4 posts tagged “family”
In a way, it is somewhat amusing, when I turn on talk radio, how many political partisans say that we require a Republican in the United States Empire's imperial thrown in 2009 because that would, allegedly, turn around the current economic recession (and it is one) sooner rather than later or perhaps even end it in contrast to a president with a "D" by his (or her) name. And all this time I thought there was a Republican currently in the thrown, with the economic results and consequences of his policies before our very eyes.
Dr. Clyde Wilson, over at Chronicles Magazine, is right. As usual, Republican grassroots will drop any sense of principle (if we grant that they ever had such a thing) because Obama/Clinton must be stopped. They must be stopped at all costs! So forget about upholding the notion of having any real principles.
Because, well, we might see welfare increases which would knock your socks off; a new, Great Society might get through; taxes might increase (a good rule of thumb: taxes, in the long-run, are equal to the amount the government spends----which, of course, helps to show Bush's tax "cuts" in a new light); God forbid we might see Dictator Hillary Clinton believe that she is above the law; who knows there might even be enlarging of the Marxist department of education and D.C. dictating to all local schools what to do; there might be increased welfare for the rich; or camping finance reform (oh wait, doesn't McCain somehow fit with this?); the State might even think about getting into the private affairs of families; maybe the airports will be further socialized; foreign aid would most definitely increase; there might even be more protectionism; the Mexico-US borders might become wide-open; and who does not fear Obama at the helm of a future police state? And, my goodness, there might even be housing troubles with a Democrat's economic policies!
But we all know the truth about why the Republican grassroots, made up of what Mr. Llewellyn Rockwell has fittingly called "red state fascists," will support John McCain. Because, behind all their rhetoric, their commitment to the principles of limited, constitutional government is pusillanimous and vapid. There is one paramount thing that amalgamates today's self-described conservative Republicans, and that is war and the police state. It annihilates any of their fictitious devotion to the Old Republic. For war, as the great Old Rightist Frank Chodorov said, "is the apotheosis of power, the ultimate expression of the faith and solidification of its achievements."
While I have not been won over, a few traditional conservatives have given some reasons why paleos should support Barack Obama. I grant that he would probably be relatively better than McCain, who is not tough competition. But picking between the "lesser of evil," to me anyway, is playing a game of Russian Roulette. My advise is not to play. I have no intention to vote in November, even for a third party. And do not believe I will ever vote in any future election. Nonetheless, if you must vote, my advice (for what it is worth, if anything) would be to vote for either the Constitution Party guy or the Libertarian Party guy. But I would not recommend anyone to vote for McCain.
Sen. McCain is the embodiment of militarism, empire, and all-around Bush-type policies. It makes him a fitting descendant of the Bush administration. Even if we could imagine---by some miracle---that McCain would actually be a good "economy president," war is the most important issue. Things like taxes do not compare with State murder. Taxes hurt but they typically do not kill. War, on the other hand, does kill. After all, you cannot bring back the dead. They have a different weight, and we must rank our hierarchy of values correctly. Too bad that the "booboisie" cannot easily do that in the modern world.
Abortion: Statism vs. Private Property Society.
Pro-Life Should Not Use Leftist Rhetoric.
It goes without saying that as an individual I am sympathetic to the "pro-life" side and consider myself generally on their side, opposed to the "pro-choice" side in the abortion conundrum. Insofar as abortion relates not to personal morality versus immorality but with common/natural law and ethics, my libertarian views are derived from the principles implied in private property, although this makes my views somewhat more "nuanced," I guess you could say, contrasted with your average pro-lifer.
I should mention that the great libertarian Dr. Walter Block has outlined an argument that puts libertarianism, properly speaking, in the middle ground. It "compromises the uncompromisable." It makes barbaric practices like partial-birth abortion illegal. Listen to this [mp3].
(Either way, if you agree with Block's position or the late Rothbard's, one thing all libertarians should agree on is the fact that the issue should be localized as much as possible and be out of the hands of the federal government.)
In terms of morality I am pro-life. Moreover, as I argued in this entry (please take a look at it) I believe that a stateless society gives pro-lifers the best environment. Not only would there be no collective reinforcement or subsidization of abortion in a free society, private law agreements and covenants can ban the practice and help cut it down, and more so than the current statist environment. A free society with a variety of authorities and group associations increases "social power" away from the centralized, top-down, and all-or-nothing managerial State. There is nothing more conservative than this feature of a free society. Libertarianism does not mean, as some suggest, a democratic or egalitarian free-for-all or an ideology of saying that all life -choices or -styles are "equally" good.* Neither does it necessarily reject a natural moral order making it "relativistic."
