Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

From Seasonal Libertarianism To Long-Term Welfare
Weekend Libertarian ^ | June 1, 2011 | B.P. Terpstra

Posted on 05/31/2011 8:27:46 PM PDT by AustralianConservative

Happy with high taxes America? Thank an unwed single mother! From The Heritage Foundation:

In fact, roughly 75 percent of all families on welfare are single-parent families. With the number of unwed births skyrocketing over the last five decades (more than 40 percent of births in the United States today are to single moms), the cost of federal welfare has mushroomed. Currently, Washington operates more than 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion annually.

Yet poverty and government dependence aren’t the only problems connected to single-parent families. Children raised without fathers are at greater risk for a host of negative outcomes, such as poorer social and emotional behavior, delinquency, and lower academic outcomes.

Thank the Soros-backed Cato Institute too. Conservatives did warn libertarians. Realists know the deal: Support adults-fist libertarianism - lose your financial liberty.

Ignore Rome? In reality, seasonal libertarians who undermine the importance of rearing children in marriage are promoting government dependence. Why should churches and taxpayers be pressured to cover the costs, when think tank theologians disappear?

There’s also a problem when a society places Libertarianism over Responsibilitarianism. Balance is lost, when liberty becomes a $1 trillion chain.

(Excerpt) Read more at weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: blogpimp; dependence; kochbrothers; singlemothers; singleparentfamilies; soros; taxation; unwedmothers; welfare
http://weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/06/from-seasonal-libertarianism-to-long.html
1 posted on 05/31/2011 8:27:49 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

Obviously a growth industry fueled by government money. Who said the government was always a drag on industry?


2 posted on 05/31/2011 8:36:45 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (There's a pill for just about everything ... except stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
For some reason the blogger who writes this stuff likes to use the word "Libertarianism" over and over again, even though it has nothing to do with what he is saying.

Minor detail - libertarians don't believe in welfare payments except in the most extreme instances, and certainly not for unwed mothers.

3 posted on 05/31/2011 8:38:43 PM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

The author is an idiot who hasn’t the slightest clue about what libertarianism is.


4 posted on 05/31/2011 8:39:06 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

Takes two to create a child. Takes two to raise/support a child. The AWOL parent is more to blame for that child costing others to support. At least the parent that stuck around is doing something to hold up his/her end.


5 posted on 05/31/2011 8:40:19 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
Support adults-fist

Here's another reason the author is an idiot. He or she depends upon spell check instead of actually reading their own words.

6 posted on 05/31/2011 8:40:48 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Takes two to create a child. Takes two to raise/support a child. The AWOL parent is more to blame for that child costing others to support. At least the parent that stuck around is doing something to hold up his/her end.

EXACTLY!!! That needs to be repeated!!!

On another note, I firmly believe the number one problem with any and all social services is illegal aliens that should not be here to begin with. I know MANY single parent mothers and all of them that I know are all working and struggling to survive without social services. Not all single mothers are on the dole- many fathers have opted out of fathership but not all single mothers are draining the system because of it. I know that many single mothers are on social services- but most of them have relatives that have paid into the system for many years- that is not usually the case with illegals. Many illegals send their money to Mexico to relatives that are not paying into the system, while collecting many benefits here.

We do have deadbeat citizens that exist on the dole when they likely could get off their backside and go to work. We have always had them- and our system wasn't this messed up because of them. I absolutely believe illegals have overwhelmed our social services, our educational system, our judicial system- courts/jails. I believe illegals are the elephant in the room for all these major issues. When the border is secure and large numbers of illegals are deported then I will complain about citizens that abuse the system. Until we go after the worst offenders- illegals then I will not believe we are serious about these issues.

7 posted on 05/31/2011 9:02:20 PM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing

Exactly. Libertarians I know would see that “almost $1T welfare” figure and immediately drop it from the budget as a no-brainer and call it “an excellent START.” While libertarians would say raising a child alone is the parent’s right, NONE would suggest the taxpayers pay for it.


8 posted on 05/31/2011 9:14:41 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (There's a reason the mascot of the Democratic Party is a jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

“Soros-backed Cato Institute”????

LOL. The Cato Institute was founded by Charles Koch and Ed Crane. Soros didn’t have a thing to do with it other than speak at a Hayek event there a while back. Soros was invited to speak there because he attended the London School of Economics when Hayek and Popper taught there. Even though both Cato and Soros knew they were intellectually opposed, Soros was a good speaker selection because he could represent the view of the opposition. That’s what happens in a real debate: opponents present their arguments. The so-called “weekend libertarian” offers an exceptionally lame argument: he does not even understand the libertarianism well enough to oppose it. (At least Soros is smart enough to create a decent libertarian straw man for his argument. The author of this article could not even manage to describe the faintest resemblence to libertarianism.)

