Liberalism Destroys Families?

[Dinner]

Rufus you are trying to argue with facts. Facts don't work with people who think this way and instead ideology, blind & mindless ideology, is all that matters.

[Berzerker]

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/0802.htm

That graph shows a 15% jump in just 20 years.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Pekka - on the first page, your last post explains your first post

St Leo - your argument is illogical, you cited stats from England during a time of brutal authoritarianism and compared them with modern times.

He posted statistics referencing a period from 1551-1851. Exactly what 'brutal authoritarianism' was there in 1851 ?


People being dragooned to go and see the Great Exhibition at bayonet point ?

Or did you mean 1999 ? People forced to prepare millennium parties under threat of imminent boredom ?


On the other he has posted statistics, rather than suppositions, assumptions and opinions. I can see how this might throw you off course somewhat.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You mean back when far fewer mommies had to leave the kiddies at day care to be in the workforce to help pay for all these wonderful liberal policies?

Quick, what's the single biggest factor contributing to the rise of the two-income household?

Here's a hint: it's not women's lib.

Here's another: it's strongly associated with both Reagan and Thatcher.

Give up? It's the aggressive, 30-year campaign by Big Business and their conservative lapdogs to crush organized labor. That, more than any single thing, has pushed women who'd rather stay at home into the workforce, by eliminating the ability of working-class men to earn enough money on which to raise a whole family.

Anytime you want to start the "Does Capitalism Destroy Families?" thread, just let me know...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly



Anytime you want to start the "Does Capitalism Destroy Families?" thread, just let me know...

Will it involve the use of facts, statistics and graphs, and not have to rely on bluster, assumption and opinion ?

He may not be interested otherwise.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
St Leo - your argument is illogical, you cited stats from England during a time of brutal authoritarianism

OK- what's your source material for English history? "Braveheart" or "The Patriot"?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


OK- what's your source material for English history? "Braveheart" or "The Patriot"?

History books from Berzerkerworld, which has a shuttle service to the Nedaverse.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by molly bloom



He posted statistics referencing a period from 1551-1851. Exactly what 'brutal authoritarianism' was there in 1851 ?

How about people being shipped off to a penal colony half way around the world merely for getting into debt?

I suspect that disease and the Army or Navy had a great deal to do with this statistic though.

1551 to 1851 is however an extrodinarily broad period of time.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

How about people being shipped off to a penal colony half way around the world merely for getting into debt?

I suspect that disease and the Army or Navy had a great deal to do with this statistic though.

1551 to 1851 is however an extrodinarily broad period of time.

Brutal authoritarianism ?

It's called the rule of law- you execute people in America because in some states your laws call for the execution of criminals who have committed certain crimes. This does not then logically mean that your country is a 'brutal authoritarian' state.


The fact that there were a ludicrous number of laws relating to offences against property in Enlightenment and Victorian Britain doesn't mean that the country was a brutal authoritarian state. How many authoritarian states have habeas corpus, for instance ?

[Berzerker]

Molly

Please show where I 'defended' the Welfare State.

Here

Ah yes, divorce, part of those well known liberal plots, Judaism, Islam and Protestantism, most notably used in England by that famous 'liberal' Henry VIII .

That was your response to my 5th and final point in my first post about divorce rates. An illogical response, but a response nonetheless. Why your argument challenges the assertion that divorce is a liberal plot when no one here made that assertion can only be answered by you, but it was clearly a lame attempt to exonerate liberalism of any negative effects on divorce rates.

If you can't even be bothered to read my posts without interpreting them to your own ends, or putting words in my mouth, what's the point of posting ?

Thats funny, you're projecting.

For the record: I pointed out that divorce is part of three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity (at least the Protestant version).

And why is this relevant to divorce rates and liberalism? Did you read the first word of my 5th point and skip the rest? It appears like you did since you are still arguing that liberals didn't create divorce... so what? I never said they did. So much for...gasp...putting words in your mouth...

I pointed out that one of the world's most notable divorcees, pre-Modern Era was a monarch famously obsessed with maintaining or creating a line of inheritance, because of the somewhat shaky basis of his family's claim to the kingdom.

