There are many reasons for the decline of the family, lifestyle choice among them. These are all channels through which it is not unreasonable to claim that the welfare state, directly and indirectly, plays an important role in the gradual disintegration of the family. When the welfare statists claim that they are providing safety, security and quality of life for the citizens, remember that this this coerced public service is crowding out the voluntary private alternative. [Full article]
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/2095/the-silent-partner-in-family-decline/
The Silent Partner in Family Decline
Previous post: The Spillover Effects
Next post: Why the FCC should die
{ 7 comments }
You might as well have re-written the same article replacing “Danish” by “European” (or presumably “North American”, or “western”)- with only a slight adjustment in the figures.
Aside from redistribution and welfare schemes, another factor which plays a significant role in the disintegration of the family is legislation. In many European countries (I am not sure about Denmark), children compulsorily inherit their parents’ wealth, parents having no choice in this matter. Therefore, unlike in the not-so-distant past, there is no longer any incentive for children to take care of their parents – except for the few who kept some family values!
To illustrate the point, you may be interested to learn that in France, over 15,000 extra-deaths were registered around mid-August 2003 as a result of unusual heat. The vast majority were elderly people over 65 who lived in state run “retirement homes”. Many had children who were on vacation and who only found out about their parents death some weaks later (when they were eventually contacted by authorities upon their return). You thought Denmark was bad!
When you are not part of any group or community and refuse to judge any individual except by knowing that individual personally, it makes sense to marry at “the last minute” possible. This way you will have known as many people as possible before making a decision. (Of course, some of them are no longer still single or still known to you by that time, but this custom of marrying very late still represents your best chance of getting the best person available to you when you are presented with a series of individuals strictly ONE BY ONE).
It is interesting to me to think how a socialist can marry AT ALL. If you believe everyone is equal, how can you love just one; how can you choose one person above others? Do you say, “I love you so. You are SO AVERAGE– SO MUCH just like everyone else.”? This factor alone (assumed equality of all members of society) would cheapen ans diminish the family structures, I would think.
I wonder how those people can justify discriminating against someone who is, say, a dwarf, or who is, say, 85 years old, or who is, say, very unintelligent. Since these are attributes the person cannot control, why is it legal in socialist countries to discriminate against persons with them in the arena of marriage? — Or, IS it legal?
As far as the upbringing of children is concerned, is it not proven that children from good, dedicated orphanages (as opposed to government-run institutions or day care)do about as well as other children?
Mr. Hansen has hit the nail on the head. The endless growth of goverment as it subsumes the function of the family causes a sort of voluntary human extinction. All around the world we see democratic societies vote themselves ever larger welfare benefits, unaware that the young working people who pay these benefits cannot afford to reproduce. Who was the economist who said “Things that are unsustainable tend to stop”?
What a truly insidious process. This is just indicative of what politics turns into: class warfare and pervasive welfare.
Imposing taxation (especially heavy taxation) is like throwing up virtual prison bars around a society. When people are treated like criminals by taxing away the fruit of their labor, society starts to break down.
As I wrote recently(Link)
Much of the problem of our dying population can be placed at the feet of our horrible nutrition. The state will of course not be let off the hook in the field
of nutrition. In the case of Denmark war socialism in WWI shifted the
population from using traditional butter and dairy to using margarine and
vegetable oils, removing valuable vitamin A and fat soluble nutrients that are
necessary for reproduction and adding trans-fats that endanger the health of
the child. I can only imagine the horrors of the EU recommended diet for
producing wards of the state.
Mary,
Excellent points. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that politicians–inherent socialists–are notorious for marriages of convenience while maintaining kept women (or kept men, as the case may be.)
A phenomenon I wonder if anyone else has noticed:
When I was a boy in the 1960′s, the “homeless” people I saw tended to be older, white crackers, sometimes married couples, fallen on hard times and hitchhiking to get help from family members in another state. I do not recall ever seeing a homeless black person during that time period. Now, the homeless I see are overwhelmingly young, alcoholic, black men who waste their days in city parks, under bridges, or around homeless shelters.
I have hypothesized that this phenomenon is one of the effects of welfare on black families in America.
I wonder what the average Dane would think of this article. I fear they might find it either incomprehensible or seditious. The trouble is, growing up in such a “society,” one knows no better than to think that this is the way things should be.
In fact, I wonder how our author (evidently a younger sort of adult) himself managed to transcend what I would assume to be a more or less typical Danish upbringing?
Comments on this entry are closed.