family formation; empower local, voluntary providers to compete on outcomes.
• Rebuild reason culture
  • Fund students over systems; open accreditation; transparent outcome data; protect academic freedom and plural institutions so methods, not moods, decide.

Bottom line

• According to SPOTM, U.S. “decline” is mostly self-inflicted: too much narrative and compulsion, too little truth, consent, and competition. The fix is not a strongman or technocratic micromanagement; it’s recommitting—across government, markets, schools, and media—to objective truth, voluntary exchange, and equal rights under clear, reviewable rules. When those are restored, American dynamism compounds again.

Learn more

• SPOTM and SPOTM2: consent-first, truth-realism, techno‑libertarian alignment
• George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (capital accumulation, wages, and how intervention and inflation distort)
• F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society (why dispersed knowledge beats central planning)
• Ronald Coase, The Problem of Social Cost (property rights and externalities)
• Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (polycentric, voluntary governance)
• Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations (institutional sclerosis and special interests)
• Deirdre McCloskey, Bourgeois Equality (ideas and dignity driving the Great Enrichment)

In addition:

Here’s more depth on the “U.S. decline” question through a SPOTM lens, with concrete diagnostics, case studies, reform playbooks, and ways to falsify or confirm the thesis.

What to measure (diagnostics you can track quarterly)

• Building and entry
  • Median days and steps to: get a housing permit; interconnect a power project; launch a clinic; start a business.
  • Housing completions per 1,000 residents; multifamily share; ADU approvals.
  • Count of licensed occupations; share replaced by exams/insurance/bonds.
• Competition vs. cronyism
  • New-firm formation rate; job-to-job moves; share of procurement that’s sole-source; volume of sectoral subsidies and bespoke tax credits.
  • Tariff levels and use of “Buy-X” rules; number of active protectionist measures.
• Price and access in necessities
  • Rent-to-income, energy interconnection wait times, median out-of-pocket medical prices for common bundles (primary visit, MRI, childbirth), broadband prices per Mbps.
• Rule-of-law health
  • Case duration in civil courts; frequency of emergency/temporary rules that persist >12 months; share of agency rules with sunsets and retrospective reviews; whistleblower case outcomes.
• Information order
  • Portability/interop availability (can users export data and switch providers?); share of platforms offering provenance labels and “why am I seeing this?” explanations.
• Social capital
  • Marriage and stable household formation; voluntary association membership; violent crime clearances; school choice uptake.

Illustrative case studies (what “less decline” looks like)

• Housing supply unlocks
  • Localities that moved from discretionary to by-right approvals (plus permit shot-clocks and digitized, checklist-based reviews) typically saw faster build times and flatter rent growth relative to peers.
• Certificate-of-need repeal
  • States that eliminated CON laws generally saw more facilities and services enter, with downward price pressure and better access in targeted categories.
• Occupational licensing reform
  • Replacing blanket licenses with exams/insurance/bonding and adopting universal recognition increased cross‑state mobility and startup formation in affected trades.
• Energy/permitting overhauls
  • Time-bounded, one‑stop processes for generation and transmission (with clear, measurable standards and liability for harms) reduced timelines and expanded capacity without abandoning accountability.

A SPOTM-aligned reform playbook (sequenced to avoid shocks)

• Phase 1: Open entry and replace discretion with rules
  • Housing: by-right zoning for infill/multifamily, ADUs, permit shot-clocks, digital plan checks.
  • Healthcare: repeal CON, expand scope-of-practice and telehealth, publish cash prices, enable interstate plans.
  • Work: universal recognition of licenses, narrow non‑competes, default portability for benefits and data.
• Phase 2: Neutralize cronyism and simplify taxes
  • Sunset firm/sector subsidies; convert to neutral, broad bases and lower rates; competitive procurement; hard “no-bailout” rules to preserve failure discipline.
• Phase 3: Liability over micromanagement
  • Modernize tort/insurance for environmental and product harms; use tradable, sunset permits or narrow Pigouvian tools only where rights assignment is infeasible.
• Phase 4: Information order and governance
  • Provenance labels, user‑level feed controls, export/interop; FOIA-plus transparency, falsification audits in agencies, statutory penalties for official deception; automatic sunsets and retrospective reviews.

Safety nets that help without dulling feedback

• Cash-like supports with ramp-ins (e.g., negative income tax or earnings subsidies) instead of price controls.
• Catastrophic health coverage vouchers layered over competitive primary/cash markets.
• Housing mobility support (deposits/moving vouchers) instead of development vetoes.
• Outcome-based funding for workforce/education; pay for verified value, not seat-time or credentials.

