I’ve gone back and forth on how to format this article. It’s hard to stay on one single topic when talking about the cultural erosion of the importance of family. As such, I’ve written and deleted this article a couple times, simply because it turns into a rant against elements of our culture. It wouldn’t be a good read. This is my final attempt, and I’m keeping it short and focused.
TW: I’m probably gonna piss a lot of people off. SLDs apply here as they do anywhere else. I support your right to raise your children as you wish, no matter the cumulative cultural damage I think may result.
The most disheartening and soon-to-be-fatal flaw of modern Western culture is the disdain for the family. (I’m completely ignoring homosexual and other “alternative” families for this analysis; they’re statistical noise when it comes to culture as a whole). This “disdain” can be seen in many contexts, including: 1) Replacing traditional family roles with outside intervention, 2) Subsidizing family failures, 3) Transforming old stigmas into laudatory praise, and 4) Portraying family negatively. I’ll quickly expose my biases and then treat each of these quickly. Any more than a quick treatment starts to turn into a rant.
My biases are simple. I’m a complementarian, meaning that I believe women are generally better at/more inclined to certain things and men are generally better at/more inclined to certain other things. This generalization is, by no means, a straitjacket but more of a descriptive observation of people as a whole. I’m also a believer in the ideal family being a supportive, lasting, tightknit family, one that passes morals, traditions, and beliefs from generation to generation. Much of the “disdain” I see is in opposition to the generational information transfer in this ideal family.
Replacing Traditional Family Roles
This primarily falls into two categories: government as Santa, and “it takes a village.” To see the biggest indicator of how much government and other outsiders have taken over traditional family roles, simply do a time audit of a child in a typical American household. Out of the 15 or so hours little Johnny is awake, how many do his parents actually have any sort of influence? Maybe an hour? He spends 7 or 8 in school, 1 or 2 in extracurriculars and on the bus, 1 or 2 doing homework, and 2 or 3 watching TV/playing video games. Besides the odd homework check or multiplayer CoD game (ha! who am I kidding??), Mommy and Daddy hardly even talk to Johnny. Then Mommy and Daddy wonder why Johnny doesn’t carry on their morals, traditions, and values when he becomes an adult. Johnny’s primary influences are leftist-feminist teachers, Lord of the Flies peer influence, and the Internet. Two income households put kids into this cycle at a few months old, and there’s never a break.
Subsidizing failure
This could be an article in-and-of itself. Suffice it to say that economic incentives matter, and, according to Thomas Sowell, the average black family was better off 100 years after slavery than after 30 years of welfare. Paying people because their family is broken incentivizes other struggling families to break as well. You get more of what you incentivize, and you get less of what you penalize. We’ve spent 50 years subsidizing broken families out of some naive sense of compassion. Of course, government shouldn’t pile on when families come apart at the seams, but the safety net should be a net (SLDs apply), not a pillowtop mattress.
Stigma to “Strong”
The cultural mantra that “different is good” completely ignores the thousands of years of trial and error that has built the traditions that the postmodern left is now tearing down. Again, this isn’t a straitjacket, but there’s a difference between approaching single parent households as parents making the best of a bad situation versus approaching them as no worse than two parent households. There’s a difference between a first marriage, a second marriage, and a fifth marriage. In attempting to build up people (primarily women) in bad situations, culture has made the traditional family passe. Being a single mom is “strong” and “brave.” Being a housewife is “backward” and “sad.”
Portraying the Family Negatively
This goes hand-in-hand with the “strong,” “brave,” broken family trope. Feminists have undercut the family as an oppressive structure since the 30s. Culture has followed along, making men into uninterested, idiotic fathers. Mothers (and children) have supernatural wisdom, but fathers are morons. Not surprisingly, people follow the cultural model, resulting in disinterested fathers having children only because their wife begged for it to “save the marriage.” The end result has been the MGTOW movement, which, despite the nugget of truth regarding the gender-based cultural unbalance, exacerbates the problem by tossing the entire family out with the feminist bathwater.
I’m a little bit proud that I’ve finally gotten this article finished. This is a difficult article to write up in spare time because it could be a 10 part, 50 page monstrosity. However, I think I conveyed the pamphlet version of the argument. I agree with the Distributists in that family is the core unit of society, and I think it makes this cultural erosion of the traditional family hugely self defeating. When culture erodes its own foundation, it doesn’t last.
I’m all for people deciding how to organize their immediate family. I just don’t want to subsidize their decision.
(This does not necessarily imply I approve of their decisions either)
“I just don’t want to subsidize their decision”
FASCIST! YOU HATE WOMYN AND CHILDRUNZ!
It’s true. I hate them so much I married one and had three.
Three… wives?
To be fair, I also hate the men in addition to the women and children.
I just have one question – why the Romanovs?
Nicky was said to have loved them more than being Czar.
This. He was the ultimate family man. So much so he wasn’t paying much attention to governing, allowing an angry Bernie Sanders faction to take things over.
First result from a Wikimedia commons search for “family” that wasn’t irrelevant.
Nice…now let’s see the comments…
I’m looking, but nothing jumps out at me.
SURPRISE!
*springs out , blows horn and throws confetti*
GAH!
*scrambles for nearest weapon before calming down*
Nobody expects the Swiss Celebration!
*opera applause*
That’s a good thing. Can you imagine the pants shitting anticipation if you’re selected as a participant in the Drunken William Tell event?
MOAR KIRSCHWASSER!
*loads crossbow*
No, I said we need supplies!
Not entirely or even mainly out of a sense of compassion. There’s a reason LBJ said his great society programs would “have them niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years”. Deliberately creating and maintaining an underclass with a culture of dependency on the government will guarantee a block of voters for the party of government dependency.
My neighbor, who grew up in the projects, agrees.
The last thing Democrats want is raise people up out of poverty. Poverty represents a significant power base for them in terms of votes.
There’s also a whole lot of resentment in the projects for people who “make it” and can live elsewhere. The people there have been so brainwashed that they think leaving the violence and poverty of public housing is bad.
What!?!
You think you’re better than me???? /wags finger menacingly
There was a link on reason last year maybe quoting a student at some liberal arts student in Ohio about how she didnt want to be middle class, she wanted to move back to the projects in Chicago after she graduated.
That same girl said she went to college to educate the professors and the student body, not to learn anything.