*[It is a clear confusion when a conservative, paleo or otherwise, says that anti-State libertarianism is for getting rid of stop signs or saying that something as despicable and evil as child pornography is a good and would be allowed all over a libertarian society. The first one does not need much comment. It does not take much thinking to see that a private road would lay down rules to maximize profits and minimize costs and traffic accidents. The second one should be thought of like this: If you were to enter into a private law enforcer would you sign up with one that said this was okay? Also, would you move into a community covenant that said this was okay? Or would your senses tell you not to do such a thing? My guess is that your senses would tell you not to do such a thing. 99.9% of the population agrees with you and me that it is an evil. The remaining one-tenth of a percent would find themselves having to conform with standard morals. They would have to civilize themselves or would be banished from society. Not only would private law agreements and community laws ban the practice, there could be other methods of public ostracism as well. A private property society would have "bilateral law." This would mean people would have to assimilate to more traditional norms of the community. There should be little question that child pornography would be at the top of the list to condemn and "fight against." See, especially chapter ten, Hoppe's Democracy – The God That Failed.]
(And as Mr. Joseph Sobran has said, in an essay about ending the war on drugs: "Informal social sanctions, as always, did most of the work of governing society." Today, unfortunately, we think that everything should be political.)
Exploring my newly received Nisbet book from Amazon, Prejudices, he has some very illuminating comments on abortion, even though I cannot say I agree with his position fully. (Paleoconservatives should note, Robert Nisbet was one of the three leading lights in traditional conservatism and he was not what we could call anti-abortion. According to Nisbet, antiabortionists "strike at the very heart of both family and individual rights.") One of the things he says is that State laws against abortion is a sign of how the State has weakened the family's authority. Once the State interferes in internal family affairs, says Nisbet, this is a sure "sign of despotism."
Never have so many laws been passed, first by the states, then the federal government, prohibiting so many actions which for thousands of years had generally be held to fall under family authority. It can be fairly argued that the present infirm state of the family in Western society is the consequence as much of moralistic laws assertedly designed to protect individual members of the family from one evil or another as it is of anything else. Current efforts to prohibit abortion categorically and absolutely might be viewed in this light. It is not so much the "women's right to choose" that is being assaulted as it is the ethic of family and its legitimate domain. . . . But all such attention by law and religion has to be seen in the context of the considerable number of actions along the same line----against alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, sex for pleasure, profanity, and others, all novel utilizations of the law and religion which would have been deemed egregious by earlier generations. . . . The use of sovereign powers of the states to achieve success in this crusade was manifest in the epidemic of so-called Blue Laws in America. . . .
Abortion became front and center, he says, when the issue was nationalized. States have used abortion "to weaken the hold of the family over its own."
Instead of internal disputes in family households being rightfully settled by the head of the house who lays down the rules, there has been a shift to the democratic State. We have replaced family patriarchy with politics. An attrition of the family occurs. And instead of internal extended family disputes being attempted to be solved internally within its hierarchy, we have the democratic State. The natural bonds and connections, inequalities, societal institutional frameworks, autonomies and social pluralities have been replaced by the anti-plural State to atomize the individual so that it has authority and power over him. In the name of "freeing" the individual, what we have left is Leviathan. Without a multitude of bonds and institutions of various authorities all that is ever more left to confront situations and challenges in life is the political. In absentia is the State.
While abortion may be debatable vis-à-vis the State, I would say that many traditional or paleo-conservatives (e.g., Mr. Patrick Buchanan) have only hurt their social and cultural causes by powering Leviathan versus what Nisbet would label social pluralism. Say what you will about "natural rights," individualism or John Locke, it may be time to think about rejecting statism and its entire work, like great conservatives as Mr. Sobran. If not be a "libertarian," then, I exhort, be a conservative anarchist.
[Maybe time permitting in a few weeks...I'll get around to typing up an extended blog entry on this important subject and some of its related subtopics. So, as always, please stop by The Paleo Blog once a week.]
