Sunday, June 30, 2013

State VS Family

One only has to look at the facts to see that the State views the family as competition and is trying to eliminate it.

From: The Ludwig von Mises Institute 
In turning to Sweden, we find a classic case of bureaucratic manipulation to destroy the state's principal rival as a focus of loyalty: the family. Viewing this rivalry between state and family, it is important to understand that a basic level of "dependency" is a constant in all societies. In every human community, there are infants and children, persons who are very old, individuals who have severe handicaps, and others who are seriously ill. These people cannot take care of themselves. Without help from others, they will die. Every society must have a way of giving care to these dependents. Under the domain of liberty, the natural institution of the family (supplemented and supported by local communities and voluntary organizations) provides the protection and care which these "dependent" people need. Indeed, it is in the autonomous family—and only in the family—where the pure socialist principle actually works: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

From: Forbes
As the Times reports, families look very different today than they did just a few decades ago. Turn back the clock 30 year, and less than 20% of births occurred outside marriage. Today the rate is 41%. While that difference used to be attributed mostly to race, education seems to be the determining factor now: as recently as 1990, only 10% of the births to white women with some postsecondary education but no college degree were outside of marriage. Today it’s tripled to 30%. It’s even worse for women with a high school degree or less: the figure is 60% for them.

(from: Single Parent Magazine)


approximately 13.6 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.2 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today).
- U.S. Census Bureau


Single father homes are the fastest growing type of family situation; the amount of single fathers has grown by 60% in the last ten years alone.


Million children (almost one child in twenty) live in a household headed by their grandparent with no parent present.

Then look at the upside downside:

From: NYT

But while the fact that the sons of single mothers struggle more than their daughters is the easy headline to take away from the work done by Professors Autor and Wasserman, it’s the wrong one. The focus on men and boys shouldn’t distract from a larger problem: single mothers and their daughters may be doing better, but they can’t be said to be thriving. Single motherhood is associated with poor health in middle age, financial hardship and depression. The statistical impacts of being raised by a single parent (like lower average scores on standardized tests, poorer grades and an increased likelihood of dropping out of high school or failing to attend college) may be stronger for sons, but they affect daughters too.

Now almost no one will point the finger at the source of the problem - but perhaps the following can shed some light on the subject.

The rise of the welfare state can be written as the steady transfer of the "dependency" function from the family to the state; from persons tied together by blood, marriage or adoption to persons tied to public employees. The process began in Sweden in the mid-19th century, through bureaucratic projects that began dismantling the bonds between parents and their children. In classic pattern, the first assertion of state control over children came in the 1840s, with the passage of a mandatory school attendance law. While justified as a measure to improve the knowledge and welfare of the people, the deeper dynamic was the socialization of children's time, through the assumptions that state functionaries—the Swedish kingdom's bureaucrats—knew better than parents how children's time should be spent, and that parents could not be expected or trusted to protect their children from exploitation.
The next step came in 1912, with legislation that effectively banned child labor in factories, and to some degree on farms. Again, the implicit assumption was that state welfare officials were better judges of the use of children's time, and more compassionate toward children than parents were or could be.
The final step came at about the same time, when the Swedish government implemented a program of old-age or retirement pensions that quickly became universal. The underlying act here was the socializing of another dependency function, this time, the dependency of the "very old" and the "weak" on mature adults. For eons, the care of the elderly had been a family matter. Henceforward, it would be the state's concern. Taking all of these reforms together, the net effect was to socialize the economic value of children. The natural economy of the household, and the value that children had brought their parents—be it as workers in the family enterprise or as an 'insurance policy' for old age—was stripped away. Parents were still left with the costs of raising the children, but the economic gain they would eventually represent had been seized by "society," meaning the bureaucratic state.
 Look a the growth of the EBT card in the U.S. as yet another dependency program.  And now ObamaCare.  

When the family fails - what's left?  Nothing but slaves to the state.  And there is no other term than slave that fits - someone else is determining your needs, your wants, your job, the future of your children, what you can eat, when you can eat it, where you live.  It's slavery and 50% of the people in this country can't seem to get enough of it.


No comments:

Post a Comment