Yeah, I forgot that part. The whole thing was so horrible that I couldn’t remember all the details.
Somehow I doubt she came from the projects to begin with. My guess is that she’s from somewhere like Gold Coast or Magnificent Mile. Like, somewhat close to places like Cabrini Green, but not actually from there.
But I’d like to see her try. The people I know from the projects are in no way SJWs and don’t appreciate uppity bitches evangelizing in their streets. They’re out there tryna make that paper whatever way they can.
At DePaul, the black students who keep up the most ruckus are usually from the Western Suburbs of Chicago and have no idea what it means to actually be poor. To them they struggled because some white student in high school made an off hand remark about their hair or having these feelings of inferiority.
How many years we got left on that 2 hundred?
About one-fitty.
Compassion has noting to do with it.
Once you break up the family, the single Moms will still need a daddy for their little bastards. That lands them squarely on Democrat leftist free-shit plantation which is all part of the plan.
I’ve heard the phrase “Democrats just LOVE poor people, that’s why their policies make more of them.”
I have two nieces that have both been thru two marriages each. One is a totally self-involved attention seeker that quits the relationship as soon as the honeymoon is over and the other has a penchant for insecure assholes that cheat on her. The former has three kids by two (maybe three) fathers and the latter is childless (thank God).
I love my in-laws but their incessant enabling of crappy behavior is what instigated this. My wife and I have sworn up and down to try not to replicate their mistakes.
I find that much of adulthood is trying not to repeat the mistakes of your parents.
I don’t need heirloom mistakes, I have my own, brand-new mistakes.
That’s because the people with disdain for the family are the ones that want to teach your kids about life, the universe, and everything. They don’t want you, ignorant plebe, to pass on any of your wrongthink values to your own.
If you let people raise their own kids they might do it wrong!
Much better that your children are raised by experts, credentialed in the science of child rearing.
Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and Tara McCarthy on traditionalism. (Warning: it’s an hour long)
Not me – I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. I grew up in a single-parent family and I don’t see anything to “celebrate” about it. I also think the two-income family norm has done a huge disservice to kids. My friends would probably think I’m a raging paleoconservative for this but fuckit.
One of the strongest marriages among my friends (actually, one of the only ones, now–everyone else has divorced or separated) is my stay-at-home buddy and his pharmacist wife. They have four kids together. I’m sure they have their struggles with the nontraditional roles, but they make it work.
I think both of these things are true: that the stability offered by adherence to traditions is what works best for most people, and that individuals can responsibly act outside of those traditions. Sometimes traditions need to be challenged and, on rare occasions, overturned. But Chesterton’s Fence must be applied in any exercise of upending tradition with a scope wider than the individual.
Yeah I don’t live “traditionally” but I don’t (and won’t) have kids either.
I’m gay, unmarried, and have no kids. It works for me. That doesn’t mean everybody should try to emulate my life, or that people with different circumstances should make the same choices as me.
Same here. And yeah, I can only speak for myself. But if by some cosmic twist of fate I had a partner and kid(s), I would demand that one of us stay home and raise the rugrat.
Yeah, I think I get tarred with the paleo brush for the same reasons, but I really couldn’t care less. I was raised by my father on his own from about 2 on after my mother died, and he was 22 when that happened. Not working wasn’t an option, and about the only job an ex-MP with anger issues and an indifferent relationship with education could get was sheriff’s deputy, which he did (and hated) for the next 16 years. So while most of my friends had a comfortably middle-class upbringing with a reasonably stable home life, I was getting dropped off at elementary school at 6:00 AM to wait for it to open because my dad, i.e. my ride, had to be at work at 7. And you can imagine what it’s like to be a kid in the home of a single 20-something who liked to party and chased tail like…well, like a 20-something single dude.
Now, I was better off than some, for sure, and to this day I could not admire my father more for all the stress and hard work and sacrifices he made to give me the best shot he could. But would I be better off now had I grown up in a “normal” household, with two parents? Shit, let’s say two working parents, forget about a stay-at-home. Hell yes I would. What’s funny–or maybe completely logical–is that my wife and I both come from “broken” homes, and one of the first things we sorted out when we started dating is that we genuinely believe that marriage is supposed to be forever, through thick and thin, no matter what. And once you start having kids, you’re no longer just a couple, you’re a family, and you have a responsibility to put your family ahead of you. And if that means not getting a divorce so you can chase strange, or sticking it out to work through problems instead of throwing in the towel, then that’s what you do.
What’s funny–or maybe completely logical–is that my wife and I both come from “broken” homes, and one of the first things we sorted out when we started dating is that we genuinely believe that marriage is supposed to be forever, through thick and thin, no matter what.
Same here.
Dual Income No Kids. Since Nicole isn’t here I suppose I shall pick up the anti-natalism flag. Fuck you breeders!
What am I, chopped liver?
I knew you didn’t have kids, but I didn’t know you were a fellow anti-natalist. We can get another flag. They sell everything on ebay these days.
Today is “Bring Your Germ-Factory Ankle-Biters to Work Day”. This is me, all day.
Ugh really? Glad I’m home sick with the flu then.
Same here. My office door is tightly secured.
Ewww. We have gates and guards to keep the kids out. Well, technically those are to keep out chinese spies, but it works for kids too
We also are dual income no kids. Not necessarily an anti-natalist, more like a… “Why come parents get special perks just because they bred? Can I get special perks because I bought a dog?”
Why come parents get special perks just because they bred?
Not that there aren’t plenty of bullshit privileges for parents that they shouldn’t have, but the whole “they aren’t an evolutionary dead end of the species” has something to do with it.
And I can appreciate and respect the *decision* to perpetuate the species. … Now how many parents actually sit down and plan to have kids? I just find the practice of giving special perks to parents distasteful considering how many parents become so through a surprise.
Technically, if you’re fucking, you’re engaging in a biological activity that leads to children. You may mitigate the chances through various means, but the action itself is designed to lead to an outcome. Barring any shenanigans by divine figures and virgins, engaging in the action itself is what matters, not whether they planned the outcome.
I think there’s a conceptual problem for libertarians when talking about the issue of “Family” vis a vis the govt.
1 – we (should) assume that there should be no govt policy which attempts to socially-engineer outcomes.
but
2 – should that necessarily preclude any types of incentives for family promotion?
