Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lorianne
The original discussion was WHO is responsible for kids created. You seemed to think it was only the mother and that the mother and children should suffer the consequences with no help either from welfare or the support of the father. This is a fundemental flaw in the concept of "personal responsibility". It weakens the whole case. Either every individual is responsible for his/her actions and their consequences, or no one is. Fish or cut bait.

My original point was that women bear some responsibility for who they choose to conceive children with. I agree that a husband and father has a responsibility to his kids. This has been the pattern in US society up until around the 1960's.

Prior to the 1960's, a husbandless mother with young kids would rely on relatives, her church, or private charity to help out. The consequences of husbandless parenting were sufficiently bad that women were more selective in who they had kids by, and tended to get married. This kept the level of illegitimacy sufficiently low that husbandless women COULD be supported by their families (since there would be at most one woman in the extended family at any point in time) without creating hardship for the extended family

Then welfare came along. Low-income men discovered that welfare benefits added up to more than they could contribute to a family from a minimum-wage job, and the result was an explosion in illegitimacy

No, I'm not confusing the two. With regard to taxes going to welfare AT ALL, is not taxation without representation because we as a body of voters have voted to fund welfare!

If I could convince a majority of voters to send you to the gas chambers, would you go along with that as proper, since we as a body have voted for it? How about re-instituting slavery? That had the support of the majority of the voting population in the US at one time.

Read again what I wrote in #37. You ARE confusing the two. "Equality of rights" means that what is legal for A is also legal for B, and what's illegal for A is also illegal for B. "Equality of condition" means that if A is economicly worse off than B, then it is legitimate to take away some of B's stuff without B's consent and give it to A. I support the former. The latter is the classic Marxist viewpoint, which I reject

You keep saying that we would have a horrible situation without AFDC and the rest of the Welfare State. Prior to the 1960's we did not have AFDC, and we did not have a horrible situation.

40 posted on 05/10/2002 11:50:31 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: SauronOfMordor
"Equality of rights" means that what is legal for A is also legal for B, and what's illegal for A is also illegal for B.

It appears we concur. So, if creating an child you either can't or won't support is irresponsible or wrong for A it is irresponsible/wrong for B as well.

"Equality of condition" means that if A is economicly worse off than B, then it is legitimate to take away some of B's stuff without B's consent and give it to A.

Except that we did NOT take away from B without consent, we voted on funding welfare because most voters thought at the time (1960's) it would solve some problems. It turns out we were wrong about much of the strategy and miscalculated unintended consequences. Ooops. Now we're trying to correct some of those mistakes. Welfare Reform is supposed to be about correcting or recalibrating the welfare system, not creating new problems (like "family caps" did). Let's be more careful and not be so "wrong" again. IMO a better strategy this time around would be focussing on individual responsibility.

You keep saying that we would have a horrible situation without AFDC and the rest of the Welfare State. Prior to the 1960's we did not have AFDC, and we did not have a horrible situation.

That was in large part because we DID require fathers to be responsible moreso than we do today ie "shotgun weddings". I'm not suggesting we go back to that, but the premis of dual responsibility for kids (by the people who created them) is a sound premis. We can build on that.
41 posted on 05/10/2002 1:30:48 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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