Anyways, now what I would like to point out is that Mr. Marcus Epstein, over at Taki's Magazine, is giving some good advice for pro-lifers when it comes to arguing for the pro-life position. There is this sad tendency that you find in the framing of arguments so that they are politically correct and egalitarian. This is no way to defend the pro-life position, if you come from a paleoconservative perspective or, like me, a paleolibertarian-Blockian one.
Hail, Discrimination! in Insurance (and everywhere else)
A Leviathan filled with hundreds of politicians is a sure way to guarantee liberty and security, huh!? (Ha-ha. Who in the world thought this?) Politicians are always looking for new ways to be busybodies so they can expand the political circus in civil society. That's their job. How many times do people (left-liberals, for example) complain about politics only to ask for politics to enter more areas of life? This will only result in one thing: A process of accelerated increase in the politicization of society. And as the politicians get more power their potentiality to abuse it, as monopolists, increases.
But of course anything in the name for "evil" discrimination... Who could allow that? That would mean that people would have the freedom to choose. It would be too pro-choice, wouldn't it?
The House of Representatives, according to Dr. Rozeff, voted in favor 414-1 and the Senate 95-0 for a new bill banning discrimination based on genetics. With those bipartisan numbers it is a fair bet that the bill, as one conservative would say, is both evil and stupid. (But thank you, Rep. Ron Paul, for your lone vote against it.)
Something like this, I am positive, definitely feeds into the emotions making it an easy sell for the public. However, this is not something that we should want at all; on the contrary because it will just result in ever more problems in health insurance. Ceteris paribus, there will be ever higher costs, more waste, less private research, and the collective subsidization of sickness.
(Ms. Karen De Coster on her blog adds: "Of course, the most notable aspect of this debacle will be how 'genetic disease' will be defined.")
In brief, insurance is about pooling homogeneous risks because otherwise what would be happening is not insurance but redistribution. The groupings of persons in health insurance, as far as everyone could tell, would have the same individual chance of getting sick and thus needing insurance money. The less these groupings are homogeneous, which means that certain subsets get sick more often, premium rates will be higher for the bulk of those in the given group outside of that particular subset. Therefore, if we had a free market in insurance, those companies that became more and more precise in groupings would tend to out-compete those that did not. One way these groupings would be done is through genetics. And there are many positive things that would come with this. The tendency would be that there would be no net redistribution, the lowering of expenses, the lowering of premiums, increased research, and so forth.
I'll point out that Dr. Hans Hoppe has given a lecture on this. You can listen here [mp3] In it he explains, the mountain high stack of statist regulations has pushed into motion a situation where expenses continually rise because discrimination has become less possible. This promotes increased costs and hence higher premiums. A side effect of this is a relative increased number of those dropping out of the system. Hence prices are pushed up even more. Next, it can be expected, that the State will force, by the point of the gun, everyone into the system. Then you will see price controls because of public outrage of these artificially high prices. Gross misallocations will happen, including shortages. And then political (mis)allocations will dictate everything that happens in healthcare. Et cetera. . . .Although, I am sure, these problems are just a sign we need more socialism. . ., according to those that worship the nightstick.
(This is not to mention all the other problems in healthcare, like the statist/fascist AMA.)
The Death of the West.
In cerebration I do not find it any surprise that Occidental society is committing suicide. Today we find a corrupt culture filled with lots of bad ideas and values, a massive welfare and managerial state engineering society, and a massive warfare and empire state. Combined with this is a wide open border, which is only asking for trouble. And, in my view, it seems that it is only natural that there is a wide open border with today's perverse statism. It is a sign of a falling civilization, and for this reason nothing will probably be done about it. In Mr. Buchanan's seminal book The Death of the West he explores our age of Cultural Marxism and how birthrates have fallen to the point of where the West will perhaps be no more.
Buchanan writes in a recent article of his:
Hopefully, the peoples of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, who are about to inherit the earth as we pass away, will treat us better than our ancestors treated them in the five centuries that Western Man ruled the world.
Otherwise, we all go out with a bang.
Mr. Stephen Baskerville writes in a Chronicles article that it would be an error to believe that family deterioration (e.g., out-of-wedlock births) is based "solely to cultural and lifestyle decadence." Instead the
ongoing sexual revolution is now codified in government policies that do more than discourage family formation: They empower officials to dissolve families and offer generous rewards for doing so. The growth of unwed childbearing in the middle class, like the older problem in low-income communities, grows directly out of welfare.