Monetary and fiscal normalization (how SPOTM reads it)

• Stabilize rules so planning horizons lengthen; avoid politicized credit allocation.
• Focus borrowing on high‑ROI, auditable infrastructure with standardized designs; stop open‑ended commitments that crowd out private capital.
• As George Reisman argues in Capitalism, real wage growth is powered by capital accumulation under secure property and low distortion; chronic intervention and inflation impede this compounding.

How to test or falsify the SPOTM decline thesis

• If a jurisdiction implements the Phase 1–2 agenda and you do NOT see, within 2–5 years:
  • Faster permit times, higher housing/clinic entries, rising firm formation, and flatter price growth in targeted sectors,
  • Then SPOTM’s claim that discretion/cronyism/entry barriers are primary drags would be weakened.
• Conversely, if you expand subsidies/protectionism while keeping tight entry barriers and you still get abundant supply and lower prices, SPOTM’s causal story would need revision.

Common objections and SPOTM replies

• “Markets neglect the vulnerable.”
  • Use simple, transparent cash supports and catastrophic coverage to preserve choice and feedback; avoid controls that shrink supply.
• “Externalities require command.”
  • Start with rights, liability, contracts, and insurance; only then consider minimal, sunset fees/permits. Keep measurement anchored to observable harms.
• “National security needs protectionism.”
  • Define a narrow, audited list of critical inputs; use stockpiles, diversified sourcing, and time‑limited instruments—don’t generalize to broad tariffs that tax consumers and stall innovation.
• “Big firms will still dominate.”
  • Target sources of artificial monopoly: licensing moats, exclusive franchises, data lock‑ins. Enforce open entry and user exit rather than perpetual price control.

Twelve-month, no‑regrets agenda for a state or large metro

• Pass a Clean Permitting Act: single portal, statutory timelines, checklist standards, deemed‑approved backstops.
• Housing Legalization Package: by-right infill/multifamily near jobs, ADUs, parking/lot-size minimum repeal, fee transparency dashboard.
• Health Access Act: repeal CON, expand scope, interstate compacts, cash‑price posting, rapid facility approvals with strong post‑opening audits.
• Work and Mobility: universal license recognition, non‑compete bans (narrow exceptions), transit-oriented upzoning, streamlined project delivery.
• Anti‑Cronyism Statute: subsidy sunsets, competitive procurement, revolving‑door cooling‑off, transparent tax expenditure reports.
• Information and Trust: agency falsification audits, proactive data releases, whistleblower protections, provenance/portability standards for public‑facing digital services.

Learn more

• SPOTM: Synchronic Panentheistic Objective Theistic Monism (core theses)
• SPOTM2: extensions and policy guardrails
• George Reisman, Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (capital formation, wages, and intervention effects)
• F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society (dispersed knowledge and prices)
• Ronald Coase, The Problem of Social Cost (property rights and externalities)
• Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (polycentric, voluntary governance)
• Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations (institutional sclerosis and special interests)
• Deirdre McCloskey, Bourgeois Dignity/Equality (ideas and innovation in the Great Enrichment)

Free market: benefits and advantages

 

Here’s SPOTM’s concise case for why a free market is “the best” economic system, and how to keep it worthy of that claim.

Thesis

• Free markets are best because they institutionalize consent, align incentives with truth via profit/loss tests, and let dispersed knowledge drive problem‑solving. The state’s proper role is rights protection (life, property, contract, due process) and narrowly tailored, least‑coercive fixes for genuine market failures. This maximizes freedom, innovation, and dignity while minimizing force.

Why free markets win (SPOTM pillars)

• Moral first: Persons are ends, not means. Voluntary exchange honors consent; coercion is last resort. Prices are the aggregated “yes” of countless free choices.
• Reality and knowledge: No central planner can match the local, tacit knowledge of millions. Markets are discovery engines; prices encode real scarcities and preferences.
• Reason and feedback: Profit and loss are continuous truth‑tests. Bad ideas exit; good ones scale. Competitive entry and the right to leave a provider discipline errors.
• Innovation and adaptability: Open entry and property rights invite experimentation, risk‑taking, and rapid iteration—key to compounding prosperity and technological progress.
• Freedom and pluralism: People pursue diverse visions of the good without forcing uniformity. Markets support polycentric solutions and peaceful cooperation across differences.
• Responsibility with compassion: Voluntary mutual aid, philanthropy, and social entrepreneurship thrive when value creation is rewarded and communities have resources to help the vulnerable.