I seem to recall Nikki, the most anti-natalist of all the people who made the case @ reason, often actually pivoted and argued in favor of OTHER forms of govt social-engineering = like medicaid funded abortions.
And some others here agreed, that if (in theory) free abortions reduced the # of unwanted persons, who then became burdens on the govt and consquently forced others to pay higher taxes to deal with those shitty unwanted people (via the crime they created, or other burdens they placed on society).
basically, its a utilitarian argument that Govt meddling is OK insofar as it makes the lives of the best-behaved individuals as low-cost as possible.
Which is an odd posture, because there is substantial evidence that “Family promotion” has lots of side-benefits. I don’t know how robust the data is on whether ‘tax breaks’ actually accomplish anything useful, but if they *did*… according to the very same theory as above – what would be objectionable about it?
I believe on at least one occasion I called Nikki “evil”. And meant it.
I’m not real big on moral condemnation. My problem was just the ethical/logical inconsistency. It doesn’t really have any internal logic.
The subject that i think is interesting tho is
“to what degree would libertarians accept “Pro-Family” incentives” being part of any government mandate”?
Nikki et al seemed to be pro ‘anti-family’ incentives.
Others seem to be purists who think there should be zero things (including tax-breaks) that in_)lot of truth to the idea that “strong families make for a healthier society”; and that there are huge economic/social benefits to having strong family-formation. But it runs counter to libertarian instincts to support any form of government-based social-engineering. To what degree would libertarians compromise (if at all) on that topic?
How far would I compromise?
Well, if the choice is “we are going to cut $100B in spending, but we have to keep this $1B family tax credit around”, sure, I am fine with that.
There is the libertopian goal, but any steps in that direction are fine by me.
I have said that if we could PERMANENTLY reduce federal spending to less than 15% of GDP, I would shut up about it entirely. That is far from my goal, as a minarchist, I think maybe 5% max and that is probably overspending. But if we had an amendment capping it at 15% I would be freaking happy. My kid can take up the fight for the next generation.
Now how many parents actually sit down and plan to have kids?
If you go the IVF route, 100%.
Same here. Dual income, no kids. At least, no kids of my own. It sure as hell seems like I’m paying for everyone else’s.
I was raised with conservatism, atheism, and fart jokes. Those are the values my parents wanted to pass along. Somehow I think a good many people on both the left and right would find that contemptible and would have loved to have inserted their own ideologies into my family life.
Same, but replace atheism with disinterested Catholicism. Like, not even church on Easter catholic. My brothers and I turned out pretty good.
Christ that’s like my fucking personal family crest right there.
People watching other people raise their own kids and do their own thing.
*doing
parallel structure!
*do
parallel structure + reading comprehension of my own fucking posts
This must be how people react now when they see children playing in the neighborhood unsupervised.
It doesn’t help that there are a million of parenting advice blogs on social media. Advice is fine, but now we have a million helicopter parents giving their unsolicited advice and spreading fear to other parents.
We need those blogs! How else will we know which Targets and Ikeas are secretly run by kidnappers and child traffikers
I came from a two parent household where my dad worked while my mom, until I was a teenager, was a stay-at-home parent.
My wife had the same background.
And when she and I had our first kid, there was always someone there for him. I initially quit my job for six months until I found a better paying gig. After that, she quit and was a stay-at-home mom full-time. Yes it slashed our income almost in half but it was a good decision in the long run. There were sacrifices, of course, like driving older cars, skipping expensive vacations, and living in cheaper homes.
But if you had sacrificed your kid (to Ba’al) then you could have awesome cars, vacations, and houses.
Not Moloch?
The Molochs “No More Cryin'”
https://youtu.be/XolDdCFsqSg
Great band. Now you know.
What about Tlaloc?
Moloch would work, but Tlaloc is for filthy mexicans. I was specifically referring to Ba’al Hammon, to whom the Carthaginians sacrificed their kiddos.
Destiny has an in game rifle called Tlaloc. Useless tidbit of the day.
Why are there so many dieties that demand child sacrifices?
To handle any surplus?
I think a better question is why aren’t there more….
There are people who belive continuation of the species to be a worthwhile thing.
You wouldn’t be here if not for such attitudes.
I know. *shakes fist angrily* I was THIS close to glorious non-existence, but someone tricked my parents into thinking they care about the species and they wanted to procreate. HAH! They sure regret that now.
[Insert Snarky Abortion Comment Here]
I had not considered that Planned Parenthood might be run by an order of priests serving some kid eating deity. Now that’s all I’m going to think about. Until lunch anyway.
Ancient priests were anti-natalist?
The gods need someone to work in their monocle polishing mines
excellent *rubs hands together*
My fiance and I had the child talk a couple of weeks ago and we both decided that while she won’t completely quit her job as a librarian, she has no problem going part time when we have children.
Slight quibble with this.
One, I don’t think the vast majority of kids in America are being primarily influenced by leftist-feminist teachers. Live in one of the bigger cities, then maybe, but most kids will be taught the same standard dull curriculum of the past 30 years by borderline apathetic glorified babysitters.
Also, I think having a parent home at all times is somewhat overrated. I do think it’s better, but not a catastrophe that it doesn’t happen at the rate it used to. First, kids have been going to school as it is currently constituted for the better part of a century. They were always away from home for most of the day from September to May. Then, after school and in the summer, kids used to go play outside, away from their parents until the sun went down. So the level of interaction (in pure minutes/hours/etc. spent together) wasn’t exactly that much different. In fact, for middle class families, I would say parents being around their kids too much is more of any issue than not enough.
All of that is to say, I think the social trends of parents (treating them like adults, only having one that becomes the center of attention, being told non-traditional roles for the entire family are better prima facie, etc.) are more the cause of the problem than they lack of a parent at a home throughout the day.
It’s the Griswoldification on ‘Merika!
(I agree)
Well, yeah, you have to balance it. When I say there should be a parent at home full-time I don’t mean they should be hovering around the kids and directing their entire lives. I agree that’s a problem.
Well then I guess I’m not sure what the point of having a parent home full time is, unless one of them just wants to.
Maybe not “the point”, but rather why it so important vs just a nice thing to have
I’m on my phone, so the response will be brief.