Fact is, the writer does not understand libertarianism, or perhaps he does, and is trying to create a misimpression about libertarianism among the conservatives at FR.

Bearing in mind that the Kochs — the same libertarian Kochs that liberals love to hate — founded the Cato Institute, consider the following or the distinction between the practical politics of the Kochs and Soros.

Individual donations to federal candidates, parties and political action committees (1989 to 2010)

Koch Brothers: $2.58 million
George Soros: $1.74 million

David Koch: $2,224,170
•$667,500 – National Republican Congressional Committee
•$555,000 – Republican National Committee
•$191,400 – National Republican Senatorial Committee

Charles G. Koch: $363,100
•$58,900 – National Republican Senatorial Committee
•$50,000 – Republican National Committee

George Soros: $1,748,627
•$252,670 – Democratic National Committee
•$147,216 – Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
•$259,716 – Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

David Koch’s Favorite congressional members:
$17,100 – Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.)
$7,600 – Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.)
$7,200 – Mark Foley (R-Fla.)
$6,600 – James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
$5,000 – Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)

George Soros’ favorite congressional members:
$6,500 – Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)
$6,200 – Jon Cranley (D-Ohio)
$6,000 – Ken Salazar (D-Colo.)
$6,000 – Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.)
$5,500 – Tom Perriello (D-Va.)


9 posted on 05/31/2011 9:53:57 PM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing

In theory professional libertarians are against welfare, in reality they promote it through their actions. Open borders – a pathway to welfare. Encouraging youth to have sex knowing full well they can’t support themselves. Pretending that drugs don’t create dependent citizens. And so on.


10 posted on 06/01/2011 6:38:25 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I’ve never bought the two wrongs make a right argument. Nevertheless, this argument ignores the fact that many women have children and kick the father out too. Or love sperm banks.


11 posted on 06/01/2011 6:40:25 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Skepolitic

Soros has given thousands to CATO, period. So CATO is backed by him. I wonder why.


12 posted on 06/01/2011 6:42:52 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

Now there’s an exercies in socialism - you’re responsible for the consequences of anything you didn’t prevent someone else from doing. Nice.


13 posted on 06/01/2011 6:44:19 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789

That’s true – libertarians say they would cut all welfare taxes (in their theoretical world). In the real world, where real people live, taxes will continue to rise where there is unwed mother promiscuity, period.

So is it a wise to look the other way? Why are libertarians so silent on this issue? I wish they were as LOUD about marijuana rights as they were about responsibility. (Read Ann Coulter’s Guilty for the long version.)


14 posted on 06/01/2011 6:50:05 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

In point of fact, professional libertarians have undermined borders for years, and encouraged the anchor baby movement. They have supported laws to damage the institution of marriage and so on. Next they’ll be using the Nuremberg defense and say their leaders encouraged them. Ann Coulter was right.


15 posted on 06/01/2011 6:55:50 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

In point of fact, libertarianism is not a profession.


16 posted on 06/01/2011 6:58:05 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

How many women who can afford sperm banks are on welfare?

A child need 2 parents to thrive. Why are we demonizing the parent who is THERE, the one who has not absconded?

There would be far fewer kids on welfare if both parents contributed to both the raising and the financial support of their own offspring. The parent who is AWOL is more the problem than the parent who is there.


17 posted on 06/01/2011 8:09:20 AM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

True but if we discontinued subsidizing unwed parenthood, we’d have a lot less of it.

What other “job” can one get that pays more the more kids you have? Those of us who actually earn a living have to “make do” when we CHOOSE to add to our family.

And every single child is a CHOICE which comes from voluntarily engaging in the behavior that results in a child.


18 posted on 06/01/2011 8:13:06 AM PDT by GatorGirl (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GatorGirl

A choice is made by both parties when they engage in sex.
The party that skips out entirely on his/her responsibility is more at fault (both to the child’s detriment and the taxpayer) than the party that sticks around.


19 posted on 06/01/2011 8:32:55 AM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

“Soros has given thousands to CATO, period.”

1.) DiscoverTheNetworks.org does not indicate any Soros support of Cato. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
Cato’s left-wing critics do not indicate Soros support of Cato. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cato-institute

But, you did say it was “thousands”? Wow! Even though the amount is trivial, can you supply a citation for that?