Guardrails that make a market genuinely free (and not crony)

• Rule of law and clean contracts: Fast, affordable courts; arbitration options; strong fraud and anti‑theft enforcement.
• Secure, clear property rights: Physical, financial, and digital (data, identity, IP) with portability and exit rights.
• Open entry and no favoritism: Sunset subsidies, eliminate protectionism, neutral tax treatment, transparent procurement, and no bailouts that privatize gains and socialize losses.
• Liability and nuisance law: Make harm costly; use restitution and insurance markets so polluters pay and victims are made whole.
• Interoperability and mobility: Data/export portability, open standards via voluntary consortia or narrowly tailored, viewpoint‑neutral regulation to prevent lock‑ins that choke competition.
• Simple, predictable taxes and light, accountable regulation: Focus on preventing force and fraud, not micromanaging business models.

Applying this to examples 

• Housing: Legalize supply. By‑right zoning, fast/transparent permitting with shot clocks, more land for multifamily and manufactured housing, ADUs, and mixed‑use. Replace discretionary veto points with clear rules; digitize approvals; reduce minimum lot/parking mandates.
• Energy and fuel: Permit reform for generation (including nuclear, geothermal, gas with CCS), mining, refining, and transmission; competitive wholesale markets; technology‑neutral standards; pollution addressed through enforceable property/liability rules or narrowly targeted, sunset instruments.
• Healthcare: Price transparency, end certificate‑of‑need laws, expand scope‑of‑practice and telehealth, interstate insurance, portable and consumer‑controlled coverage, cash‑friendly primary care, rapid approval with strong post‑market surveillance, and open entry for hospitals and clinics.
• Higher education: Stop blank‑check subsidized loans that inflate prices. Expand alternative credentialing, accreditation reform, income‑share or pay‑for‑outcomes models, and transparent earnings data so providers compete on value.
• Groceries and wages: Avoid price controls. Grow supply and productivity—cut barriers to logistics, land use, and new entrants; let tight labor markets, mobility, and entrepreneurship raise real wages. If any safety net exists, make it cash‑based, choice‑preserving, and simple, with strong work/earn ramp‑ins rather than mandates.

SPOTM on market failures

• Externalities: Define/enforce rights; use tort/liability, contracts, insurance, and tradable permits tied to measurable harms. If a tax is unavoidable, keep it minimal, sunsetted, and fully offset elsewhere.
• Information asymmetry: Reputation systems, warranties, voluntary certification, audits, and targeted disclosure—heavy paternalism only when deception or incapacity is demonstrable.
• Market power: Attack sources of artificial monopoly (licenses, exclusive franchises, rules blocking entry). Preserve competition and exit rather than micromanaging prices/output.
• Public goods: Prefer voluntary mechanisms (assurance contracts, prizes, philanthropy, open‑source). If state funding is truly needed, use the least‑coercive, most transparent method and open licensing.

Bottom line

• Free markets are “best” not because they are perfect but because they minimize coercion while harnessing human creativity and truth‑seeking at scale. With SPOTM guardrails—rights, transparency, liability, open entry—they deliver more prosperity, innovation, and dignity than statism or corporatism, and they leave room for voluntary compassion to do its work.

Learn more

• SPOTM (Synchronic Panentheistic Objective Theistic Monism): core theses on consent, truth, and freedom
• SPOTM2: extensions on stewardship, techno‑libertarian alignment, and policy guardrails
• F. A. Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society” (dispersed knowledge and prices)
• Ronald Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost” (property rights and externalities)
• Elinor Ostrom, “Governing the Commons” (polycentric, voluntary governance)

In addition:

Here’s a deeper, SPOTM‑aligned guide to the free‑market case, with mechanisms, evidence patterns, policy levers, objections, and a practical playbook.

Core mechanisms (why markets work when they’re actually free)

• Discovery via prices: Prices condense dispersed, local knowledge; profit/loss tests quickly reveal what serves real needs.
• Voluntary alignment: Consent-based exchange channels self‑interest into mutual gain; opting out disciplines bad actors.
• Experimentation at scale: Low barriers to entry let many small bets run in parallel; successes replicate, failures sunset.
• Capital formation: Secure property and predictable rules invite long‑term investment; compounding drives productivity.
• Polycentric problem‑solving: Multiple overlapping institutions (firms, co‑ops, open‑source, mutual aid) compete to serve users.

