Thursday, October 29, 2009

Laws is wrong, but

he is expressing the frustration of those who see an underclass of violent, negligent and destructive people breeding, producing children who face a bleak and difficult future.

His solution as described in the Dominion Post is wrong. Damned if taxpayers should reward people for being indolent, otherwise it becomes a career option for the stupid - be sufficiently vile and threaten to breed and get someone else's money for nothing. It has been deliberately misconstrued as "totalitarian", as if people have a right to be appallingly bad parents, when the likes of Cindy Kiro (backed by Sue Bradford) did advocate a totalitarian solution, yet no mainstream media ever picked up on it.

However he has a point. A point that the Child Poverty (in)Action Group misses, because it worships at the altar of "higher benefits" rather than genuinely combating the lack of ambition and the feral behaviour of so many in poverty. Barnadoes Chief Executive Murray Edridge rightfully says any child could become a doctor but he is wrong in saying "as long as there was community support for them", as he implies that good parents are expendable. The truth is that they are not. Sue Bradford even trots out the usual "more resources" nonsense to combat violence.

No, you don't need money to stop killing your kids.

The fundamental problem is twofold.

Firstly, people are paid to breed. Many who are don't abuse their kids, but they inculcate a culture of entitlement. A belief that everyone owes them a living and should pay to raise their kids. However, you can be a murderer, rapist, violent criminal, burglar or fraudster and still be paid by the state to raise kids, and get more money with every child you have.

The first simple thing to do is to prohibit all people convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence from ever being able to claim welfare. That includes anything for raising children.

Oh, but what about the kids? Indeed, the parents should have thought of that. They are responsible for the children, they bear the burden of paying for that. If people want to help, they are free to do so voluntarily. However, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for criminals to breed - simple as that. After that, you might ask whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for anyone to breed.

Secondly, the state needs to be willing to remove children from their parents when they abuse them or become an accessory to abuse of them. The threshold should be high, but effort should be put into intervening when there is clear evidence of criminal behaviour towards the children, or fundamental neglect. Indeed, it should be considered in sentencing whether criminals should be permanently denied custody of their children, if the offending is serious or the children were used as accessories.

Finally, parents who clearly can't look after their kids should surrender them as a last resort, those who say they care about child poverty might actually think about doing something about kids in those situations, rather than complain the government hasn't done it.

There has always been an underclass that neglects and abuses children, what we know now is that it is more publicised, and cases appear to be more frequent. However, the answer to this underclass is to stop feeding the attitudes of dependency, victimhood and blame passing that welfarism promotes, and indeed more than a few on the left promote (the nonsense that capitalism stresses people out so much, they turn on their children).


Redbaiter said...

"However, the answer to this underclass is to stop feeding the attitudes of dependency, victimhood and blame passing that welfarism promotes"

No its not actually the answer. The items you list above are subsets of Progressivism.

The root cause of all the social illnesses we now suffer from is the removal of moral constraints from society. Without these voluntary barriers to destructive behaviour, society will breakdown.

The question that needs answering is "how why and when were these moral constraints removed?".

How- they were removed incrementally by means of a Gramscian style assault on our Jeudo Christian heritage. Popular culture, media and the education system (particularly universities) were all perverted from their real purpose and became instruments of social change.

When- more difficult to answer, but given that welfare roles, sexual promiscuity, violent crime and various other negative social factors all began increasing back in the sixties and have continued a steady climb since then, its a fair guess to say it started somewhere in the late 50s to late 60s.

Why is the most easily answered. It was all done to bring power to a specific political group- socialists, liberals, communists, social democrats, fake environmentalists, fake feminists and various other anti-capitalist movements can all be grouped under one heading and that is Progressives, and at the core of the Progressive plan was the breaking down of the existing social structure and its replacement with an easily manipulated and controlled socialist society.

Your problem Scott is that while you express your discontent at the state of society today, you have actually helped the left achieve the breakdown they wanted by assisting them in their assault on the foundations of the society that existed before.

Just think about how you might have done that. I could explain it to you, but I'm not in to over long posts. However, I can give you something to jump start your thoughts- Its that extremely offensive message you left on NOT PC, wherein you try to attach the social stigmas of child molestation and fraud to every Christian.

Do you know that since the decline of Christianity, the figures for child molestation in secular schools far out strip those relating to similar offences in Christian establishments? Do you think that your actions as a Libertarian, in attacking Christianity when it was a part of the cement that bound society to a functioning moral code, have helped the problem of child molestation and the other social ills that concern you, or have you made the situation worse?

Peter said...

Redbaiter has a point. The sexual revolution could never have occurred without a welfare state to deal with the fallout.

James said...

Redbaiter thinks the foundations of our society were Christian....when in fact its the Greeks we have to thank for the best of Western society.No mention is made of the destructive and life destroying asppects caused by Christian dominance ie:girls imprisoned in mental asylums till their 90's for having a child out of wedlock.Spousal abuse based on the notion that the man is head of the house and the logical follow on that violence is justifed in ensuring it stays that way....etc etc.

Just how supernatural fantasy delivers the best results for man as opposed to reason applied to objective reality is not explained....but then how can it?

Redbaiter said...

James you're just a liar. As usual using randomly chosen and disconnected incidents and outright untruths to attempt to smear good people, at the same time as you whine like a stuck pig if anyone makes any similar generalisation relating to homosexuals, (who have their own religion- the belief that they suffer discrimination).

