I shall elaborate later but for now I will just ask: If it is the case that market economics and trade help boost tolerance towards, say, homosexuals why was it the golden era of laissez faire capitalism (ie. the late 19th Century) was the era that some of the worst oppression towards homosexuals in the history of western society? In fact, it was the era that thanks to Kraft-Ebbing, saw the disemanation of "homosexuality" as concept as distinct to "heterosexuality" and was conceived as primarily biological in nature (with "homosexuality" being seen often as due to faulty biology).
And if the first statement is in fact the case, why was it that the movement for homosexual rights (or at least in US terms the post-stonewall movement) grew out of social tendencies which were ranged from very hostile to at least indifferent towards "Capitalism" as it actually existed at the time?
Both you and Redalgo seem to misunderstand the way regression analysis is used. No one is claiming that economic freedom determines tolerance. There is hardly any such relation existing in any social science.
Calling the 19th century a golden era for capitalism is a bit dubious, even though I know it's popular to do so. The mechanism through which values change would probably have a bit of a lag as well. But, more importantly, see the above paragraph of mine. That is why you run a regression instead of looking at a single example.
That pro-gay rights movements did not love capitalism seems highly irrelevant to the research question, since it doesn't affect the mechanism they propose in any way.
I would agree with you. The 19th Century was not an era of economic freedom by any means, despite the surge of industry; there were still tariffs internationally and locally. There was little social mobility, little opportunity for those further down the scale to 'own.'
Post-War however tariffs fell, markets opened and capitalism as a tangeable concept filtered downward; there was opportunity.
Now of course, the other two variables are the welfare state and it would be interesting to see an analysis of that impact, and also secularism; social attitudes surveys link increased secularisation in the public sphere (or conversely, less identification with religion) to more tolerant attidues on sexuality, race, disability and women. In fact tolerance of homosexuality is intrinsically linked to the woman's rights movement; the impact of which forced a reassessment of what was acceptable masculinity.
Quite an interesting read.