"[T]he most direct threat to the family is not homosexuality, pornography, popular culture, euthanasia, cloning, or abortion," but the transformation of marriage contract and covenant.
Mr. Wilson, in the reply section, adds that "there is another element equally important in my opinion. Our masters have seen to it that middle and working class families need two incomes to survive, unlike any other civilised country in history."
Recently in my family's mailbox arrived a book catalogue from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. It was their just released fall / winter catalogue. Several of the books caught my attention. Here are three...
Family and Civilization by Carle C. Zimmerman
Coming November 2007
Here is the description:
Family and Civilization is the magnum opus of Carle Zimmerman, a distinguished sociologist who taught for many years at Harvard University. In this unjustly forgotten work Zimmerman demonstrates the close and causal connections between the rise and fall of different types of families and the rise and fall of civilizations, particularly ancient Greece and Rome, medieval and modern Europe, and the United States. Zimmerman traces the evolution of family structure from tribes and clans to extended and large nuclear families to the small nuclear families and broken families of today. And he shows the consequences of each structure for the bearing and rearing of children; for religion, law, and everyday life; and for the fate of civilization itself.
Originally published in 1947, this compelling analysis predicted many of today’s cultural and social controversies and trends, including youth violence and depression, abortion and homosexuality, the demographic collapse of Europe and of the West more generally, and the displacement of peoples. This new edition, part of ISI Books’ Background series, has been edited and abridged by cultural commentator James Kurth of Swarthmore College and includes essays on the text by Kurth, Allan Carlson, and Bryce Christensen.
Restoring The Meaning of Conservatism by George A. Panichas
Coming February 2008
Restoring the Meaning of Conservatism collects those writings of eminent literary scholar and critic George A. Panichas which appeared in the quarterly Modern Age between 1965 and 2005. Panichas became the editor of Modern Age, founded by Russell Kirk in 1957, in 1982. Both before and after that date, he has labored in his writing to act as a "conservator" of traditionalist intellectual, religious, literary, educational, and philosophical values. This collection provides a bulwark for standards of discrimination anchored in the virtues of sincerity and dignity, amply conveying the compelling character of Panichas's moralist criticism and its relevance to the ongoing crisis of the West.
A Student's Guide to Music History by R. J. Stove
Coming January 2008
R. J. Stove's A Student’s Guide to Music History is a concise account, written for the intelligent lay reader, of classical music’s development from the early Middle Ages onwards. Beginning with a discussion of Hildegard von Bingen, a twelfth-century German nun and composer, and the origins of plainchant, Stove's narrative recounts the rise (and ever-increasing complexity) of harmony during the medieval world, the differences between secular and sacred music, the glories of the contrapuntal style, and the origins of opera. Stove then relates the achievements of the high baroque period, the very different idioms that prevailed during the late eighteenth century, and the emergence of Romanticism, with its emphasis upon the artist-hero. With the late nineteenth century came a growing emphasis on musical patriotism, writes Stove, especially in Spain, Hungary, Russia, Bohemia, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the United States. A final section discusses the trends that have characterized music since 1945.
Stove’s guide also singles out eminent composers for special coverage, including Palestrina, Monteverdi, Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Verdi, Brahms, Debussy, Richard Strauss, Sibelius, and Messiaen. As a brief orientation to the history and contours of classical music, A Student’s Guide to Music History is an unparalleled resource.
View All of ISI's Books Here.
I.
The decline or degeneration of social and cultural values in society has not happened in a vacuum. This decline has come about part and parcel with the rise of the Almighty Leviathan State. Through the State's meddling in society, the institution of the family has systematically eroded. It perverts the natural inclinations of men and women, their bond together and familial relations in general.
Today we observe high rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and all-around family dysfunction. Birthrates of Western peoples have sunken below even the bare minimum of replacement level, as contrast to other peoples. (At the same time floods of third world peoples are moving in, without the need to assimilate.) The intergenerational bond of the extended family has also become increasingly weak. Single parent households are becoming increasingly common. Alternative lifestyles are also higher than ever. Atomization of individuals from all social and cultural restraints has taken place. We are increasingly detached and isolated from family and community. Indeed, we barely even know the name of our next-door neighbors. Family, community, church, and other institutions are no longer looked to - - - instead man looks to the centralized State for the answers or solutions to various problems.
