The Man who knew too much, didn't

G.K. Chesterton famously told a parable in The Thing:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease.

This is an argument that Progressives love to ignore, because it is a direct attack on their perceived intelligence.  Can't have that.

But the historical result of Progressive policy prescriptions is a never ending recital of unintended consequences.  Advantage: Chesterton it would seem.

Eric Raymond has a very thought provoking post about what sexual liberation has done to women:

Women are hypergamous. They want to marry men who are bigger, stronger, higher-status, a bit older, and a bit brighter than they are. This is massively confirmed by statistics on actual marriages; only the “a bit brighter” part is even controversial, and most of that controversy is ideological posturing.

OK, so what happens when women get educated, achieve economic equality, etcetera? Their pool of eligible hypergamic targets shrinks; the princess marrying the swineherd is a fairytale precisely because it’s so rare. More women seeking hypergamy from a higher baseline means the competition for eligible males is more intense, and womens’ ability to withold sex vanishes even supposing they want to. Thus, college campuses today, and plunging marriages rate tomorrow.

The question becomes: what are we going to give up? Family formation? Sexual equality? Sexual liberty?

The whole thing is very thought provoking, and is entirely unconsidered by the last generation of Progressives.  They tore down a gate because it was inconvenient.  None of them foresaw where we've ended up.

But don't forget, they're smarter that you or I.  And they have women's real interests at heart.  If those interests include a lack of marriage prospects and a lifetime of loneliness, then eggs, omelets.

What's the solution?  Beats me.  I don't understand where all these dang gates came from.  Besides, I'm clearly a Thought Criminal and an Enemy Of The State.

Note: Yes, this wasn't from The Man Who Knew Too Much.  I was going for the post title.