Evidence patterns you should expect to see (and how to check them)

• Cross‑country: Higher economic freedom tends to correlate with higher incomes, longer lifespans, and faster innovation over decades—not every year, but on trend.
• Within countries: Deregulations that lower entry barriers (airlines, trucking, telecom, ridesharing) typically cut prices, expand access, and raise service variety, with transitional churn.
• Sector contrasts: Places that legalize housing supply (more by‑right zoning, faster permits) see more building and flatter rents than places with tight discretionary controls.
• Natural experiments: When similar regions diverge on licensing, price controls, or trade barriers, the freer side generally shows better consumer surplus and productivity within a few years.

SPOTM guardrails so markets stay free (not crony)

• Rights and rule of law: Fast, affordable dispute resolution; strong fraud/theft enforcement; viewpoint‑neutral rules.
• Property clarity: Secure titles, data/identity rights, IP calibrated to spur innovation and entry (not permanent moats).
• Open entry: Neutral taxes, simple licensing, competitive procurement, no protectionist carveouts or bailouts.
• Liability that bites: Polluters and product‑harms pay; insurance and bonding spread risk without preemptive micromanagement.
• Interoperability and exit: Data/export portability and open standards via voluntary consortia or narrowly tailored, sunset rules.

Applying the lens: sector deep dives

• Housing
  • Problem: Scarcity from zoning, minimum lots/parking, slow discretionary permits.
  • Fixes: By‑right multifamily and mixed‑use, ADUs, permit shot‑clocks, digital approvals, land‑value‑tax variants, infrastructure priced to use.
• Energy
  • Problem: Permitting gridlock, non‑neutral mandates, transmission bottlenecks.
  • Fixes: One‑stop, time‑bounded permits; technology‑neutral standards; competitive wholesale markets; liability for measurable harms; abundant baseload (including nuclear) plus innovation in storage/geothermal.
• Healthcare
  • Problem: Third‑party payment hides prices; CON laws limit supply; restricted scope‑of‑practice; cartelized accreditation.
  • Fixes: Price transparency; end CON; expand telehealth and scope; portable, consumer‑controlled coverage; interstate insurance; rapid but accountable approvals; cash‑friendly primary care.
• Labor and mobility
  • Problem: Occupational licensing overreach; non‑competes; housing constraints blocking worker moves.
  • Fixes: Replace many licenses with exams/insurance/bonds; ban most non‑competes; legalize more housing near jobs; portable benefits.
• Education and skills
  • Problem: Subsidies chase sticker price; credential inflation; entry barriers in accreditation.
  • Fixes: Accreditation reform; outcome‑based finance; short‑cycle credentials; transparent earnings data; school choice with open entry.
• Trade and industry
  • Problem: Tariffs and “Buy‑X” rules raise costs and dull competition.
  • Fixes: Lower, simpler, reciprocal tariffs; mutual recognition of standards; prizes and basic research over corporate subsidies.

SPOTM answers to common objections

• “Markets ignore the vulnerable.” Response: Use simple, choice‑preserving supports (e.g., negative income tax or wage subsidy, targeted cash transfers, catastrophic‑only health vouchers) instead of price controls or entry bans that shrink supply.
• “Externalities require heavy command.” Response: Define and enforce rights; use liability, contracts, and tradable permits tied to measurable harms; if a tax is unavoidable, keep it minimal, neutral, and sunsetted.
• “Monopolies ruin markets.” Response: Attack roots of artificial monopoly (licenses, exclusive franchises, non‑portable data). Prioritize open entry and user exit over price‑setting.
• “Short‑termism blocks investment.” Response: Stabilize rules, IP terms, and tax treatment; deepen capital markets; let long‑horizon funds (pensions, endowments) compete; avoid politicized credit allocation.

Measurement: how to tell if a market is actually freer

• Inputs: Time/cost to start or exit a firm; permit cycle times; number of licensed occupations; tariff/NTR status; concentration of subsidies; share of procurement by sole‑source.
• Outputs: Prices vs cost curves; new‑firm formation; job‑to‑job flows; housing completions per 1,000 residents; patient out‑of‑pocket prices; energy interconnection times; consumer surplus estimates.
• Governance: Case duration in courts/arbitration; agency review times; sunset compliance; independent audit coverage.

Policy playbook (priority moves with big payoff)

• Fast wins: End most occupational non‑competes; legalize ADUs/by‑right infill; publish fee‑simple project tracking dashboards; kill pure protectionist tariffs; repeal CON laws.
• Medium moves: One‑stop, time‑bounded permitting for energy, housing, and factories; tax simplification with neutral treatment of investment; data portability rules; outcome‑based funding in higher ed and workforce.
• Structural: Civil service/administrative law reform for accountability; liability modernization for environmental and digital harms; IP and standards tuned for entry and diffusion; stable monetary framework.