This entry to The Paleo Blog will outline the natural development of the family institution under a free market; discuss how the State perverts the family institution away from its natural tendencies; and look at what the Sweden welfare state has done to the family institution there, and how the United States is moving in that direction. The only way to stop the deterioration of the family and morals is to drastically cut government's interference. This may be wishful thinking, but short of that, to steal the title of a book, the death of the West is certain.
II.
As Ludwig von Mises recognized, the family institution is naturally nourished under capitalism. Von Mises did not come about or derive his principles in understanding the importance of the family institution based on "tradition" as a guide, but by his powerful and genius understanding of the economic reality and limitations the world and mankind possess. Mises reasoned that there is a division of labor for sex. It is marriage that harnesses the natural flows.
Society exists because of the inegalitarian nature of mankind and of the world. No division of labor is speakable if this were not true; that men are different and unequal to each other is a requisite. It is by comparative advantage that allows social cooperation between men that are different, men that are truly and fully human as unique individuals unlike the Brave New World of the fantasies of extreme egalitarian leftists, to all socially and economically gain in cooperation. The setting that makes this most possible is one where there is equality of the law; this is the only equality in which Mises supported. Mises reasoned that when one tries to socially engineer all men to be "equal" automatons, then it becomes impossible to enforce equality under the law. You cannot have both.
Man, unlike mere animals, must learn how to control sexual desires and instincts. There are clear differences between the male and female genders. Sex is much more important for the female than that of the male. To quote Mises in his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis: "Satisfaction brings him relaxation and mental peace. But for the woman the burden of motherhood begins here. Her destiny is completely circumscribed by sex; in man's life it is but an accident. . . . For woman . . . sex is the greatest obstacle." There is, of course, great inequality or dependence of the woman to the man. This makes her more sexually conservative and cautious. She will have to weigh what she is doing to a greater extent. Under a complete free market men could not be forced into providing support, in case of birth. Trying to remove market conditions will only weaken the traditional bond and will encourage out-of-wedlock births and single parenting. In a free market, naturally then there will also arrive great stigmas of social and cultural pressure that will be more inclined to respect and encourage traditional norms.
Unfortunately, today the State, through such programs as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), take away responsibility and encourage destructive behavior. Women no longer need to be as worried in sexual relationships. Since TANF gives large amounts of money to single mothers, women can now more easily get rid of the man. This type of government program subsidizes this type of behavior. As the welfare system looks for a fault or deficiency in the family (or quasi-"family" or individual) in which to give welfare, society will by inevitability enlarge that deficiency or irrationality. As stated in a previous entry, as one gets sucked into dependency by way of government and loses his (or her) independence of freewill, all of the things seeking to be eliminated by government intervention will only amplify in the long-run, and man's actions will become distorted into a confused haze of lowered morals and economic good judgment. Indeed, as Murray Rothbard wrote about, the welfare state in New York has dramatically increased single welfare mothers. By providing incentives for this behavior, it puts a disincentive and punishes good behavior. People will then move into increasingly bad behavior. Present-orientation becomes the norm and long-term thinking is no longer encouraged.
Jeffrey Tucker and Lew Rockwell wrote a magnificent essay explaining the insights that Mises had in cultural questions called "The Cultural Thought of Ludwig von Mises." [PDF] To quote them, as it relates to the subject now being covered:
It was the “ideal of capitalism” [quote from Mises] that contributed to producing the “demand for man’s abstinence outside marriage” by insisting on “equal moral rights for man and woman.” Thus capitalism, argues Mises, discourages prostitution. Here he applies his model that whatever is in accord with man’s nature----such as sexual fidelity within marriage----is fostered by the only economic system, capitalism, that is also in accord with man’s nature.
. . . Mises viewed marriage as an inescapable social institution, part of “an adjustment of the individual to the social order by which a certain field of activity, with all its tasks and requirements is assigned to him.” Marriage, said Mises, reins in the sexual instincts of man and allows woman to achieve what nature and biology tell us is her primary occupation, bearing children and caring for the family.
It was before capitalism where women were thought as objects to be possessed of or to be slaves to men. This type of affair cannot stay for long as long as capitalism develops. Marriage develops into a form of contract, with both man and woman of equal rights. In capitalism, the sex drive is calmed and diverted for the good.
