Women and children first: Why single motherhood is on the rise

[Andrew Usher]

I dont know about the rest of the states, but in mine, you would have to be a feces eating retard to have a kid specifically for the welfare benifits.
I dont think that happens all that much to be honest

Yeah, I think in most places of the US, the 'welfare queen' stereotype is obsolete in this respect. But the libertarian/right-wing contingent doesn't want to give it up.

[The Gonzman]

I dont know about the rest of the states, but in mine, you would have to be a feces eating retard to have a kid specifically for the welfare benifits.
I dont think that happens all that much to be honest

Yeah, I think in most places of the US, the 'welfare queen' stereotype is obsolete in this respect. But the libertarian/right-wing contingent doesn't want to give it up.

The money quote is up there, making your statement self-contradictory nonsense; if they exist, they are not obsolete.

Cordell is in Texas; quite a different thing from welfare states like Taxichusetts, New Yawk, and the People's Republick of Kalifornia; and especially inside Urban centers it is alive and well; so your "most" is in dispute, I'm afraid you'll need to back up that assertion.

One parasite, in any event, on the public teat is one too many.

[Andrew Usher]

Again how am I limiting when I advocate the freedom from being forced to pay for someone's choices.

There is no such freedom. It's impossible.

What artificial libertarian definition. I think someon told you a whole lot of absurd crap about libertarians. Libertarians are true liberals, classic liberals, the maximization of liberty through non-coercive means.

The definition I allege of you is 'liberty' = 'freedom from government interference' (only). Would you tell me if that's right?

There's no way to avoid paying for them somehow. And actually, as a child born to a poor mother costs less than a child born to a rich mother, the economy pays less in spite of welfare!

Yes there is a way to avoid it. Don't pay it. I am not my brothers keeper nor am I obligated to support someone else.

You miss the point. We pay for it even if not through money, since every increase in consumption (which children certainly are) makes everyone else poorer (all else equal). That's economic fact. And children of rich parents 'consume' more than those of poor parents, which was my point; so if all you cared about was saving money, you'd want only poor women to have children!

YOU are the one with the incomplete liberty since YOU wish to rob others of true liberty and compel them against their will to pay for peoples entitlements.

Your definition of 'true liberty' is not accepted by non-libertarians.

You really need to read up on the definition of liberty. Liberty is NOT putting a gun to others' heads and demanding they pay for stuff and giving others the "freedom" to pop out babies at everyone else's expense. Want a baby? You pay for it.

My definition of liberty is that which many philosophers and socialist thinkers have come to: in my words, freedom (or liberty) is the totality of reasonable choices one has.

BTW Gonzo, do NOT read his link. You will vommit.

Yes, someone might have that reaction when faced with the truth for the first time, that he has spent his whole life denying.

[The Gonzman]

Again how am I limiting when I advocate the freedom from being forced to pay for someone's choices.

There is no such freedom. It's impossible.

Nice assertion.  Care to leaven it with a few facts?

Didn't think so - rhetorical question.

What artificial libertarian definition. I think someon told you a whole lot of absurd crap about libertarians. Libertarians are true liberals, classic liberals, the maximization of liberty through non-coercive means.

The definition I allege of you is 'liberty' = 'freedom from government interference' (only). Would you tell me if that's right?

It's wrong.  You need to do more homework.

There's no way to avoid paying for them somehow. And actually, as a child born to a poor mother costs less than a child born to a rich mother, the economy pays less in spite of welfare!

Yes there is a way to avoid it. Don't pay it. I am not my brothers keeper nor am I obligated to support someone else.

You miss the point. We pay for it even if not through money, since every increase in consumption (which children certainly are) makes everyone else poorer (all else equal). That's economic fact. And children of rich parents 'consume' more than those of poor parents, which was my point; so if all you cared about was saving money, you'd want only poor women to have children!

Absurd, and foolish.

Consumption is the the basic indexer of economic activity, the more consumption, the more goods bought; the more goods bought, the greater demand, which increases demand on raw goods and labor, which provides more jobs.  Higher consumption, therefore, makes everyone RICHER.

You stand corrected.

YOU are the one with the incomplete liberty since YOU wish to rob others of true liberty and compel them against their will to pay for peoples entitlements.