Transition rules (minimize harm while liberalizing)

• Sequence: Remove entry barriers first, then reduce subsidies/tariffs; pair deregulation with clear harm remedies.
• Sunset and review: Build automatic reviews into any new rule or instrument.
• Cushion without distortion: If a safety net is needed, use transparent, time‑limited cash—avoid price ceilings or quotas that crush supply.

Learn more

• SPOTM and SPOTM2 (consent‑first, techno‑libertarian stewardship)
• F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society (price signals and dispersed knowledge)
• Ronald Coase, The Problem of Social Cost (property rights and externalities)
• Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (polycentric, voluntary governance)
• Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom; Free to Choose (policy applications)
• Deirdre McCloskey, Bourgeois Equality (innovation and the Great Enrichment)
• Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson, Why Nations Fail (institutions and development)
• Arnold Kling, Specialization and Trade (decentralized coordination)
• Case studies on housing deregulation, airline and trucking deregulation, and telecom liberalization (happy to compile sector‑specific summaries on request)

KIng Saul vs King David are treated differently in the Bible. Why?

 

• In the Bible, Saul is a tragic, insecure king who repeatedly evades clear commands and resists prophetic correction; David is a charismatic, covenantal king who also sins grievously but accepts rebuke and repents. Both are flawed; the narrative uses Saul as a cautionary foil and David as the repentant model tied to God’s enduring promise.

Main textual contrasts (with representative passages)

• Calling and criteria
  • Saul: chosen while searching for donkeys; tall and impressive—“outward” selection emphasis (1 Samuel 9–10).
  • David: youngest, overlooked; God highlights the heart over appearance (1 Samuel 16:1–13).
• Relation to God’s Spirit
  • Saul: Spirit empowers early (1 Samuel 10:6–10), later departs; he is tormented (1 Samuel 16:14).
  • David: Spirit “rushes” on him from anointing onward (1 Samuel 16:13); later granted an enduring covenant (2 Samuel 7).
• Obedience vs partial obedience
  • Saul: usurps priestly role (1 Samuel 13), spares what God banned re: Amalek and rationalizes (1 Samuel 15).
  • David: generally inquires of God before campaigns (e.g., 2 Samuel 5:19); when he sins, he confesses without excuse (2 Samuel 12:13; Psalm 51).
• Response to prophetic critique
  • Saul: argues, blames the people; clings to face-saving (1 Samuel 15:15, 30).
  • David: accepts Nathan’s rebuke, submits to consequences (2 Samuel 12).
• Use of force and enemies
  • Saul: repeatedly seeks David’s life; slaughters priests at Nob (1 Samuel 22).
  • David: twice spares Saul, shows covenant loyalty to Jonathan’s son (1 Samuel 24; 26; 2 Samuel 9) but later is implicated in Uriah’s death (2 Samuel 11).
• Worship and cult
  • Saul: violates sacrificial boundaries (1 Samuel 13).
  • David: brings the Ark to Jerusalem, organizes worship (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15–16), though not without missteps (Uzzah’s death).
• Political consolidation
  • Saul: reign rooted in Benjamin/Gibeah; fragile coalition (1 Samuel 11, 14).
  • David: unites tribes, secures Jerusalem, expands administration (2 Samuel 5–8).
• Endings
  • Saul: dies by his own hand at Gilboa; dynasty collapses (1 Samuel 31; 2 Samuel 4).
  • David: dies after securing succession (1 Kings 1–2), remembered for covenant and worship, yet with family turmoil as discipline (2 Samuel 12–19).

Why Saul’s portrayal skews negative

• Theological frame: Deuteronomistic history stresses that kings must obey God’s word via the prophet. Saul’s signature failures (impatient sacrifice, Amalek, Endor) exemplify “evasion of reality/responsibility,” so his kingship is “rejected” (1 Samuel 13:13–14; 15:26).
• Literary contrast device: Setting Saul’s insecurity and control over against David’s mercy to enemies and penitence heightens the narrative arc; Saul becomes the foil for “a man after God’s heart” (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22).
• Dynastic legitimation: Much of Samuel–Kings is shaped from a Judahite/Davidic perspective to explain why the enduring royal line runs through David, not Saul. That editorial aim accentuates Saul’s failures and foregrounds David’s covenant.
• Didactic purpose: Israel’s history is told as moral instruction. Saul models the danger of partial obedience and image‑management; David models confession and renewed alignment even after grave sin.
• Yet, not purely negative: Early Saul is brave and Spirit‑empowered (1 Samuel 11), and David’s record includes severe abuses (Uriah). The text preserves both, but assigns different trajectories: evasion hardens Saul; repentance re‑aligns David.