You said all that? No, you referred to the "liberal" Henry VIII and what he did to his wives. Why is this relevant? Because this was your proof divorce was not a liberal plot. Who said it was?

This might have clued you in into what a major aspect of divorce was/is- part of a contract, and recognition (in modern times) that a woman is no longer her husband's or her husband's family's property.

I'm looking at stats from the USA for the past 40-80 years as welfare grew, not Henry VIII's day. You dont compare systems distant from each other in so many ways, you look at one place over the decades of the social experiment.

You've shown no intrinsic link between 'liberal' policies as you define them, and divorce, or a higher divorce rate, since you haven't provided us with any notable examples of where a 'liberal' government altered divorce laws to make blame-free divorces or quickie divorces possible.

I know people who divorced to take advantage of welfare programs. You didn't even read the only point you quoted or you wouldn't have run off on some bizarre reference to Henry VIII and liberal plots. I suggest you go back and read the rest of my post before telling me I offered no "intrinsic link". I've seen it happen, intrinsic enough?

And somehow you converted this into my championing the cause of the 20th Century Welfare State.

You defended liberalism, the ideology behind the welfare state. From what charge? That it induces higher divorce rates. What was your proof? Henry VIII. Wtf does that mean? It means you thought I was claiming liberalism invented divorce, a "liberal plot". And you refuted this charge by identifying earlier practitioners of divorce who were anything but liberal. Just one problem...I never said liberalism invented divorce... You set up, and knocked down your own strawman.

chegitz

He was wrong. The Ottoman Empire was destroyed by free trade.

Country, not empire, and not an empire that ended with WWI long after Ben lived.

Doc

So the best we can do is try to alleviate the side effects of the reality of the world situation - a vast disparity in the economies of various countries leaves some countries with an advantage in labor cost, thus undercutting laborers in the higher wage countries. Sounds like an argument in favor of certain forms of welfare.

Doesn't absolve liberalism of the negative consequences. When that welfare creates more divorce, more out of wedlock births, and generational welfare, etc, someone screwed up big time.

I'ver known a lot of these guys. They don't give a second thought to the welfare, or lack thereof, of the mother and baby.

I've known couples with children who split up to get welfare. And one reason they dont give it a second thought is because doing away with certains kinds of shame is part of the liberal ideology. Fifty years ago it would have been dis-honorable, shameful to walk away from the girl you impregnated.

The origin of "Latchkey kids" is women who have to work because they've been abandoned by men with no sense of responsibility, or because they can't earn enough to pay the bills on the husband's income alone. Neither of these conditions is a result of liberalism, they're the result of attitudes that are more akin to libertarianism.

And do you consider all the taxes people pay a "bill"? And there you go again with the libertarianism, high taxes are not libertarian, they are liberal, All these programs that induce families to break up are liberal, not libertarian. And you just denied equating libertarianism with libertinism and you did it again. Walking out on your woman and child is not a libertarian attitude, its a libertine attitude. There are plenty of fathers who divorce or refuse to marry because of welfare programs. Thats one reason why out of wedlock birthrates are so high...

I disagree. In the "good old days" people conducted their lives along lines set down by tradition and community standards. That's not individualism. Today such community restraints on behavior are very much diminished.

And the members of those communities, unless slaves etc, volunteered to live by those standards - that is individualism. What is individualistic about an ideological program that seeks to make the rest of us responsible for the out of wedlock births of irresponsible people ( a behavior that has increased dramatically during the ~40 years of welfare preceded by the liberation of old folks under SS)?

Because conservatives in general very often adopt libertarian positions when it suits them, but refuse to accept the consequences of their policies when the down side appears.

So you blame libertarianism for the welfare state because conservatives are hypocrites?

Kid

The problem with the traditional role of the family is that individuals had to depend on their family. That flys in the face of the idea of freedom.

Once a kid is old enough, he has a choice - leave or stay. Regardless of what he chooses, he has exercised his freedom.

Rufus

Obviously, the term itself is an anachronism that long predates the 70s, when women's lib began.

There's a difference between "latchkey" and "latchkey kid". You think the latter pre-dated women's lib because the former predated it? Not logical...