Under a free market environment, marriage would be completely privatized. The State in history is a relatively new invention in the area of marriage. It was the social intermediate institutions that defended marriage, for the majority of history. (Traditional conservatives, of all people, should know that the State could only corrupt marriage! Marriage is not to be put up to a vote. It is of no business of the sinful and secular State.) In freedom, marriage would, as Steven LaTulippe puts it, "reinvigorate those institutions of organic culture which have traditionally administered it."
LaTulippe says that
As should be no surprise, marriage has weakened in direct proportion to the advancing interference of the state. In addition, those institutions of organic culture which have historically functioned to define and enshrine marriage are withering in the face of this assault (yet another example of the maxim that statist “culture” drives out authentic culture). [emphasis his]
III.
The family institution, as Hans Hoppe says, "testifies to the enormous productivity of the family-household that no other institution has proven more durable or capable of producing such emotions!" Family brings children. They depend on their parents for support and guidance, both financially and emotionally. As the children depend on their parents, in old age the parents often depend on their now grownup children. It thus pays; there is an incentive, to instill good values and judgments. It pays to have children-----many children. Parents thus attempt to build a good relationship. They teach their children about responsibility and convey to them a good work ethic. They want them both physically and mentally strong. The more the parents be in charge of this, the more incentive and the more developed experience they have to do this successfully. It is here, with both a mother and father, that children are best taken care of. Both roles (father and mother) fill different needs of their children. It is futile to argue that the natural family is inferior (or equal) to other household arrangements. Children developing emotional or mental problems are more common outside of the traditional household. Insofar as the State subsidizes that development, it contributes to the decline of emotional strength and maturity to society.
The family system is also strongly connected with property and capitalistic production. Civilizations with strong families look to the future for preservation and continuation of their families. They thus adopt future-oriented attitudes. It is under this environment that enormous capital growth and economic advancement can take place [pdf], since the time preferences of people will tend to be low. In addition, since growth of civilizations is heavily dependent on time preference, the vitality of the family institution in society is bond to the rise and fall of society. Therefore, a good way to "measure" a society's place is to look at the family institution and the state of the culture at large.
Children provide labor potential. They not only have the potential to become independent self-sufficient adults, but also have potential to labor as children. This increases their value as children. Laws that forbid child labor weakens the family by gutting some value children have. No longer can they work to preserve the family, especially in the case of hardship. Compulsory laws of government-approved school attendance for children likewise "socialize their time." Under this statist environment children's loyalty and their education and guidance turns away from their parents and their family and instead to the government bureaucrats.
And today mothers can no longer even be mothers! Taxation and various regulations have made all of us one-half of a person. It is no wonder that both parents today have to go into the workforce. Economically the State has made it much more difficult for the mother to take her natural role to raise her children. This not only creates family dysfunction between parents and children, but also makes it more difficult to have children or to have as many children as in the past. While both parents must now be in the workforce, the children are sent off to the secular bureaucrats, to be "taught" by them, away from family.
Family life does not just consist of the nuclear family, but also consists of the extended family. It provides a framework and bond in the family to provide support between each other. It is similar to an "insurance policy." The old and elderly depend on the young and strong in the extended family. The sick and troubled on the strong and firm. There is great incentive, in a free market, to preserve a strong and healthy extended family. However, Social Security has helped shatter and cut this bond. No longer does the extended family have to be strong and healthy. The incentive to maintain this bond has decreased. To quote Allan Carlson:
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.
"The end result," says Carlson, "of state intervention . . . is progressively diminished fertility, with living individuals left alone in a dependent relationship with the government." [emphasis mine] As Oskari Juurikkala writes in his "Making Kids Worthless: Social Security's Contribution to the Fertility Crisis," there is a direct correlation between birthrate declines and the destruction "Social Security" has caused the family. It no longer pays to have children because the government takes away the economic rewards. No longer, as in "traditional societies" are " family values and mutual altruism" "deeply held values."
Instead of relying on the extended family for support, individuals look to the all centralized State. The old, in a family, no longer need to look to the young for support or vice versa. The extended family loses meaning. Economically it is wise to have a large extended and nuclear family, but this is no longer true. Indeed, as just mentioned, fertility rates have fallen dramatically in those nations with a Social Security system. It is no wonder that people will thus adopt a lifestyle that is oriented to the present (i.e., time preferences will rise).