2.) For all those “thousands”, Soros did not get much love from Cato. Consider this clip from a Cato article:

“Have you ever wondered why billionaires like George Soros financially support politicians who say they will ‘increase taxes on the rich’? The answer quite simply is that the tax increases are most often put on people trying to become rich, not those already rich. ... The hypocrisy of George Soros is often noted. He is a man who voices many left-wing and even socialist ideas and has been a major critic of the United States for years. Yet, his actions in his own financial interest, using highly questionable tactics and insider information, have made him billions. His modus operandi is to do political favors for left-wing politicians and then use them for his own advantage. ...

when people like George Soros and other big financial backers of politicians use confidential inside information or their ability to manipulate the political class for their own ends, it hurts everyone else. The larger the government and the more discretion government officials have regarding issues that can damage or benefit private parties, the more opportunities there will be for abuse and corruption.”

Those are the words of a sycophantic recipient of Open Society money. It should be obvious that Soros has no influence at Cato.


20 posted on 06/01/2011 8:40:52 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Perhaps both parties need to take a bit more responsibility or “just say no” and get their jollies other ways as opposed to engaging in risky behavior with another person who is clearly not ready to take on the responsibility of the consequences of their action. Most of these people have no intention of forming a family with their “baby mama” or “baby daddy”.

The vast majority of these so called “single parents” are not poor jilted wives who put all their trust in a bad man, they are people who engaged in sexual activity with not a care for the potential results or who willingly conceived so they could up their welfare eligibility.


21 posted on 06/01/2011 11:13:01 AM PDT by GatorGirl (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GatorGirl

The welfare is for the child. If there were 2 parents supporting the child then there would be less need for welfare. Therefore, the parent who is AWOL is causing the greater harm to the taxpayer (not to mention the child) by precipitating the need for welfare to begin with.

Of course, both are responsible for the child being there to begin with ... but after that fact, the parent who will not support his/her offspring is the one most responsible for loading the taxpayer with the burden.


22 posted on 06/01/2011 11:59:15 AM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

I’m just saying that if we didn’t provide the incentive, the child wouldn’t need the welfare because he/she wouldn’t exist!

Let families, churches, charities pick up the slack for those who really need it.

“Single Parents” aren’t all poverty stricken BTW. The child is just a cog in a very large wheel of poor choices.

The “It’s for the Children” mentality, among others, is what has gotten us into the mess we’re in. And welfare reform? Fine, AFDC/TANF no longer available? I’ll just get some quack to deem my kid “disabled” and they’ll get an SSI check for life. The only welfare reform that will work is an end to ALL handouts.

Goodbye Social Security!


23 posted on 06/01/2011 12:14:29 PM PDT by GatorGirl (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Actually, politics and therefore strains of politics like libertarianism can be a profession (especially for out of touch people). I like the term “professional libertarianism” a term professional libertarians would love to censor, ironically enough.

Columnist Matt Lewis’ position is also spot on:

Liberals tend to set up equality as the highest good. Equality is the end goal of most liberal policy. The conservative asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Equality is certainly good, but as a highest end and goal, it can lead to devastating consequences.

Likewise, the pure libertarian (as opposed to those of us who have some libertarian leanings) sets up liberty as the highest good. Liberty is the end goal of all policy. The conservative looks to the libertarian and asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Liberty is obviously a great good, but as the highest end goal, it can also lead to devastating consequences.

The conservative argues that the greatest instructor on what laws should exist in a civil society is human experience. So, it would seem libertarianism hits its own walls when it ventures out of its world of make-believe theories and steps into the world of reality.


24 posted on 06/01/2011 4:41:00 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

Can you tell me the difference between this “professional libertarian” term you’ve invented, and the textbook definition of the work “anarchist”?


25 posted on 06/01/2011 4:44:49 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Skepolitic

Oh so Soros doesn’t back CATO – but when I say he gave thousands that really isn’t much money? Tell that to a prolife group and ask them if $80,000 is chicken feed? Note too that he is a socialist billionaire, so we return to the issue of more professional libertarian hypocrisy.

One example: “Cato Institute: $80,000 over 2 years to support a public and policymaker education campaign on the threats to civil liberties that a national system of identification would pose.”

That buys influence, and for every one critical thinker, there are two more clapping seals.

(http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4AEI3sXUUHMJ:www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/security/focus_areas/nshr-grantees-20101201.pdf+cato+institute+open+society+institute&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

But I digress. Professional libertarians are “never wrong” and “beyond ccountability.” Better to target advocates of conservative free speech, than welfare queens (another example of hypocrisy). I refer you to Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell for more information.


26 posted on 06/01/2011 5:15:59 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

How dare I “invent” words? LOL: Go tell the thought police. Only libertarians have the right to make up words? Big Brother is well pleased I’m sure.

I’m reminded of an Ann Coulter line: Scratch a civil libertarian, find a fascist. How about we get angry about the welfare queens closest to you? Save your righteous anger for them.