Your definition of 'true liberty' is not accepted by non-libertarians.

Yeah - where did I hear "Freedom is slavery!" before?

Oh yeah....

You really need to read up on the definition of liberty. Liberty is NOT putting a gun to others' heads and demanding they pay for stuff and giving others the "freedom" to pop out babies at everyone else's expense. Want a baby? You pay for it.

My definition of liberty is that which many philosophers and socialist thinkers have come to: in my words, freedom (or liberty) is the totality of reasonable choices one has.

You sound like a liberal christian with their theories of cheap grace; you want your liberty to be free of consequence like they want forgiveness without repentance.

That's really the only liberty your kind cares about - the freedom to do as you please and stick someone else with the bill; except when you scream and whine about how "unfair" it is when you get stuck with someone else's bill.

BTW Gonzo, do NOT read his link. You will vommit.

Yes, someone might have that reaction when faced with the truth for the first time, that he has spent his whole life denying.

Shows what you know.

I perused your self-congratulatory site of mental masturbation the first day you posted it.  It was, like yourself, weighed, and measured, and found wanting.

My only disgust is with your teachers for actualy graduating you without teaching you how to THINK.

[Mr. X]

There is no such freedom. It's impossible.

How is it impossible not to be forced to pay for someone. If I don't pay then its not impossible.

The definition I allege of you is 'liberty' = 'freedom from government interference' (only). Would you tell me if that's right?

No, classic liberalism is based on the knowledged that organized coercion is the biggest obstacle to freedom. Other obstacles exist like criminals and the insane. But most liberty is restricted by organized coercion, the government being a major factor. Other organized coercion can be religion, guilds, clubs, unions.

You miss the point. We pay for it even if not through money, since every increase in consumption (which children certainly are) makes everyone else poorer (all else equal). That's economic fact. And children of rich parents 'consume' more than those of poor parents, which was my point; so if all you cared about was saving money, you'd want only poor women to have children!

That's called a zero-sum game which is patently false. You do not become poorer if I become richer and richness does not require others to become poor. There is NOT limited resources nor a limited pie. Pies are made everyday. Markets are made everyday. If there was a limited set of resources then we would never have created the wealth we have today. It would have been locked in 100s or 1000s of years ago.

BTW when rich people spend we all prosper. Poor people don't spend so there is no way to create wealth from them.

Your definition of 'true liberty' is not accepted by non-libertarians.

Of course its not because it takes away their percieved right to use coercion against others and holds them to a fixed set of definitions that are not "one person's right is merely another person's wrong".

My definition of liberty is that which many philosophers and socialist thinkers have come to: in my words, freedom (or liberty) is the totality of reasonable choices one has.

No liberty is the freedom from arbitrary control that hampers the maximization of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, pursuits obtained through non-coercive means. You're arguement is flawed in two ways. 1. you attempt to use destruction of liberty to create liberty. 2. you believe that liberty is the equalization of all parties to the same level of liberty and the redistribution of liberty again by force. Liberty is not about guarenteeing choices its about removal of arbitrary and oppressive obstacles to freedom.

True liberalism attempts to remove obstacles to those choices just not using coercion. You are attempting to create choices AT the expense of others which robs them of their choice. In fact in this case we could say YOU are the one playing the zero sum game because for your system to work you must rob others and spread liberty about like peanut butter and use the government as the tool to do so. You in fact prove the point of classic liberalism that government is the biggest coercive force that stops liberty. BTW a place where everyone has exactly the same amount of liberty is called prison or another name is hell. Equal liberty is not maximized liberty.

Take homosexual rights. Liberty is the removal of arbitrary restrictions on homosexuality. It is NOT the placement of laws and rules that demand acceptance and respect and force others to provide homosexuals with choices.

Simply put liberty is about the removal of arbitray obstacles that prevent you from pursuing happiness and removal of arbitray obstacles that restrict your freedom. Liberty is NOT a buffet table of choices nor can it be used to compel me to be the caterer. Liberty lets all the horse out of the barn, it does not provide each horse with a bale of hay.

You are wrong to believe liberty = the gaurentee of choices. That statement you quoted is patently false.

Yes, someone might have that reaction when faced with the truth for the first time, that he has spent his whole life denying.