1) 7-8 hour per day schooling outside the home isn’t necessarily good for the child. Part of the reason for proliferation of public schools was to pry the Catholic children away from their parents’ “evil” influence. Today it harms diversity and depth of thought.
2) helicopter parents are bad whether they’re at home or watching via nanny cam. A parent at home can give their child appropriate space, just like a parent at work.
3) children need a balance of influences. Parents at home can much better guide them into relationships with people of different ages, life experiences, etc.
4) it’s not the government’s job to raise our children. I’m quite convinced that if the government stopped distorting the education and childcare markets, single income families would have a resurgence. Quality childcare is expensive, and unaffordable to most when not subsidized
I definitely don’t think the school system is a good thing. Just that it co-existed with the tight-knit one parent at home situation you mentioned.
That is, kids can be away from their parents for most of the day and still be mostly influenced by them
Yeah. My 13 year old asked to hang out at his friends lake house on Friday while the parents are at another gathering. I said sure, and my wife said ‘No way. Four teenage boys alone at the lake!” I told her it sounds like a blast. She said don’t you remember what you did at that age. I said sure, and we’re just fine now. She is still putting her foot down.
Eh. What’s the worst thing they could get up to? Lighting a bunch of fireworks in a nearby abandoned lake house? Big whoop.
My only instruction was to not set anything on fire. Or be stupid.
at 17 my 17 yo cousin and I drove from the Tx/La border to the Grand Canyon and camped for a week.
Another cousin at 16 had his father let him take his truck and flatbottom boat with an outboard motor about 200 miles aeay to camp on Lake Murval for a week.
Kids need responsibility.
In reference to children, obviously
It also seems like parents are now scared to discipline their children. I’m not talking about beating them, but actually setting expectations and disciplining them when they break any of the rules. I think that parents these days have this unhealthy obsession with being liked and adored by their children.
That and probably the fear that their next-door neighbor will report them for so much as a stern glance at the kids.
And sadly, it is exactly these parents that are most despised and disrespected by their children.
We’ve got one kid right now, and I treat her as an adult (to the extent that’s possible with a two-year-old) AND set limits AND impose discipline. It’s a combo of my wife’s “time out” strategy delivered in my low, slightly-gravelly baritone that does it. I think I got the trick from my dad. If I pitch my voice a certain way I think whoever or whatever is on the receiving end thinks I might consider them food.
My kids know that when dad’s pissed, he raises his voice. When dad drops his voice and goes Clint Eastwood on them, shit’s about to get real.
To add to this, the stay at home thing is probably only really important during the early years of the kid (0-4), when they actually legitimately need supervision most of the time and are accomplishing most of their core development. When they’re old enough for some independence they still need attention, but not as much, and most parents could probably provide the necessary attention to older kids over the course of dinner conversations (~30 min a day) plus spending some of the weekend together.
Thank you. A very well said commentary.
I think it fits in with a perspective I’ve been mulling for a while. People think that a libertarian society would be wildly hedonistic and bordering on Thunderdome. My guess is quite the opposite. A libertarian society would be surprisingly in tune with traditional values and mores. As I commented a couple of days ago, the strength and vibrancy of civil society seems to be inversely proportional to the size, scope, and power of government within that society. But, civil society, whether the church, the lodge or club, has a reason to incentivize people to be solid, upstanding, members of that society. They’re far less likely to become a burden on the voluntary association.
Likewise, I believe that the removal of government intervention would strengthen the family as the fundamental social unit. It’s the government’s replacement of traditional family roles and subsidization of failure that, I believe, has given rise to a culture that portrays family negatively and stigmatizes virtue. The latter are consequences of the former. Make families have to be self-reliant again, and see how popular single motherhood and mocking the breadwinner becomes.
So basically a libertarian society would be the Victorian era (minus the racism and anti-smut censorship). Everyone’s expected to be straight laced, well behaved, and well dressed in public but cocaine, prostitutes, and firearms are widely available and generally unregulated.
Sign me up
Yeah, that sounds pretty good even as someone who would abstain from 2 of those 3 things.
More for me! 😛 But really, the grand appeal is just being left alone to my own devices so long as I’m not tramplin’ all over someone’s (property) rights.
Isn’t that what Montana is anyway?
2 out of 3? You like prostitutes THAT much?
I’m like the I Fucking Love Cocaine bear, except for prostitutes.
Good times
Not wildly off, if I’m right.
At least to some extent, the Victorian customs were as much about being smart as they were about being good. That is a person who is straight laced, well-behaved, and well-dressed (but modestly) is likely to have a nice, pleasant, happy, successful life than those who don’t. They’re certainly less likely to need bailing out.
Neal Stephenson was right.
Probably, but not sure about what.
And both have orphan laborers to do the tedious tasks for us.
My biases are simple. I’m a complementarian, meaning that I believe women are generally better at/more inclined to certain things and men are generally better at/more inclined to certain other things.
*keels over, missing fainting couch and striking head on floor with loud thump*
“You get more of what you incentivize, and you get less of what you penalize. We’ve spent 50 years subsidizing broken families out of some naive sense of compassion.”
I have mentioned this before, but when I was born my mother was a die hard democrat, to the point that she personally volunteered in Kennedy’s election campaign. Today she is the most fervent trumpist I know. What changed her was working in the Baltimore public school system in the 80’s. She would go to school and see children come in with worn out clothes, no underwear, no supplies, and get picked up along with their 8 siblings by a fat black woman in a fur coat driving a brand new Cadillac. We joke about exploiting children here but these fuckers were living the dream. This was compounded by the ridiculous amount of graft and cronyism, and the general ‘kiss my ass’ attitude that every black person she met had towards her. She told me a story about one woman that actually started yelling at my mother for ‘looking down on black people’ because my mother had the temerity to donate coats, clothes, and school supplies to these kids that had nothing. It doesn’t take much of that to sour a person’s opinion and my mother is a textbook example of that.
I was raised in a single parent home and my Mom got on public aid because she had her hours cut at her job. She went to the grocery store and paid for some of the groceries with food stamps (this was the mid-90’s) but felt so ashamed that the next day, she got off of public aid. She instead went to a local clothing store and got a second job. I asked her years later why she did that and it was because she didn’t want us to think that anyone else especially the government, should have the responsibility of taking care of us.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with utilizing any government aid that is provided to you, since if you don’t eat it someone who’s an even bigger asshole definitely will. When you start making babies with the sole intent of sucking more money out of the system so you can neglect your children for your own personal gain is when I break out the woodchipper. Notice I said there’s nothing wrong with it, not that you should strive for it or make yourself a permanent parasite.