Recent Jeudo Christian society was only the hell you portray it to be in your festering and poisoned mind, and you need to think about what recriminations homosexuals as a group may suffer in future as heterosexuals who hold traditional moral codes dear get more and more pissed off with the depravity of your lies and misrepresentation.

You see Scott- here is another example of your lot not using the kind of UN PC language you so severely criticise Redbaiter for, but alleging events and acts that are as bad as anything Hitler ever dreamed up to stigmatize the Jews. This is just pure poison and hate, but because it conforms to Progressive ideas on "correct" language, you stay silent.

Peter said...

Overall Christianity has been a net positive, while societies supposedly founded on reason and scientific principles have all ended as totalitarian bloodbaths. I'll choose a country founded on Puritanism (like the USA) over them any day.

libertyscott said...

Redbaiter 1: There is not universal absence of moral restraint is there? It remains that most families and most people grow up with moral teaching, it may not explicitly come from going to church, but certainly has elements of that, and a fairly rational basis of simple mutual respect of others. The problem are those without that. I actually posted a few weeks ago precisely on this point - how to fill the moral gap that the shift from a Christian based society has caused.

My link of the Catholic Church and its simpering lack of morality until very recently in protecting its priests from criminal law for the most appalling torture and abuse of children was simply to point out that such behaviour would easily encourage thousands to flee the Church in disgust. You cannot get moral guidance from an organisation that can't adequately police morality within its four walls.

It is not the only one that has done this, there are plenty of state institutions that were meant to protect that also saw this attitude taken, but none of those institutions were actively promoting a set of moral standards that others must follow - the Catholic Church does, and has been found wanting. The fact other churches (indeed religions) also have been havens for sexual predators has all degraded severely their moral standing in the eyes of many.

Many would rightfully ask "who are you to tell us right from wrong when you hide and even collude with the state in protecting the evil amongst yourselves" (take the recent Irish report).

Have you got a figure for how secular schools have seen more molestation than Christian schools? That's curious, although as long as it is weighted on a per pupil basis it would be a valid comparison.

libertyscott said...

James/Redbaiter: James is right that Ancient Greece is the foundation of civilised humanity, birthplace of so much that has been built upon.

James makes a point that is worth thinking about, which was what was desperately wrong about Judeo-Christian society until the 20th century at certain points. It was the tradition bound bigotry that saw women, children and other races seen as second class citizens in a number of dimensions.

Women were treated as being inferior, incapable of doing all sorts of things, they were expected to leave school get married and breed. Domestic violence was not talked about, and getting prosecutions for it was difficult. The husband would say "she fell down the stairs", the Police would say "his word against yours" and that was it. Sexual harassment at workplaces whilst uncommon was simply part of the job. Complaining meant you lost your job. Women who got pregnant were expected to give away the child, the man who got her pregnant could run away and she had no rights whatsoever if he denied having anything to do with it (no DNA testing of course).

The feminist movement DID need to confront all of this, which was about the state treating women on the same basis as men, and requiring men to take responsibility for their actions. It was about women no longer being chattels of men. Now yes it ended up going beyond that, but the point remains.

Children it was simply you are seen and not heard. If your parents weren't on your side (i.e. sexually abusing you) you had little chance of being able to do anything. Adults were believed over children, and that was it. Something needed to be done about that, but again it is a world of hysteria now.

On race the US was the most glaring example where half the country had a form of apartheid, but elsewhere race was seen as marking someone as less capable.

Homosexuals simply were thrown in prison.

The failure of conservative Western judeo-Christian society to really confront its bigotry gave cause celebre for these social movements to gain momentum. The fact they went too far is in part because the continued resistance to the agenda by some meant those pushing the "progressive" agenda became more radical, but it is also the failure of secular rationalists to effectively draw the line between the conservatives and the post-modernist radicals.

That, is where I come from. You accuse me of being "progressive" as they accuse me of being "conservative".

As awful as the phrase is, given past usage, I believe there is a third way between Christianity sourced morality and the post-modernist moral relativism of the so-called "progressives", it is rational objective based morality.

libertyscott said...

Peter (second comment): You said "supposedly" which of course is the only thing that saves your sentence from being nonsense. None of the totalitarian bloodbaths had anything to do with reason. Marxism-Leninism is a post-modernist construction of collective thought based not on reality, but on a bigoted view of class and imputed power structures. It bore no relationship to reality, so rivers of blood ensued. Nazism was based on false "science" on race that had little credibility at the time, and has none now. The anti-semitism which it adopted though was hardly new to Central Europe.

However, the USA was founded as a secular state based on rational modernist principles. It put aside religious differences seen in Europe and whilst founded by believers in God, it was about men. It was about what was best to secure the life and liberty of them. Notwithstanding that, its only key failing was who it defined as having those rights - other races and women were still second class citizens (if even that if you count slavery). Nobody knew better at the time of course, and being fair, no other civilisations thought much better of foreigners or women at the time either!

libertyscott said...

Redbaiter: You said "you need to think about what recriminations homosexuals as a group may suffer in future as heterosexuals who hold traditional moral codes dear get more and more pissed off with the depravity of your lies and misrepresentation" are collectivist words.

How dare anyone treat individuals with the sort of groupthink heard from socialists - damning a group is simply repulsive.

What sort of recriminations are you talking about?

You risk surrendering any claim to a moral high ground when you start talking about threats to people based upon what they are rather than what individuals have done.