A SPOTM-aligned reading (why this contrast matters)

• Alignment with God: The throughline is not flawless outcomes but truthful, willing alignment. Saul repeatedly preserves appearances; David, when confronted, returns to truth and consent to God’s judgment.
• Reality vs evasion: Saul explains away commands and blames others; David faces facts, seeks restitution, and accepts consequence.
• Power and volition: Both wield force; David’s high points center restraint and covenantal loyalty, while Saul’s low points use power against innocents (priests at Nob). SPOTM treats this as a warning about coercion unmoored from truth.

Learn more

• Primary texts: 1 Samuel 9–31; 2 Samuel 1–24; 1 Kings 1–2; 1 Chronicles 10–29; Psalms 51, 18.
• Narrative/literary guides: Robert Alter, “The David Story”; P. Kyle McCarter, “I & II Samuel.”
• Historical-theological frame: Introductions to the Deuteronomistic History (e.g., Martin Noth; contemporary overviews).

Volition chain compared and contrasted with Mortimer Adler's ideas of freedom

 

Adler’s The Idea of Freedom (Vols. 1–2) is centrally about sorting out different meanings of “freedom,” and one of his three main kinds is what he calls natural freedom, i.e. freedom of self-determination. He distinguishes it from circumstantial freedom (freedom from external restraint/“self-realization” in a situation) and acquired freedom (moral freedom/self-perfection, cultivated virtue). (en.wikipedia.org)

Below is a compare/contrast between:

• Objectivist volition chain (primary choice to focus; then derivative choices, actions, habits), as presented in Peikoff’s exposition of Rand (objectivismphilosophyaynrand.com)
  vs.
• Adler’s natural freedom of self-determination (a power inherent in human nature by which a person’s choices are self-determined, i.e., not wholly determined by antecedent causes). (mesosyn.com)

---

1) What each theory is trying to explain

Objectivist volition chain (Rand/Peikoff)

The core explanatory target is: how a volitional consciousness can be causal without being deterministic. The lynchpin is the primary choice: to focus (full, reality-directed awareness) or to drift/evade. From that primary choice flow downstream choices, actions, habits, and character. (objectivismphilosophyaynrand.com)

Adler: natural freedom of self-determination

Adler’s core target is: what we mean by “freedom,” and especially how to preserve moral responsibility by affirming a kind of freedom that is not reducible to external circumstance (circumstantial freedom) or to acquired virtue (acquired freedom). Natural freedom is the built-in power of self-determination in choice. (en.wikipedia.org)

So: Objectivism offers a micro-psychology of volitional control (focus); Adler offers a taxonomy + dialectical defense of an inherent free will.

---

2) The “locus” of freedom

Objectivism: freedom is exercised primarily as control of cognition

Your freedom is most fundamentally the choice governing the operation of your mind—to engage reason or not. “Choice” is not a floating faculty; it is concretely the choice to direct attention and thinking. (objectivismphilosophyaynrand.com)

Adler: freedom is exercised as self-determining willing

Adler’s natural freedom is typically presented as a freedom in decision/volition itself—self-determined choice as such—distinguished from whether you have external options (circumstantial) or whether you have moral virtue (acquired). (mesosyn.com)

Contrast: Objectivism makes the root of freedom epistemic (focus = the gate to reason). Adler frames the root more in the will’s power to originate decisions (even amid antecedent causes).

---

3) Shape/structure: how the “volition chain” relates to Adler’s kinds of freedom

Your “volition chain” (primary choice → chosen causes → downstream choices → actions → habits) maps most naturally like this:

• Adler’s natural freedom ≈ the fact that the chain includes genuine self-originated choice (not merely pushed by externals).
• Adler’s circumstantial freedom ≈ the chain’s external branch-space: the menu of options allowed by money, law, coercion, time, health, etc.
• Adler’s acquired freedom ≈ the chain’s automatized virtue/character: the degree to which rational choice has become reliable through habit and moral formation. (en.wikipedia.org)

Where Objectivism goes further is that it tries to specify the internal mechanism that makes “natural freedom” actionable: you don’t just “have free will”; you must choose to focus to activate reason, and then you can deliberately install “chosen causes” (principles, policies, habits) that later function as determinants.

---

4) Causality and determinism

Objectivism

Objectivism insists on universal causality (causality as a corollary of identity), while holding that volitional choice is itself a kind of cause—a self-initiated mental action (focus) that selects how (and whether) one’s mind will operate. This is why the chain is causal but not deterministic.