I think another reason why my Mom got off of public aid was because she felt as though, there were people in a much worst situation then she was in that needed the money.
For her I think it was also an issue of pride.
People used to be proud to not be on welfare, now they’re proud about not working.
I’d be proud not to work, but I prefer to go the Powerball route rather than the welfare route.
I’m still working. Dammit.
Back in 2008, I was laid off from my equipment rental sales job and took a security job with a contractor on a Navy base to pay the bills. There were two young women working there who routinely left work early because they were worried they’d lose welfare benefits if they didn’t. They also spent most of their time at this part-time job combing the want-ads for full time jobs they could pretend to be applying for. Apparently, that was a condition of one of the programs they were receiving money from.
Yes, that will make you cynical.
My mother worked with a woman who suddenly disappeared to some desk job at a government agency in Baltimore. One day my mother either went to visit her or happened to go to that particular building on business and ran into her. When my mother asked her about the job, the woman said “Oh dey gave me dis job cause I disabled!” My confused mother asked in what way was this very active and able bodied woman disabled. “Oh! Uh… you know, I gots da diabeetus!” This was a very interesting revelation to my mother, since she is a type 1 diabetic (the permanent kind, not the kind you get for being a fat lazy fuck) and has been since she was 11, and she was getting zero disability from the government. When she brought this up to the woman, the woman just laughed and said “OH GURL!”
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that one is burned into her memory.
As a lazy fat fuck who has the lazy fat fuck diabetes, that kind is permanent too. You’re just not born with it.
No, I don’t get any sort of disability preference/money/what have you. STOP JUDGING ME!!!!
I had an aunt who had 10 children and gets a nice amount from the government. Why should she stop having children if the government (taxpayers) are going to pay for them?
Apropos:
I have never had a person go from ‘admired’ to ‘loathed’ so quickly in my mind until him.
I applaud the attempt to make this article short. I think it probably deserves a longer, more general-thesis treatment without needing to go into all the sub-details.
I actually agree wholeheartedly with the basic idea. I think one of the problems with the argument is that the people who were first to plant a flag in this argument were Social Conservatives.
I think one can make a very strong argument about the central and irreplaceable role that the family plays in society, and the myriad beneficial qualities that it provides that society, without ever even making the slightest gesture in the direction of the sort of “Family Values” social-conservatism…. which despite its claim about the centrality of the family, tends to demand that government shield the family from any potential threats by censoring materials they disagree with, forcing schools to include religious instruction, impose false norms of sexual-behavior, and so on.
I am sure there’s probably been some good writer who has made a libertarian case for “pro-family” approaches … its just that i’ve never actually seen it. I don’t recall the other site ever highlighting anything like that, but then my memory can be spotty.
Good stuff. Maybe consider adding to this over time.
footnote =
– i think its also interesting that there seems to be an undercurrent of “Anti-natalism” among some libertarian women (and men even). The guy who introduced me to Reason magazine many years ago was one of these; he was in his 20s and had gotten his tubes tied and was an avid proponent of recommending others do the same. It struck me as a weird hyper-extension of the notion of ‘individual liberty’; atomistic-liberty, if you will; where the only thing he considered important was ‘individuals’ = the idea that families had some important constructive purpose was handwaved away as some sort of social anachronism
Didn’t Nikki not only didn’t want to have children but also believed that it was unjust that people wanted to still procreate.
I’m probably wrong about this but that was what I always thought she was saying.
No – I think you’re right. I think she sees giving birth to a child as a violation of the NAP.
How the fuck can you get a NAP violation from child birth?
The child didn’t ask to be born, now, did it?
[italics should have closed after “ask”]
Because the child didn’t consent to being birthed–or even existence.
Existence is suffering (hat tip Buddha), you didn’t consent to be created and experience said suffering.
That’s… wow she could teach catholics a few things about self hatred.
That’s Antinatalism 101, existence is suffering, (or there is a greater amount of pain than pleasure in reality). It’s just with a libertarian NAP twist instead of say, Schopenhauer’s philosophical pessimism or Benatar’s utilitarian approach.
This is pretty much it. There’s also the notion that childrearing directly causes future NAP violations as you deny your child’s self ownership and treat them like property. Do you really have the right to prevent say your 15 year old daughter from going to burning man for a week with four dudes? We can all agree that her going is probably a REALLY bad idea, but preventing her is indulging in utilitarian paternalism. If you can dictate the actions of a sentient human being for good reasons, then why can’t the government do the same thing? Libertarian anti-natalism is really the outgrowth of extreme deontological anarcho-capitalism.
It’s a dead-end philosophy. Without human existence, there are no moral considerations at all. The price of higher intelligence seems to be a large amount of self-loathing.
Yes, you do. In fact, I would posit a certain amount of obligation to do so, per the judgment of the girl’s parents (or whoever is raising her), who know her best. A 15-year-old girl alone with four dudes at Burning Man for a week can fuck up her whole life in ways she doesn’t begin to understand. Paternalism is a perfectly acceptable attitude to have towards people who are in fact your children.
The missing premise is that person is your child. I am not a child of the government. I am a free individual, and the government has no right to treat me as a child, let alone as it’s child.
It’s not about self loathing at all. It’s about voluntarism. Deontological libertarians in general and ancaps specifically have a huge hangup about forcing shit on people. We view kids as people.
I sincerely doubt the rest of our species will ever embrace this philosophy so it’s hardly a dead end, unless you think that I have some imperative to procreate that I am subverting. If you believe that then great. Everyone is entitled to their own teleology. I just happen to disagree.
Or to make the example more concrete, push it back to a 2-year-old.
If you don’t have kids, you may not be aware of this, but from ages 1-4 most children are actively suicidal. They are on a constant mission to find ways to get themselves killed.
Do I have a “right” to stop my 2-year-old from sticking a fork in the electrical outlet? From tossing himself into the sea the moment I turn my back?
Give an 18-month-old a bath and they will almost certainly try to drown themselves. When you stop them from doing so they will throw a fit like you’re the most evil tyrant in the universe.