No, when I read it I realized you have absolutely no concept of liberty and appear to merely recite what my liberal studies teachers taught me back in the 80s. It was amusing seeing the same irrational arguements. I could spend pages pulling your idea apart but I just don't have the patience.

[devia]

Regarding feces eating retards...

Unfortunately there are a lot of those out there. I'd say there are three groups of welfare moms.

Group one is multi-generational (and usually not bright as above). They don't know any different life except what's on t.v, and that's unattainable. While I can pity them, and perhaps forced sterilization is going too far something needs to be done to stop the cycle of dad in jail and mom drinking and watching Springer.

Group two got pregnant, had the kid and found going back to work after the tender years too daunting.  Insurance companies know that if someone is off work for more then six months due to disability male or female it's hard to get them back. This group can be helped to not make it multigenerational by workfare.

And there is group three, short term and really glad to be off it.

Unfortunately most welfare mom's simply because of the large litters they have fall into group one.

[wractor]

Good GOD, y'all, every keystroke you make fighting amongst yourselves is one less that you could use to help RADAR fix the VAWA act, and other MRA actions.

I'll be the first to admit that when my viewpoints are challenged, I rise to the bait like a dumb fish...but try to remember the big picture. Let's work together, from whichever angle we choose.

[Andrew Usher]

There is no such freedom. It's impossible.

How is it impossible not to be forced to pay for someone. If I don't pay then its not impossible.

See my economic argument below. Paying them money may be the least bad option.

The definition I allege of you is 'liberty' = 'freedom from government interference' (only). Would you tell me if that's right?

No, classic liberalism is based on the knowledged that organized coercion is the biggest obstacle to freedom. Other obstacles exist like criminals and the insane. But most liberty is restricted by organized coercion, the government being a major factor. Other organized coercion can be religion, guilds, clubs, unions.

OK, those are minor corrections. But the biggest source of coercion in most people's lives is their employer. Funny how libertarians omit that one.

You miss the point. We pay for it even if not through money, since every increase in consumption (which children certainly are) makes everyone else poorer (all else equal). That's economic fact. And children of rich parents 'consume' more than those of poor parents, which was my point; so if all you cared about was saving money, you'd want only poor women to have children!

That's called a zero-sum game which is patently false. You do not become poorer if I become richer and richness does not require others to become poor. There is NOT limited resources nor a limited pie.

I don't know how you get that from my argument. Of course the pie isn't fixed - there are things that expand it, but having children clearly isn't one of them.

BTW when rich people spend we all prosper. Poor people don't spend so there is no way to create wealth from them.

This is wrong. Spending doesn't create wealth, production does, labor does. Believing that consumption drives the economy (as both you and Gonz just stated) is the 'broken window' fallacy. You don't hear of the health of the economy measured by the Gross Domestic Consumption, do you?

Your definition of 'true liberty' is not accepted by non-libertarians.

Of course its not because it takes away their percieved right to use coercion against others and holds them to a fixed set of definitions that are not "one person's right is merely another person's wrong".

There is no such thing as a right to use coercion. What is true is that we realise that a society without any coercion is not possible.

My definition of liberty is that which many philosophers and socialist thinkers have come to: in my words, freedom (or liberty) is the totality of reasonable choices one has.

No liberty is the freedom from arbitrary control that hampers the maximization of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, pursuits obtained through non-coercive means.

A definition can't be wrong. All you've shown is that you don't use the word 'liberty' in the same sense I do. I think that my definition is more useful and more concordant with the way people actually use the word (in non-political contexts), not that yours is wrong.

You're arguement is flawed in two ways. 1. you attempt to use destruction of liberty to create liberty. 2. you believe that liberty is the equalization of all parties to the same level of liberty and the redistribution of liberty again by force. Liberty is not about guarenteeing choices its about removal of arbitrary and oppressive obstacles to freedom.

This is a straw man. I do not believe that liberty is purely created by government or any other authority; I do however believe that in many cases government can increase freedom.

In fact in this case we could say YOU are the one playing the zero sum game because for your system to work you must rob others and spread liberty about like peanut butter and use the government as the tool to do so.

Liberty is not a zero-sum commodity, or a commodity at all.

You in fact prove the point of classic liberalism that government is the biggest coercive force that stops liberty. BTW a place where everyone has exactly the same amount of liberty is called prison or another name is hell. Equal liberty is not maximized liberty.

