Wow! So you made a pro-libertarian comment on a thread that can not be read because it was removed by the moderator. Now that really sounds like you "commonly defend libertarians," and there by proves that you "defend them in most threads" as you stated in reply #12. Hmmm... with that kind of proof, its no wonder that our country has been loosing its morality at an expedited rate. Without honesty, there can be no real morality.
And my posting history is pretty consistent with wanting to get back to a pre-FDR size Federal Government.
That's nice, but it has nothing to do in the slightest with libertarianism, or defending libertarians.
You ought to go back an reread replies #42, 81, 89, 97, 104. Not one of them was addressing the topic of "out-of-wedlock first birth rate" as you claim.
But again, we have to face the choice to either isolate our children socially, or to give in to the corrupting influences of society.
Actually good parents have always had to do both and a good deal more. It sounds to me like you don't want the challenge of parenting, preferring instead that government do your parenting responsibilities for you. If that is the case, then you probably shouldn't be a parent. But I know, you are now stuck with the responsibility. Well then do it, and stop trying to get government to do it for you.
This comes from what libertarian economists such as the Austrians often refer to as "What is seen, and what is not seen."
The concept you speak of here is from "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen," written by Frederic Bastiat, a Frenchman, and one of the most entertaining of the fathers of modern libertarian theory. The concept pre- dates the Austrian school. I think it would be worth your time to read it. At least before attempting to use it. Likewise, you might want to use a dictionary before spouting off about "liberal" trends.
There are daughters that today are being socially isolated from their peers because they don't dress like the girls in a booty video.
There are always going to be daughters isolated from their peers for a wide range of reasons. I hope you really do not believe that government should step in and prevent such isolations.
You make a good point. I am worried about the breakdown in morals of our society but I think you are right about not regulating cable. On other issues I've been known that you are headed down the wrong path when you are in favor of governmental solutions to problems created by government involvement. We should instead focus on dismantling the government's safety nets that subsidize irresponible behavior at the expense of family.