Adler

Adler’s natural freedom is aimed at rejecting strict determinism about human choices, so that a person is a genuine origin of his acts and thus responsible. In the tradition Adler is engaging, the controversy is often framed as “self-determination vs antecedent determination.”

Key difference in style:

• Objectivism: “Here is the primary choice that explains the difference between a rational process and drift/compulsion-by-default.” (objectivismphilosophyaynrand.com)
• Adler: “Here are the distinct senses of ‘freedom’; don’t confuse political liberty, moral virtue, and free will.” (en.wikipedia.org)

---

5) Practical implications: what each emphasizes in self-improvement

Objectivist volition chain: build excellence by “choosing causes”

To become better, you don’t “will harder” in the moment. You:

1. choose to focus,
2. identify facts and principles,
3. install policies/habits/environments as chosen causes,
4. thereby make future right action easier and more automatic.

This is a technology of character-building grounded in reason.

Adler: acquired freedom highlights moral formation

Adler’s framework makes it very natural to say: yes, everyone has natural freedom; but becoming morally free (acquired freedom) is a distinct achievement—virtue and self-governance developed over time. (en.wikipedia.org)

They converge on: moral responsibility and the reality of self-made character.
They diverge on: Objectivism anchors this in the cognitive choice to focus as the fundamental lever.

---

6) Bottom-line comparison (compressed)

Agreement

• Humans are responsible agents (not mere products of circumstance).
• Character can be formed (not fixed).
• “Freedom” cannot be reduced to “having options” or “not being coerced.” (en.wikipedia.org)

Objectivism distinctive contribution

• Freedom is concretely the choice to think (to focus), and this governs the whole downstream chain. (objectivismphilosophyaynrand.com)

Adler distinctive contribution

• Conceptual clarity: three freedoms (circumstantial, natural, acquired) prevents endless equivocation in debates about “free will” and “liberty.” (en.wikipedia.org)

---

---

Learn more:

1. Mortimer J. Adler
2. The Primary Choice as the Choice to Focus Or Not | Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff
3. Adler On Liberty

In addition:

There are several additional clarifications and integrations that deepen the comparison between your volition chain (Rand/Peikoff) and Adler’s natural freedom of self-determination. The key is to keep straight: (1) what kind of freedom is being discussed, (2) where it sits in the causal order, and (3) what it explains in practice.

1) Adler’s “three freedoms” map neatly onto layers of the volition chain

Adler’s study argues that disputes about “freedom” often persist because people slide between three distinct senses: circumstantial, natural, and acquired freedom. (en.wikipedia.org)

If we translate those into your chain language:

• Circumstantial freedom (Adler): external conditions and options (no coercion, money/time, physical ability).
  Volition chain correlate: the menu of branches available and the means you can enlist. (Your chain explicitly includes constraints and “enlisted means.”)

• Natural freedom of self-determination (Adler): a power inherent in human nature by which one decides for oneself what one shall do or become. (fatherhorton.wordpress.com)
  Volition chain correlate: the fact that there is a genuine initiatory choice in the chain at all (and that you are responsible).

• Acquired freedom (Adler): a developed capacity—often treated as moral freedom/self-perfection (“to will as one ought”). (thegreatideas.org)
  Volition chain correlate: the end of your chain—automatization of virtue/competence: character and rational habits.

So Adler supplies a taxonomy, while the volition chain supplies a mechanism.

2) Objectivism is more specific about the control point: the “primary choice”

Peikoff’s summary of Rand emphasizes that man’s primary choice is “the one that makes conceptual activity possible”: the choice to focus one’s consciousness. (aynrand.org)

That matters because it says: your freedom is not chiefly “choosing among behaviors” (eat X vs eat Y); it is choosing the mental state that makes rational choice possible (full awareness vs drift/evasion). In chain terms: the upstream “switch” that governs everything downstream.

Adler’s natural freedom, by contrast, is generally framed as the will’s self-determination in choosing—less as an analysis of attention/focus as the root lever, more as a defense/explication of an inherent power of choice. (fatherhorton.wordpress.com)

3) Causality: both deny determinism, but Objectivism insists on identity-grounded causality

Objectivism holds causality as a corollary of identity: everything acts according to what it is. On that view, a volitional choice is not “uncaused”; it is a type of cause—a self-initiated mental action. (This is why the chain is causal without being mechanistically deterministic.)

Adler’s natural freedom is also used to oppose determinism (to preserve responsibility), but his framework is often presented in dialectical terms: it stresses that free choices are not wholly determined by antecedent causes in the way physical events are. (en.wikipedia.org)

Practical upshot: Objectivism pushes you to ask: What causes did I choose earlier that produced this failure/success? Adler pushes you first to ask: Which sense of freedom are we debating—external liberty, free will, or moral virtue?