For a definite period in childhood, you don’t just have the right to violate the NAP with your kids – you have to if they’re ever going to see adulthood.
square=circle that presumes that your child is your property. I wasn’t particularly interested in what my parents thought I should or shouldn’t do at 15 and I did not obey them. As was my right as a self owned human being. Furthermore, I was no less retarded at 20 than I was at 15, but no one disagrees with my right to do as I please at 20. Who decides when you’re an adult? Is 18 the magic cut off? Do the parents decide? My parents would happily dictate my life in my 30’s if I listened to them.
EXACTLY. This view is incompatible with the realities of having kids. I agree. Hence the anti-natalist position. Deontological ethics preclude consequentialism. I can give up my views on ethics or I can give up children.
No – it presumes that your child is your child – i.e. a fellow human that you brought into the world and that you are responsible for until it can be responsible for itself. “Paternal” refers to a very specific relationship – literally that between a parent and that parent’s child. And that is the only context in which it is appropriate.
And this is how we navigate the transition to adulthood. Parents don’t always want to let go of their authority, children don’t always respect the treatment they’ve received from their parents, often with good reason.
But you cannot view a child under 10 as in any way a “self-owned human being.” That’s a transition that happens between 10 and 20. And it does often involve the child simply realizing that his parents aren’t worth listening to.
When you’re parenting properly, your kids obey you voluntarily. The transition to “self-ownership” comes when the kids realize that the cost of not obeying the parents is outweighed by its benefits.
Sure. And that NECESSARILY means that their WILL be a conflict where a child quite rightly chooses to exercise their freedom of thought and action and a parent quite wrongly constrains them. This can happen in many ways with the most extreme examples being packing kids off to reeducation camps, rehabs, military school etc. Unless you think parents relinquish coercive control at the exact same moment a kid comes of age, then you agree that parenthood essentially requires you to violate your kid’s rights.
BTW, I don’t expect to convince you or anything. I’m just explaining the thought process behind the particularly libertarian brand of anti-natalism.
There is no imperative to procreate, just as there are no imperatives to not procreate. My point is that moral frameworks that forbid the required interaction between nominal human beings in order to survive (children included) are insufficient.
Yes, and I view this as normal and necessary, abuse not withstanding. We can quibble over what constitutes abuse later.
Indeed. I believe I have explicitly said as much, and thus I don’t imagine we strictly speaking disagree on the fundamental assertion that there is much about having a child that violates the NAP. I am also a libertarian minarchist, not an anarchist idealist (although I was the latter when I was younger).
I posit that guardian-to-dependent-child is the one human relationship in which paternalism and a certain amount of “rights-violating behavior” is what in practice maximizes liberty and personal responsibility.
I also assert that accepting that premise does not necessarily entail government having the same rights over citizens as a logical consequence.
I don’t have a right to choose my child’s career, but I do have a right, nay – an obligation – to prevent my child from careening over the side the Grand Canyon and falling to his death because he has no idea what he’s doing. That doesn’t mean that any government agent whatsoever has any similar right over me.
If you decided at 15 that your parents weren’t worth paying attention to, and they didn’t have the naturally-cultivated moral authority over you to convince you otherwise, then your adulthood and self-ownership was gained/taken by you at that moment.
The fact that most parents don’t necessarily choose the exact right moment to cede authority over their children doesn’t, to me, mean that the very relationship of parent-child is fraught with injustice and should be avoided.
Nothing on your own personal choices, of course, and of course I in no way hold that the government has any role in making these decisions about whether and how much authority any particular parent should have over their child.
I seem to be having trouble remembering to close my italics today.
*sigh*
Square circling a post doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.
Cool. I get your argument. You don’t think that violating the NAP is sufficient reason to avoid a particular activity and I do. I’m not claiming moral superiority or anything I’m just explaining my view. You are a minarchist, ergo you believe there are necessary limitations on natural rights. You’re in pretty good company there too. As I’ve been saying all along though, libertarian anti-natalism is an outgrowth of radical ancap philosophy so we already know we’re on different pages here. Part of being a minarchist is the belief that certain NAP violations are absolutely required for the good of mankind, and part of being an ancap is saying nuh-uh to that.
I get where you’re coming from and I respect it – I admire the will to logical consistency and the willingness to take an extreme position if logic takes you there.
I wouldn’t totally agree with this, though:
I would say that life doesn’t always present you with clean choices. To belabor my example, if my 2-year-old is sprinting toward the edge of the Grand Canyon, my preventing his death is doing better by him than letting him fall to his death in order to ensure that I never, ever violate the NAP for any reason. I would even go farther and say that by letting him die I am depriving him of more freedoms than if I simply grab his shoulder and steer him in a different direction in a way that he barely notices.
But to reiterate: the government pretending it has this same relationship with its citizens is dishonest and evil.
I think you’ve gotten to the point where you’ve reasoned your ethics into “you can’t be 100% ethical and live life.” Which is true. Have you ever read the Baghavad Gita? It is centrally concerned with this question of attempting to be alive and do no harm. A good read.
tl;dr version: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
I have to disagree with the notion that it is an NAP violation. Rights proceed from human agency. You lack reason, you lack agency. That’s why someone must be of sound mind to enter into a contract. It’s also why we don’t assign animals the same rights as humans. And the less sentient the creature, the less rights we assign it.
Since a child lacks the full capacity for reason, the child lacks agency. Since the child lacks, agency, the care and protection of both the child and its rights are assigned to the parents as the child’s agents.
Fair enough. I actually agree with you there square circle. I’m not arguing that every instance of parenting is an NAP violation, just that parenting necessarily leads to NAP violations. Those situations are very sticky and that’s why the anti-natalist position says to skip those sticky situations by not having kids. Essentially the position is like John Titor said above, life is filled with pain and suffering and choosing to have a kid makes you ultimately responsible for all of that pain and suffering so don’t do it. You are inflicting life on your kid without their permission. Many (most?) would probably thank their parents for the imposition. Many lead lives of depression and desperation and would rather have never been born.
Furthermore, if you choose to have a kid you are walking directly into an ambush that will require you to violate your kid’s rights at some point since no one can adequately determine when your kid is a legitimate moral agent and therefore justified in rejecting your coercive control.
Everyone navigates those treacherous waters differently, and again I’m just explaining my take on it. As a psycho ancap I essentially fetishize voluntarism so I view these relationships a bit different than other people.
Let me answer that question without answering it: Some people resent the fact that they are eventually going to die, and feel that creating someone is to saddle them with a death sentence. If they never had existed in the first place, they would never have had to face their own mortality.
At least that’s my understanding.
Or I could have just hit refresh a few times and spared us from my convoluted explanation.
You’re not wrong.
And that’s why I could never find it in me to take Nikki’s opinions seriously, because she so vehemently advocated such a ludicrous philosophy.
I’m only anti-natalist for myself. It’s when people start telling me sole reason for existence is to produce offspring that gets my blood boiling. And there are plenty of libertarians that believe that.
It boils my blood when I have family members tell my older sister that her role as a woman is to have children…despite her not wanting to have any. It’s a very bullshit thing to say and think.
Nobody’s saying sole reason, but given the dearth of libertarian women out there, don’t you feel some sort of obligation to give some future kids a Libertarian Mom? You don’t have to go full Duggar, just like 12 or so.
I think the bigger issue is that there are so many downsides to having children: financial, legal, emotional/mental, etc. and currently very very few upsides. If you’re married and your relationship goes bad, it may hurt but it’s not a huge deal, but if you have a child you are in for one nasty shit show, to say nothing about the behavior of the child impacting your life in a very real way.
I certainly wouldn’t risk bringing a child into the world. It’s a recipe for having what little liberty you have taken away by the state for a whole host of reasons: letting your child play by themselves, letting your child walk to school or take public transpo, feeding them the wrong things, disciplining them the wrong way, letting them wait in the car unattended, homeschooling, teaching them about firearms, letting them miss school for any reason, dressing them in the wrong clothes, introducing them to the wrong music or books or movies…
Having kids is something that I’d like to do at some point, but the expansion of the state into that part of your life is so massive I’m not sure it’s worth it. Maybe if you lived somewhere like rural Alaska you’d be alright.
“I think one can make a very strong argument about the central and irreplaceable role that the family plays in society, and the myriad beneficial qualities that it provides that society, without ever even making the slightest gesture in the direction of the sort of “Family Values” social-conservatism”
So, the first thing libertarians must do is loudly disavow potential allies and pretend that SoCons have nothing to do with “the central and irreplaceable role that the family plays in society.”
Of the issues you listed, we can safely say libertarians and mainstream SoCons disagree over censoring porno.
And I guess mainstream left-libertarians disagree with SoCons about the curriculum in the public schools…but that shouldn’t be a problem since both libertarians and SoCons promote the importance of education outside the public-school monopoly.
As for “false norms of sexual behavior,” I’m not sure what’s false with what’s been found by experience to be clearly linked with the proper role of the family.
Nope. Now you’re pulling a Robby.
What i said was that Socons are not *necessary*. Failure to endorse is not disavowal.
And it doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be inclusion of socons in some libertarian tent (and its an argument i’ve frequently made over the years, so i’m surprised you’d misunderstand me on that). Just that “pro-family” arguments are possible without including the Social Conservative concepts of Federally-Enforced morals.
I think Socons are beginning to realize that the best path to advance their own interests is to stop trying to convince others that their notions deserve some positive-recognition by law, and instead demand that law treat them neutrally and stop trying to interfere with their beliefs.
I have no interest getting into some stupid nitpicking debate about things as inconsequential as porno or teaching kids abstinence or whatever your hobby-horses are. My point was that there are reasonable “Pro family” postures which don’t include those things.
From the Socon POV, i’d think the “Half-a-Loaf” respect they would get from a libertarian like me is a shitload better than the completely-antithetical POV that leftists have.
I’m very sorry if I missed your point.
I don’t want a government powerful enough to suppress porn effectively. Which I think by my own definition makes me a *non*-mainstream SoCon.
Public-school curriculum is, IMHO, a rearranging-the-deckchairs-on-the-Titanic distraction from an idea libertarians and SoCons generally have in common – getting beyond the government-school model.
“instead demand that law treat them neutrally and stop trying to interfere with their beliefs.”
Certainly SoCons should not demand any special privileges based on their religion or politics, but if we recognize the family, the wan/woman/children kind, as a pre-state institution, something which exists independent of and prior to government, then the government doesn’t have the *option* of ignoring such an institution or pretending it’s simply one option on a menu.
That’s not the same as putting “alternative families” in prison, but it means that *real* families have certain privileges vis-a-vis the government, such as not forcing wives and husbands to testify against each other, for instance.
man/woman/children
?
I think you’re sort of tip-toeing around the whole should-government-coerce-this-behavior thing. I think if you take government coercion out of the equation, 50-60% of libertarians are pretty socially conservative (joke about snorting lines of blow off a hooker’s chest, notwithstanding). As I suggest above, a lot of behaviors that would be taken as good by social conservatives get taken as smart by libertarians. Except that whole government coercion thing is a pretty big deal.
Ok, i said i didn’t want to get into any nitpicking w/ you… but….. given that one of the first things that gay people have wanted once being recognized as “not aberrations of nature”…. is to be able to get married and raise kids and otherwise do EXACTLY WHAT SOCONS SAY ALL THE HETEROS SHOULD DO.
It seems absurd to me that anyone would keep claiming that homosexuals are somehow inherently ‘anti-family’ by dint of their preferences.
Putting a definitional dispute in ALL CAPS isn’t the same as resolving the dispute.
saying that a gay family “isn’t a family” simply because they don’t have the idealized mommy/daddy formula seems to me to throw out 90+% of the positive gains of family-formation in order to simply adhere to some ideological stricture.
I don’t really care whether you think gay families are the right kind of families or not. By Socon’s own reasoning, ANY family is better than single-parent households; but they’d appear to want to cut off their nose to spite their face simply to ensure that everyone knows they object to the very notion of homosexuals being considered equals to heteros under the law.
i am not trying to resolve the dispute. I think its a silly dispute and distracts from the more interesting questions that the OP raised.