27 posted on 06/01/2011 5:21:10 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
You didn't answer the question. It's funny to watch somebody make references to 1984 while they play games with semantics.
28 posted on 06/01/2011 5:32:29 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

“How many women who can afford sperm banks are on welfare?” Where there’s a will there is a way. Sex operations are being handed out!

But there’s a bigger point: After using sperm banks many fall into the welfare trap. Others find cheaper “methods.” The one pattern: adults-only rights for certain people. They are burdens on society. Some of them should be sent to work camps and forced to adopt out their children.

“A child need 2 parents to thrive. Why are we demonizing the parent who is THERE, the one who has not absconded?”

Of course they need two to thrive, that’s my point! The truth is many have kicked out men – or chosen to sleep with rats and then played the victim. If one is capable of giving birth, one must think through these things more carefully.

My message to wild women: Keep your legs closed if you’re unmarried and vulnerable to pregnancy. There are enough father-hungry kids (aka anarchists) in gangs and jails.

“There would be far fewer kids on welfare if both parents contributed to both the raising and the financial support of their own offspring. The parent who is AWOL is more the problem than the parent who is there.”

I’m not talking about once married couples where there is a death, for example, but designer single mothers. However, America will probably be bankrupt before she wakes up, and then the truth will hit the fan.

Another point: Boys raised by single mothers are more likely to impregnate unwed women. It is a very feral circle – and conservatives are tired of paying for these social experiments.


29 posted on 06/01/2011 5:40:38 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

“In the real world, where real people live, taxes will continue to rise where there is unwed mother promiscuity, period.”

It is that belief in the inevitability of welfare that is the real problem. You’ve confused libertarians with the squishy “compassionate conservative” or the “progressive left.” Libertarians are perfectly willing to let people live with the consequences of their own decisions.


30 posted on 06/01/2011 6:22:31 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (There's a reason the mascot of the Democratic Party is a jackass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

When reasoning and then writing this piece, the author was clearly baked.


31 posted on 06/01/2011 6:28:46 PM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
Sorry, but just because you don't like the ideas of freedom and liberty, like the founders of our nation did, doesn't mean that you get to suspend the rules of logic.

The "actions" of libertarians are nothing like what you suggest they are, and you ascribe to libertarians all kinds of beliefs that they simply don't have. I think perhaps you don't understand the difference between liberals and libertarians, or maybe you are really just a good old fashioned right wing statist - the kind who deep down in their hearts wants a big government that intrudes into everyone's lives.

32 posted on 06/02/2011 4:17:26 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
OK, now I'm starting to understand the Australian...

Likewise, the pure libertarian (as opposed to those of us who have some libertarian leanings) sets up liberty as the highest good. Liberty is the end goal of all policy. The conservative looks to the libertarian and asks, “Why does that idea become valued over all others?” Liberty is obviously a great good, but as the highest end goal, it can also lead to devastating consequences.

The conservative argues that the greatest instructor on what laws should exist in a civil society is human experience.

Of course in the late 1700s human experience showed that the most successful form of society was a monarchy, and in particular the one in England was at the top of the stack. By the Australian's test, it of course showed the proper form of societal governance.

But somewhere far away a group of people thought that a different kind of society, one whose government was based on liberty as its overarching goal, was a better idea. Ultimately, the two groups had quite a war, and the libertarians won.

33 posted on 06/02/2011 4:25:23 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
n point of fact, professional libertarians have undermined borders for years, and encouraged the anchor baby movement.

Yep, those guys who drafted the constitution and the amendment that provides for birth right citizenship are the root of our problems today! I knew we shouldn't have trusted Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, etc. /sarc

34 posted on 06/02/2011 4:28:31 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative
“Cato Institute: $80,000 over 2 years to support a public and policymaker education campaign on the threats to civil liberties that a national system of identification would pose.”

So what's wrong with _anybody_ putting up some money to study the "threats to civil liberties" that result from national systems of identification?

Are you one of those "conservatives" who think that a national ID card is a good idea?

35 posted on 06/02/2011 4:32:37 AM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

The use of sperm banks is not the cause of the welfare problem.


36 posted on 06/03/2011 8:13:25 AM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Who said sperm banks were the only issue? This is a red herring. But two wrongs don’t make a right. There are ethical and financial reasons to oppose sperm banks, because children aren’t social experiments.


37 posted on 06/03/2011 5:38:40 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

YOU brougt up sperm banks in post #11 as a factor in welfare situations.
It IS a red herring in this discussion, I agree.
Why even bring it up in the first place?

The overwhelming majority of children on welfare have a father who is AWOL both financially and physically, a fact that you seem eager to not talk about.


38 posted on 06/03/2011 7:57:17 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson