Implications of heritability of political orientation

[d3b453r]

This question came out of a friend's comments about whether or not the RNC should be allowed to use a song by Queen. Long story short, my friend asserted that a Christian baker should be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but Queen should not be required to sell song usage rights to a conservative. His reasoning was that "one you're born with, one you choose".

This got me thinking. In the first place, I don't believe it is as simple as "one you're born with, one you choose". My understanding is that there is some evidence for the heritability of both, and both are open questions. It is even possible, based on my limited reading on the topic, that political orientation may have a higher heritability than sexual orientation (i.e. both have wide ranging estimates based on current knowledge). And even if that's not true, just because something doesn't have a high degree of heritability doesn't necessarily mean it is a "choice".

My first question is are there any obvious flaws in this reasoning, for those of you who might have a better understanding of these topics (this is definitely not my area of expertise)?

Second question, I would like to know what people think the political implications of this are. It seems to me that the scientific evidence supports treating sexual orientation and political orientation similarly (whether that means discrimination should be illegal in both cases, or whether they should be tolerated in the name of freedom of association in both cases).

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Memammal]

I watched an episode of Through The Wormhole (Are We All Bigots?) the other day where this subject came under the spotlight. It seems that there is neurological evidence to support the notion that conservatives and liberals are "wired differently", that they use different parts of the brain to ponder certain matters that would typically be associated with a pro-conservative or pro-liberal stance (not only towards a specific political party, but also i.t.o. racism and opinions re gun control, climate change, etc). That would suggest more nature and less nurture..?

[swansont]

This question came out of a friend's comments about whether or not the RNC should be allowed to use a song by Queen. Long story short, my friend asserted that a Christian baker should be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but Queen should not be required to sell song usage rights to a conservative. His reasoning was that "one you're born with, one you choose".

This is moot; the two situations are not equivalent. Nobody is prevented from purchasing a Queen song based on political affiliation (or sexual orientation), and being able to listen to it. That would be comparable to the baker refusing to bake/decorate a cake for certain customers.

 

Licensing for broadcast or public use is an issue of copyright, and nobody is obligated to license their intellectual property to anyone, except under certain specific conditions.

[waitforufo]

While it may be a courtesy for Trump or the RNC to not play an group or performing artists song, it is leagal if they have purchased a licence to do so. So the only legal question is was a licence purchased.

 

 

The question, then, is whether the RNC actually has a BMI license.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12226858/donald-trump-queen-copyright

[d3b453r]

This is moot; the two situations are not equivalent. Nobody is prevented from purchasing a Queen song based on political affiliation (or sexual orientation), and being able to listen to it. That would be comparable to the baker refusing to bake/decorate a cake for certain customers.

 

Licensing for broadcast or public use is an issue of copyright, and nobody is obligated to license their intellectual property to anyone, except under certain specific conditions.

This is an interesting distinction I had not considered. So in your view is it permissible for intellectual property be withheld on the basis of anything (e.g. race, sexual orientation, political orientation)?

I watched an episode of Through The Wormhole (Are We All Bigots?) the other day where this subject came under the spotlight. It seems that there is neurological evidence to support the notion that conservatives and liberals are "wired differently", that they use different parts of the brain to ponder certain matters that would typically be associated with a pro-conservative or pro-liberal stance (not only towards a specific political party, but also i.t.o. racism and opinions re gun control, climate change, etc). That would suggest more nature and less nurture..?

I certainly think it is more nature than most people believe. I will have to check out Through the Wormhole, never heard of it.

[swansont]

This is an interesting distinction I had not considered. So in your view is it permissible for intellectual property be withheld on the basis of anything (e.g. race, sexual orientation, political orientation)?

AFAIK you can do it for whatever reason you like and you don't have to give the reasons. The intellectual property is not for sale to the general public, as such. I suppose it might be different if you offered licensing to everybody and anybody through some kind of storefront.

[MigL]

There are also more variables than heredity and choice which shape and affect who we are.

While genetics is not be a choice, neither is hormonal variations while in the womb.

And since the brain is an adaptive organ ( can change its wiring in response to damage/stress/stimuli ), life experiences also shouldn't be considered a choice.

Ultimately, aren't even the choices we make, based on how we think and our life experiences ?

[swansont]

Another thing about this situation is that GOP used songs without permission. It's not that they asked and were denied. They never asked, according to the complaints. So it's even less like the cake issue.

 

And, I will add, most musicians do make theirs songs generally available. If the RNC had gone to the organization that handles the licensing (e.g. BMI) beforehand, they would be in the clear. The remaining members of Queen might not like it, but the probably couldn't prevent it.