Typically I don’t think that gays are ‘anti-family’ though Domenico Dolce, a gay man, did say, “We oppose gay adoptions,” Dolce said. “The only family is the traditional one. No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed.” His statement is typical of the attitude of some gays I know and the polar opposite of how others I know feel. I personally feel that families, straight, gay or otherwise, strengthen communities and therefore are a good thing. I’m not going to pretend that many “socons” don’t oppose gay marriage but many of us (I identify as a “socon”) recognize that married couples tend to have higher incomes and fewer negative habits than their single counterparts and therefore have a positive effect on their neighborhoods and surrounding communities. I think that part of the resistance that socons have to gay marriage revolves the perception that gays don’t respect the rights of religious people to practice their faith as they see fit, and frankly, gay brought the perception on themselves.
I concur.
In the same vein how much of these problems are a result of the nuclear family model compared to multigenerational/clan family models? Child rearing and education pressures that lead to mandatory government day care are much weaker when they can be spread out over grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Same for finances although that can get trickier and usually needs some level of contract formalization.
There are plenty of cultural trends that try to diminish the immediate family, but the extended family almost doesn’t seem to exist anymore in terms of our cultural narrative.
I blame the internal combustion engine.
I think that’s an interesting point but probably additional to the simpler, more basic-point about families writ-large.
I think theres probably some economic arguments which suggest that extended families tend to have a restricting effect on the labor force, keeping people tied to the home more often, and disincentivizing people moving from place to place as needs demand. Basically, that the extended family became less economically beneficial as our economy became more dynamic and people expanded their own personal horizons.
I got divorced when my son was a year old and my daughter was three years old. There is nothing about single parenthood that is worthy of celebrating. My kids were lucky in that my Dad was financially able to retire when he was fifty-seven and my Mom had always been a “stay at home” mother so my kids never had to go to daycare and always had an adult around when they came home from school or needed someone to chaperone class trips, etc., but even with all the help I got from my parents it was still hard. I went into banking basically because of “banker’s hours” which turned out to be a myth. I spent every non-working moment with my kids but it didn’t make up for the fact that they missed having a father.
I think it is incredibly sad that there are children who grow up never knowing what a two parent family is. Thanks to Uncle Sam replacing Dads there are children that have no concept of a mother and father who are married to each other and live in the same household. They have never experienced a father who gets up and goes to work each day and then comes home to be with the family each night. Not only are their parents not together, neither are their grandparents or their aunts and uncles. Why would a boy in that situation think that he should grow up, get married and take care of a family when he has never seen it done? Why would a young girl put off getting pregnant until after she’s finished school and gotten married when neither her grandmother, mother, aunts or any of the women in her neighborhood have? We can talk to “disadvantaged” children about the benefits of school and marriage until the cows come home but we might as well be talking about the benefits of living on Mars.
The only solution that I can see to the problem is to end welfare. I believe that it is the “compassionate” thing to do. That said, we didn’t get in this mess over night and we won’t get out of it over night. I think that “workfare” is the place to start but I also think that there must be strict eligibility rules in place and that there cannot be any exceptions to the rules. A woman can’t get out of work requirements because she has children under a certain age. Time limits can’t be extended for any reason. Having another kid doesn’t increase benefits. If a person can’t find a job, a job will be found for them whether they want that particular job or not. If a person doesn’t have good work habits they are kicked out of the program and they forfeit all benefits. My version of “workfare” would be harsh but working a crappy job under crappy circumstances has convinced many a person to better themselves. And if kids in those families see Mom and Dad (if he’s around) getting up every day to work in the orange groves they might decide that school isn’t so bad after all. And they might figure out that marriage makes sense from an economic point of view.
That is my two cents worth.
My Mom and Dad divorced when I was four and she told me many times that being a single mother was difficult and nothing to be applauded about.
I think women who defend single parenthood to the point of claiming that it is equal to dual parenting are in a deep state of denial. Of course it is hard and it is harder on the kids than on the single parent. I think there is a big difference between being a single mother by choice and being a single mother because of circumstances (divorce, widowed). I think bringing a child into the world with the intention of raising it alone is incredibly selfish. I certainly believed that I would be married for ever and ever and would have never have intentionally deprived my children of a father but at the end of the day I’m not sure it made any difference to the kids why their Dad wasn’t around.
I can’t decide whether I like this idea better than Hyperion’s (IIRC), I’m torn. His idea is that if you want to just fuck off and play video games all day, the government pays for a tiny crappy house and you get government cheese to eat. That’s it. You want more and better, you go work for it.
Hyperion, please elaborate and correct me where I went wrong. It’s been some months since you posted that on…another site.
I think that if you tell people that the government will pay for their crappy little house and provide them with cheese that there are a certain number of people who will say, “Sign me up!” I think that we need some means of incentivizing people to get away from government dependence and the only way to do that is to make dependence on government a miserable experience.
I think that certain number is a terrifyingly high percentage. Like probably 20-25%.
I hate the idea. Even if it’s a crappy life, it’s still a life they’re getting by stealing from me. The fact is that someone has to work for that cheese. Someone has to work for that crappy house. If I want stuff (admittedly much better stuff) I’ve got to get up in the morning, trudge into the office, and think about stuff for the better part of the next 8-12 hours. I’ve got to work. Telling me that someone else should be able to get some of the stuff that I’ve earned because, well, fuck it, is telling me that my rightful place is at their serf.
“The end result has been the MGTOW movement, which, despite the nugget of truth regarding the gender-based cultural unbalance, exacerbates the problem by tossing the entire family out with the feminist bathwater.”
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. I admit, I don’t listen to very many MGTOW YouTube channels (most seem to just go on and on about “pumping and dumping”), but I do listen to Turd Flinging Monkey a fair amount. The impression I get is, under the current legal system women have more protections and extra rights than men do and can destroy a man’s life at no cost to themselves. Because of this, MGTOW is simply the philosophy of avoiding relations with women to protect yourself. As libertarians, we of all people should know about doing cost-benefit analysis, and the fact is marriage has such a huge cost to men, for so little benefit that it’s not worth going for until the legal situation changes, if ever.
Eh, spiders and praying mantises have it worse, and they still don’t avoid relationships.
I think a little bit more of humans than that.
Good article as per usual trashy. Quick question: what does SLD stand for? Going from context, best I could come up with is “standard libertarian disclaimers”
You are correct.
Sorry for the late response. Standard libertarian disclaimers is correct. I put them on all my comments and articles when I dive into cultural issues because, invariably, somebody who isn’t receptive to my message will do the reverse Bastiat socialist thing and assume that just because I condemn certain behavior I’m advocating for government to ban said behavior.