Nowhere did I say everyone should have 'exactly the same amount' of freedom; and your example do nothing to show that more equal liberty must mean less liberty ('liberty' being taken in my sense).

Simply put liberty is about the removal of arbitray obstacles that prevent you from pursuing happiness and restrict your freedom. Liberty is NOT a buffet table of choices nor can it be used to compell me to be the caterer.

If I consider the capitalist system an 'arbitrary obstacle', you can't prove me wrong.

You are wrong to believe liberty = the gaurentee of choices. That statement you quoted is patently false.

Again, definitions can't be wrong.

No, when I read it I realized you have absolutely no concept of liberty and appear to merely recite what my liberal studies teachers taught me back in the 80s. It was amusing seeing the same irrational arguements. I could spend pages pulling your idea apart but I just don't have the patience.

All this proves is that you haven't changed since then! Simply calling arguments irrational does not make them so.

[Andrew Usher]

Good GOD, y'all, every keystroke you make fighting amongst yourselves is one less that you could use to help RADAR fix the VAWA act, and other MRA actions.

Yeah, I know. If I knew how I could help with that, I would.

I'll be the first to admit that when my viewpoints are challenged, I rise to the bait like a dumb fish...but try to remember the big picture. Let's work together, from whichever angle we choose.

I would like to work together! Ideological differences are no obstacle to me. I'd be willing to work with anyone here if there were something to accomplish.

[The Gonzman]

This is wrong. Spending doesn't create wealth, production does, labor does. Believing that consumption drives the economy (as both you and Gonz just stated) is the 'broken window' fallacy. You don't hear of the health of the economy measured by the Gross Domestic Consumption, do you?

That's right, Andy.  If we put everyone to work building things, even if nobody bought them and they sat on the shelves collecting dust, we'd all be fucking billionaires in no time flat.

Gods above, what a maroon.

Ever hear of a little thing called the CCI?  The Consumer Confidence Index?  It's only one of the leading economic indicators.

[Cordell Walker]

thanks to NAFTA, outsourcing and the hiring of illegal immigrants, we HAVE become too consumer oriented economically IMO.
I also think that our education system is too leaned toward academics and not technical/trade stuff.  Hell, they dont even have wood shop at the high school across from me!

[davis2ab]

Production whether goods or services is the source of all wealth.

Human  wants and desires are  infinite.  There is never  a shortage of human wants and desires. Consumption doesn't mean any as far as economic strength.

It is true that production should not be of things people don't want, but if the free market is allowed to function that doesn't happen.  The market  produces things that people want.

There must be production for wealth.  This production allows people to consume.

It is ass backwards to say consumption drives wealth creation.

[The Gonzman]

Production whether goods or services is the source of all wealth.

Human  wants and desires are  infinite.  There is never  a shortage of human wants and desires. Consumption doesn't mean any as far as economic strength.

It is true that production should not be of things people don't want, but if the free market is allowed to function that doesn't happen.  The market  produces things that people want.

There must be production for wealth.  This production allows people to consume.

It is ass backwards to say consumption drives wealth creation.

Consumtion drives production.  Demand for goods is what necessitates the production of goods.

This is simple to observe - when production goes down, demand does not decrease.  However, when consumers sit on their money - or have no disposable income to buy goods - the value of produced goods drops.

[Mr. X]

OK, those are minor corrections. But the biggest source of coercion in most people's lives is their employer. Funny how libertarians omit that one.

You voluntarily work for someone. Any employer using coercion illegally is fined or charged. How is "work" coercion? (at least to someone honorable enough to work).

I don't know how you get that from my argument. Of course the pie isn't fixed - there are things that expand it, but having children clearly isn't one of them.

Never said having children does. It was your poor description of economic forces that lead me to think you thought life was a zero sum game.

This is wrong. Spending doesn't create wealth, production does, labor does. Believing that consumption drives the economy (as both you and Gonz just stated) is the 'broken window' fallacy. You don't hear of the health of the economy measured by the Gross Domestic Consumption, do you?

