interesting article

Started by dr e, Dec 28, 2007, 12:43 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

dr e

The following is an insightful  and potent piece.  The author (not me) chooses to remain anonymous. 

Comments?


Some musings on a Winter Morning:


A central core of western philosophy (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Bentham, etc.)
was that the right to control the fruits of one's own labor was the
hallmark of personal freedom.  A slave's labor belonged to the master but a
free man controlled the earnings of his labor and the disposition of those
earnings.

In modern society, the only person who does not have a legislative or
judicial claim to earnings is the worker.  All the laws are written to
describe who will get the benefit of the Government's coercive power in
taking pieces from the worker.  Income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes,
child support, alimony, property division.  Nothing is written to say that
the worker is entitled to keep any part of his labor with the result that
some find themselves ordered to pay cumulative amounts exceeding 100% of
earnings.

Since government has assumed unlimited power to take the fruits of the
worker's labor, the worker is no longer valued.  The Government controls
the distribution of the earnings and the government is the object of the
respect and deference formerly enuring to the worker. Among the
consequences:

Child custody no longer goes to fathers since the father's earnings are no
longer important to the "best interests of the child".  Indeed, the very
fact that the father is working to earn the wages is held against him
because of the time required to earn the money.  The father's wages can
simply be taken and redistributed by government after the government's
selection of the proper "custodian."

Child support is disconnected from child rearing.  The old rule was that
you had an obligation to support your own child in your own home and
transfers only arose if you refused to care for your child such that the
child became a burden to others who could demand recompense.  Now, the
child is a profit center and the appeal goes to government, asking it to
seize more from the father who is barred from supporting the child driectly
in his own home.

Hostile media portrayals of men and fathers reflect reality rather than
create it.  If Homer Simpson is kept around, it must be due to some
irrational love of the foolish old oaf because, otherwise, he could simply
be turned over to the government to process the child support and spousal
support payments at a distance not requiring actual contact with him.
Fatherhood is diminished not because of hostile TV spots but because the
real world value of the father has been usurped by government which can
take and redistribute the father's earnings, rendering the father useless,
powerless and easily dismissed or derided.

Spousal support is just grown-up child support.  The former spouse does
nothing but invoke governmental power to continue taking from the earner
while ceasing to do anything in return.

Divorce is rampant since the government can simply take and redistribute to
the party who earned nothing and, in fact, distributes most generously to
the party who contributed least.  In marriage, the earner has a voice in
the spending of the earnings.  In divorce, the non-earner is "entitled" to
take the wages of the worker without any restraint on how the money is
used.

Domestic violence allegations/sexual abuse allegations/child abuse
allegations all become opportunites for invoking governmental power to take
even more from the worker.  Don't just leave the marriage, retain or
enhance the income stream and transfer of property by adding some
inflammatory allegations.

It's not just divorce.  Education is no longer a matter for parental
decision since the government can simply take the money to fund whatever it
pleases.

Child welfare is no longer the province of parents since the government has
hordes of minions to decide what is better than parental choice.

Plato's "Republic" suggested an end to families with communal child rearing
and philosopher kings guiding all.  Aristotle shot holes in that nonsense
but Aristotle didn't anticipate the growth of the modern bureaucratic state
with its social worker communalism and its judicial kings.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

outdoors

 soooo...true!Love it!
very good article!!

poiuyt

... the State alongside Mothers ensure themselves an endless future supply of this cheap labour resource, by traumatising and depriving young males of their Fathers. Young males that is, who would otherwise owe natural loyalty to their Fathers, instead of to their Mothers or the State.

... but then again whom runs the State apparatus. Is it not these self-same Fathers in office, mutually and professionally depriving each other of their Sons ?

... so ultimately, but not in the way Feminists suggest, collectively Fathers are indeed responsible for foresaking their Sons to future slavery!


ClarkCable

And the only solution to this problem is to bar uncorroborated abuse allegations, period. No proof, no prosecution. Otherwise men will continue to have no standing in our society and children will remain the property of the state.

.

My favorite part:
Quote
Fatherhood is diminished not because of hostile TV spots but because the
real world value of the father has been usurped by government which can take and redistribute the father's earnings, rendering the father useless, powerless and easily dismissed or derided.


This is why technology should not be made to work against men.  Because of technological progress, women can now work safely in far more kinds of jobs than they could have before.  Men should have the courage to expect women to work, whether they are single, wives, and/or mothers.  A man who embraces the provider role because that's "just what men should do" is being a fool.  One false step, and the machinery of divorce and child support withholdings will enslave him for a long, long time.

Here's the solution:  never get legally married, and if you do "consider" yourself married (if you didn't get legally married), don't live in a common-law state.  One third of U.S. states are common law.  Just keep the government out of your life by refusing to get married with a marriage license.  And if you do happen to have kids, adjust your lifestyle so that you are the primary caregiver (not the mother), regardless of whether you work.  Your chances of gaining primary custody will skyrocket (to your benefit) in the event of a divorce, if you structure your life around being the caregiver and not the provider.

outdoors



  And if you do happen to have kids, adjust your lifestyle so that you are the primary caregiver (not the mother), regardless of whether you work.  Your chances of gaining primary custody will skyrocket (to your benefit) in the event of a divorce, if you structure your life around being the caregiver and not the provider.
[/quote]

geez ---sounds good on paper but believe me-it doesn't make a fuckin' bit of difference-we still do not have the vagina which around my area counts for everything-caregiver,provider or not

Quentin0352

geez ---sounds good on paper but believe me-it doesn't make a fuckin' bit of difference-we still do not have the vagina which around my area counts for everything-caregiver,provider or not


Same with my area. If the man is the primary caregiver they call him a lazy bum and tell him to get a job. That or they go in to the automatic belief he must be a child molester to actually want to be around his children and raise them. Either way you are fucked.

.

Well, I got primary custody, and I also never legally married, and so I neither pay alimony nor excessive child support.

BRIAN

I understand the need for child support. I don't understand why child support needs to be 20% or more of a mans earnings. I don't understand why in the rare cases it is the father who has custody and the mother who must pay there is no enforcement. I don't understand why there is no mechanism for insuring that the child support paid is spent on the child and not on the custodial parrents vices and desires. I don't understand why there are men who have to go underground with their jobs because 95% of their pay was garnished from them. Maybe I am stoopid but I don't think so....
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

ClarkCable

Some states do cap it. I know that Texas caps it at $6000/year, although that can be increased if the child has "special needs."

Quentin0352


Well, I got primary custody, and I also never legally married, and so I neither pay alimony nor excessive child support.


You are one of the lucky ones. I managed to get primary custody and still have to fight to be allowed to be a parent! It only took $20,000, five years, everything I owned and the death of a child to get that far too. She was granted primary custody based on a claim I was abusive that she refused to show up and defend in court knowing I managed to get her own family there to point out it was bullshit.

ClarkCable, here in Ohio it is supposed to be capped at 40% of gross income or up to 60% if needed to make up arrearages. I know many guys who see 80%-90% of their pay taken due to impugned income the court uses or because it was set illegally high in the first place putting them in "arrearages" from day one. You can't find any court willing to enforce the laws preventing them from this kind of abuse but most will cancel women having to pay support if they state they are a stay at home wife. No need to be a mother even but being a wife is enough to get them off the hook.

outdoors


Well, I got primary custody, and I also never legally married, and so I neither pay alimony nor excessive child support.


Well, around here the courts would have gotten their share first!!!

right-on! good for you!

Go Up