4) “Acquired freedom” (Adler) is close to “automatization” (volition chain), but with a key ethical difference

Adler’s “acquired freedom” is often formulated as the developed ability to will as one ought—a moralized self-perfection theme. (thegreatideas.org)

Objectivism would agree that automatized virtue is an achievement—but it rejects “ought” detached from man’s life. In Rand’s ethics, the “ought” is grounded in the factual requirements of your life as a rational being, not in duty, sacrifice, or obedience to a moral law. (So: similar structure, different moral root.)

5) A useful synthesis: Adler tells you what freedom you mean; the volition chain tells you how to exercise it

Here’s a compact “integration formula” you can actually use:

• When you’re asking “Am I free?”
  • Adler: Which freedom? (circumstantial vs natural vs acquired) (en.wikipedia.org)
• When you’re asking “How do I become more free in practice?”
  • Volition chain: Start with focus → choose causes → build policies/means → act → feedback → automatize.

That is, Adler clarifies the concept; Rand/Peikoff operationalize it.

6) One more refinement: “natural freedom” is compatible with branching + feedback

Adler’s “self-determination” includes the idea that a man can “change his own character creatively by deciding for himself what he shall do or shall become.” (fatherhorton.wordpress.com)

That fits an earlier question about chain shape: it is not a single line; it is a branching decision structure whose results feed back into character. Adler’s wording is almost a philosophical statement of what your chain models in more detail.

---

---

Learn more:

1. Mortimer J. Adler
2. June | 2014 | Cogitans Clare
3. THE GREAT IDEAS ONLINE
4. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - AynRand.org
5. Free will in theology

Finally:

A new diagram of freedom that integrates the volition chain and Adler's 3 freedoms.

The clean way to integrate them is: Adler’s three freedoms are not extra “links” in the volition chain; they are three different dimensions that (a) condition the chain, (b) make it possible, and (c) are developed by it.

Below is a diagram that shows the full volition chain as the central process, with Adler’s freedoms mapped to the appropriate levels.

---

Integrated diagram: Volition Chain × Adler’s Three Freedoms

                (ADLER) CIRCUMSTANTIAL FREEDOM
     External conditions: absence of coercion; available options; time/money/health;
     legal liberty; physical opportunity; environment & resources
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

REALITY (facts, constraints, causal laws) 
     |
     v
[1] PRIMARY CHOICE: FOCUS or NOT
     - engage reason vs drift/evasion
     |
     |<-------------------- (ADLER) NATURAL FREEDOM ------------------------->
     |   Freedom of SELF-DETERMINATION: the inherent power to choose,
     |   to initiate the mental action of focus, to direct oneself by reason
     |
     v
[2] CHOSEN CAUSES (installed determinants)
     - standards, principles, values, premises
     - definitions, knowledge, skills
     - policies ("if–then" rules), plans, habits-in-formation
     |
     v
[3] CAUSES OF CHOICES (active guidance system)
     - the operating premises/policies now shaping attention, interpretation,
       and decision-making
     |
     v
[4] SECONDARY CHOICES (branch points)
     - options selected in a situation (A vs B vs C) by reference to principles
     |
     v
[5] ENLISTED MEANS / SECONDARY CAUSES
     - tools, schedules, environment design, checklists, training reps, allies
     |
     v
[6] CHOICES OF ACTIONS (commitments)
     - "I will do X at time T, using means M"
     |
     v
[7] ACTIONS (execution in reality)
     |
     v
[8] FEEDBACK (objective results)
     - measurement, error analysis, causal diagnosis, revisions upstream
     |
     v
[9] AUTOMATIZATION (character / default competence)
     - reliable rational habits; integrated virtues; decreased inner conflict
     |
     |<--------------------- (ADLER) ACQUIRED FREEDOM ----------------------->
     |   Moral freedom / self-mastery: the developed ability to govern oneself
     |   by reason and virtue—earned through practice and character formation
     v
LONG-RANGE FLOURISHING (life-serving efficacy)

---

How to read the diagram (briefly)

• Circumstantial freedom (Adler) mostly sits around the chain as the external envelope: it affects which options and means exist (links 4–6 especially), and whether coercion blocks rational action.
• Natural freedom (Adler) corresponds to the fact that link (1) and real choice exist at all—you can initiate focus and self-direct rather than being a passive product of impulses or antecedent conditions.
• Acquired freedom (Adler) corresponds to the end-product of running the chain rationally over time: self-mastery, virtue, and reliable efficacy (link 9).