And that production cannot occur unless someone produces. And yes, GDP measures consumption as well since consumption drives production. Regardless, any move a rich person makes creates more weath than anything a poor person does. Be it investment or spending, when rich people act, jobs are created and production goes up. The two worst things for the rich to do is spend nothing or have it all taken by the government. Given your logic GM could get out of its slump by producting 10 times more cars and have them sitting in lots with no buyers. Hardly. Consumption drives production, not the other way around. If there are more cars and less buyers, the value of the cars go DOWN meaning wealth SHRINKS. Again if production creates wealth then merely making a million more cars would create wealth even if the cars sit and collect dust. Sorry someone's gotta buy those cars for them to be worth something and that price is driven by the market which is driven by supply and demand. More cars = less value = less wealth.

There is no such thing as a right to use coercion. What is true is that we realise that a society without any coercion is not possible.

Yes i real life there is no right to coercion so your socialist system has no right to coercion. A society without murder is also not possible yet we strive everyday to eliminate murder. Coercion certainly cannot be used as a tool to obtain one's goals which is the system you endorse on your page with the minimum wage. Who pays for that? Collected taxes by force. Sanctioned coercion. If there is no right to coercion then your advocated system can never use force to obtain its goals.

A definition can't be wrong. All you've shown is that you don't use the word 'liberty' in the same sense I do. I think that my definition is more useful and more concordant with the way people actually use the word (in non-political contexts), not that yours is wrong.

That is BS relativistic thinking. Words have distinct meaning. They are not whatever you want them to be. Using your reasoning I could declare liberty to mean locking everyone up and torturing them for life since that's "my" definition of liberty and its useful to me. Sorry but words have meaning. All you did was change the definition to suit your purposes. If that's the case WHY call it liberty at all unless you want people to THINK its the original meaning while actually subverting it with another. That would be like me defining "thin" as having a pot belly because it suits my purpose but I want everyone to THINK I am thin.

This is a straw man. I do not believe that liberty is purely created by government or any other authority; I do however believe that in many cases government can increase freedom.

Government cannot create freedom because the mechanisms government uses are coercion. You are implying teleological ethics, the ethics of judging the outcome or intended outcome. You cannot create good from 1000 evils.

Liberty is not a zero-sum commodity, or a commodity at all.

Good you understand this so then you don't advocate the redistribution of liberty in the name of equality?

Nowhere did I say everyone should have 'exactly the same amount' of freedom; and your example do nothing to show that more equal liberty must mean less liberty ('liberty' being taken in my sense).

Your statement is non-sequitur given your definition is incorrect. A "car" is not an animal with wings. Words can't be whatever you want them to be. Why bother using the word "liberty" at all if you don't intend to use the correct meaning. Just use another word like social justice, socialism, sustantive equality.

If I consider the capitalist system an 'arbitrary obstacle', you can't prove me wrong.

In free market is coercion used to keep those arbitray obstacles in place? No. As for "accidental" obstacles yes I'm sure there are tons of examples. But the difference is coercion is not used to limit others. Again you are implying equality of outcomes. Me not "giving" you a car and expecting your to pay for a car is not coercion. Me being forced to give you a car or a minimum wage at my expense IS coercion. Liberty talks about removal of the coercive limitations. Sorry of that wasn't clear.

Again, definitions can't be wrong.

So if you were in school and the teacher asked you "what is an elephant" and you said its a metal vehicle with four tires and an engine that we drive around do you think you'd get that question wrong? So no words taught to anyone anywhere really has any definition at all? Of course there are wrong definitions. So is Hitler's rounding up and extermination of Jews "liberty"? If you persist in this irrational path then NO WORD you use can possible have any meaning and so no arguement can be made. What you describe is not liberty. YES there are incorrect definitions but apparently you didn't take 3rd grade because any 3rd grade teacher will tell you an elephant is not a car. Believe me I can eat you up if you wish to pursue this line of reasoning since I can merely choose to alter the definition of reasoning, definition or anything else I wish at any time.

All this proves is that you haven't changed since then! Simply calling arguments irrational does not make them so.

Wait, maybe I can just redefine the word "irrational" to mean anything I want. That's your game. You're even more dishonest because you merely redefined "liberty" to suit your purposes. Now THAT is irrational.

[Cordell Walker]

this isnt related to the past few pages of discussion
but it is an insightful perspective on single moms's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz1gCLXxxnc