To quote Hans Hoppe:
In conjunction with the even older compulsory system of public education, these institutions and practices amount to a massive attack on the institution of the family and personal responsibility. By relieving individuals of the obligation to provide for their own income, health, safety, old age, and children's education, the range and temporal horizon of private provision is reduced, the value of marriage, family, children, and kinship relations is lowered. Irresponsibility, shortsightedness, negligence, illness and even destructionism (bads) is promoted, and responsibility, farsightedness, diligence, health and conservatism (goods) are punished. The compulsory old age insurance system in particular, by which retirees (the old) are subsidized from taxes imposed on current income earners (the young), has systematically weakened the natural intergenerational bond between parents, grandparents, and children. The old need no longer rely on the assistance of their children if they have made no provision for their own old age; and the young (with typically less accumulated wealth) must support the old (with typically more accumulated wealth) rather than the other way around, as is typical within families. Consequently, not only do people want to have fewer children----and indeed, birthrates have fallen in half since the onset of modern social security (welfare) policies----but also the respect which the young traditionally accorded to their elders is diminished, and all indicators of family disintegration and malfunctioning, such as rates of divorce, illegitimacy, child abuse, single parenting, singledom, alternative lifestyles, and abortion, have increased.
To continue with Hoppe:
At the same time, as should be clear as well but has not been sufficiently noted, from the point of view of the government's rulers, their ability to interfere in internal family matters must be regarded as the ultimate prize and the pinnacle of their own power. To exploit tribal or racial resentments or class envy to one's personal advantage is one thing. It is quite another accomplishment to use the quarrels arising within families to break up the entire----generally harmonious----system of autonomous families: to uproot individuals from their families to isolate and atomize them, thereby increasing the state's power over them. Accordingly, as the government's family policy is implemented, divorce, singledom, . . . [see above] and the variety and frequency of . . . homosexuality, lesbianism, communism, and occultism [lifestyles] . . . increase as well.
Looking at the numbers is always shocking. For example, in The Death of the West by Pat Buchanan,
Buchanan documents that "nuclear families account for fewer than one in
four households, while single Americans who live alone are now 26
percent of all households." "Marriage," Buchanan says, "is out of
fashion." Today the culture places the joy of sex higher than
motherhood for women. "One in four children born to white women are out
of wedlock. In 1960, it was 2 percent." Abortions, he reports, are
about 1.2-1.4 million per year. And births "to married women in the
United States, [were] 4 million in 1960, fell to 2.7 million in 1996."
The divorce rate "is up 350 percent since 1962, and one-third of all
American children now live in single-parent homes." The signs of family
dysfunction is all too evident.
As Mark Owens says: "Government programs have not only created dependency [between individuals and the State], but have allowed people to escape the social norms that were the result of centuries of successful social behavior."
When the government steps in and subsidizes behaviors that in previous generations would have resulted in great hardship or even death, a sort of social Gresham’s Law takes place where bad behavior chases out the good. Why have a father and husband around when the state will assure your financial situation? Why find a new job when you can collect unemployment for some time? The changes in societal incentives have resulted in a change in societal rules. . . . . A high school girl could get pregnant and the state would provide her with her own apartment. It would be difficult to argue that this did not exert a powerful influence on social norms.
We see that social pressures and stigmas have virtually disappeared. It is no wonder that this is so, as the State takes the functions of social intermediate institutions, there is little standing in the way to encourage people out of destructive behavior. On top of that, the State by its very interventions subsidizes these activities. The individual is no longer connected with any social norms or pressures. Interestingly or maybe ironically, one becomes like an atom-----a (false) criticism that some have against genuine hard-core libertarianism. [Robert Nisbet is right on the triangle of authority.]
IV.
The damage that statism has on the family is vividly illustrated in Sweden. To not go down the same road calls for drastic change in the operations of government here in the United States. The entire welfare system (which includes Social Security) must be gotten rid of. As Allan Carlson writes in his important essay called "What Has Government Done to Our Families?," the natural dependency and bond between members of both the nuclear and extended family have been cut off and replaced by statist interventionism in Sweden. The individual there is cut off and isolated.
The ball started rolling in the 1840s with compulsory school attendance laws. Next came laws banning child labor in 1912. Government then implemented a system of "old-age or retirement pensions." With their massive welfare state, a population crisis developed. By 1935 the "Swedish fertility went into free-fall," says Carlson, and "had the lowest birthrate in the world, below the zero-growth level where a generation just managed to replace itself."