Also, let's be clear: for the long duration of human history, in most cultures, poor women worked (in the fields) and wealthy (or even middle class) women raised their kids via servants. The housewife is an historical anomaly that liberalism (in the classic sense) created, rather than destroyed.

We aren't talking about classical liberalism. Here's a question for our resident expert: have the number of housewives increased proportionally to population over the last 40 years? I'll bet it has gone down...

Personal taxes have been steadily falling since the 1950s, when the top personal income tax bracket was over 80%. So I guess you're suggesting that the American family is in more traditional now than it was during the Eisenhower administration, right?

That top bracket had exemptions and loopholes for all sorts of stuff and relatively few people were in it. The payroll tax was maybe less than 1%, now its near 15%.
And why would I say that? That ain't a drop...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker

You defended liberalism, the ideology behind the welfare state.

No I didn't. You're even more in need of the services of an ophthalmologist than I thought. See if you can point out the words or phrases I used to defend a political creed in my response to your post, with quotes please.


Mocking your bizarre assumptions with a specific reference to an historic personage who used divorce to further his clan's claim to a throne is not by any stretch of any overheated imagination erecting a defence of liberalism.


Well, not in this timespace continuum.

[Pekka]

"Mocking your bizarre assumptions with a specific reference to an historic personage who used divorce to further his clan's claim to a throne is not by any stretch of any overheated imagination erecting a defence of liberalism."

combined with

"ophthalmologist"

just wait a minute. Do you expect us all to follow you 100% when you use big fancy college boy words like that? (=we want easy words).

[Berzerker]

Molly

He posted statistics referencing a period from 1551-1851. Exactly what 'brutal authoritarianism' was there in 1851 ?

You pick 1 year out of 300? I could pick at least 20. Britain was under a series of monarchs, that's authoritarian. The brutality was not practiced just on various colonies under the authoritarian rule of Britain, it had a caste system to boot. The sun didn't set on the British Empire because people all over the world were jumping at the chance to be ruled by foreigners.

On the other he has posted statistics, rather than suppositions, assumptions and opinions. I can see how this might throw you off course somewhat.

Stats showing what? Lets see if you read his posts better than mine.

How many authoritarian states have habeas corpus, for instance ?

Thats like saying Rome wasn't brutally authoritarian because Roman citizens has some nice privilege they didn't share with their colonies.

Rufus

Quick, what's the single biggest factor contributing to the rise of the two-income household?

Here's a hint: it's not women's lib.

I cited it as 1 cause, not the sole or even largest cause.

Here's another: it's strongly associated with both Reagan and Thatcher.

Give up? It's the aggressive, 30-year campaign by Big Business and their conservative lapdogs to crush organized labor. That, more than any single thing, has pushed women who'd rather stay at home into the workforce, by eliminating the ability of working-class men to earn enough money on which to raise a whole family.

How did Reagan destroy unions? By not allowing them to shut down industries or businesses?

Anytime you want to start the "Does Capitalism Destroy Families?" thread, just let me know...

You cant start it yourself?

[Berzerker]

Molly

Ah yes, divorce, part of those well known liberal plots, Judaism, Islam and Protestantism, most notably used in England by that famous 'liberal' Henry VIII .

That was your response to my 5th and final point in my first post about divorce rates. An illogical response, but a response nonetheless. Why your argument challenges the assertion that divorce is a liberal plot when no one here made that assertion can only be answered by you, but it was clearly a lame attempt to exonerate liberalism of any negative effects on divorce rates.

You still haven't explained your intent of dredging Henry up, but since you did it to point out he was not a liberal and divorced wives in response to a critique identifying liberal policies as a culprit in higher divorce rates, it is reasonable to conclude your intent was to defend liberalism and by extension, its effect on divorce rates. Otherwise your post is meaningless, not just illogical. Give it some meaning, explain what you are defending if it isnt liberalism.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Berzerker

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport5/0802.htm

That graph shows a 15% jump in just 20 years.

Nice stat, but all it says is that at the time of birth, the mother wasn't married. It doesn't say that all these childrens are raised by a single parent. It doesn't say anything about father and mother got married later or if they just live together as a family.