Given the incentives set up by the state, the very persons who contributed the most to the nation's survival by having children were dragged down into poverty, shoddy housing, poor nutrition, and limited recreational opportunities. A voluntary choice between poverty with children or a higher living standard without them was what young couples now faced. Young adults were forced to support the retired and the needy through the state's welfare system, and also the children to which they have life. Under this multiple burden, they had chosen to reduce their number of children as the only facto over which they had control.
In the essay Carlson writes that the situation is a good example of what Mises meant when he said that there is no "third way" or "middle ground" between socialism and capitalism. It is either one or the other. As this crisis came into a forefront, Gunnar Myrdal and Alva Myrdal came into the spotlight with a bestselling book called Crisis in the Population Question.
The Myrdals said that there were two alternatives: one was to get rid of the welfare state or to complete the welfare state dominion over society. The first option they said was (their words) "not even worthy of being discussed." They called the family "pathological" and that these "old ideals must die out with the generations which supported them." They also said that "we must free children more from ourselves" to turn (Carlson's words) "them over to state certified experts for care and training. The collective day nursery run by state-controlled experts, rather than the pathological little family, was more in line with the proper goals of eliminating social classes and building a society based on economic democracy"
What were the specific results? With the family stripped, by state fiat, of all productive functions, of all insurance and welfare functions, and of most consumption functions, it should cause little surprise that ever fewer Swedes chose to live in families. The marriage rate fell to a record low among modern nations, while the proportion of adults living alone soared. In central Stockholm, for example, fully two-thirds of the population lived in single-person households by the mid-1980s. With the costs and benefits of children fully socialized, and with the natural economic gains from marriage intentionally eliminated by law, the bearing of children was also severed from marriage: by 1990, well over half of Swedish births were outside of marriage.
William Anderson in "Liberty and the Atomistic Welfare State," speaks of how left-liberal Tyler Cowen praises this atomized individualism in Sweden, knowing perfectly well that the welfare state brought it about. This society, however, goes "hand-in-hand with an all-powerful state that enforced political correctness with an iron hand," so correctly says Anderson. Sadly, the signs that we are moving closer to Sweden in the U.S. is all too clear. Further socialization of areas where family dominates (or use to dominate) will reap more havoc on the family.
Carlson reports that the "pre-eminent neo-conservative publishing house" book called When the Bough Breaks, uses much the same language as the Myrdals used. For example, take this: "relying on irrational parental attachment to underwrite the child-rearing enterprise is a risky, foolhardy, and cruel business. It is time we learned to share the costs and burdens of raising our children. It is time to take some collective responsibility for the next generation."
V.
Restoring the health of the family requires a freer society, one based on voluntarism and the naturally or organically arising institutions that come about through that. To end this entry, here is a good way to sum this up by Hans Hoppe:
Combining cultural conservatism and welfare-statism is impossible, and hence, economic nonsense. Welfare-statism—social security in any way, shape or form—breeds moral and cultural decline and degeneration. Thus, if one is indeed concerned about America's moral decay and wants to restore normalcy to society and culture, one must oppose all aspects of the modern social-welfare state. A return to normalcy requires no less than the complete elimination of the present social security system: of unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc.—and thus the near complete dissolution and deconstruction of the current state apparatus and government power. If one is ever to restore normalcy, government funds and power must dwindle to or even fall below their nineteenth century levels. Hence, true conservatives must be hard-line libertarians (antistatists). . . . In order to restore social and cultural norms, true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition—as a moral and economic distortion—of the entire structure of the interventionist state
Articles to Read:
- The Cultural Thought of Ludwig von Mises by Jeffrey Tucker and Lew Rockwell
- What Has Government Done to Our Families? by Allan Carlson
- Making Kids Worthless: Social Security's Contribution to the Fertility Crisis by Oskari Juurikkala
- Old-age Security Without the State by Oskari Juurikkala
- The Welfare State's Attack on the Family by Vedran Vuk
- The Welfare State: Shredding Society by Mark Owen
- Liberty and the Atomistic Welfare State by William Anderson
- Statism, Post-Modernism, and the Death of the Western World by Steven LaTulippe
- Post-Modernism by Steven LaTulippe
- Four Steps To Restoring the Culture by Steven LaTulippe
