Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Why?
Alimony, Child Support, and "Need Based" Welfare
/end thread
Last edited by presence; 09-08-2014 at 06:19 PM.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
What would be the plus side of being a wed mother? It's just a Religious ceremony as far as I can tell. I don't see where the chart shows that there doesn't exist a father in the home. Speaking only for myself, I know many people who have never got married and raise their children to be productive citizens in society.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-08-2014 at 06:25 PM.
Bastard Nation: America’s Welfare State Comes of Age
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/g...tion%E2%80%A8/
When a society defines a family as a married couple, the following does not happen. When it defines a family as an unmarried mother, children, and a welfare check, this is the result.
It can be summarized on a bumper sticker. “They copulate. We pay.”
[...]
All of this follows from a fundamental economic law: “When the state subsidizes a particular lifestyle, it gets more of this lifestyle.” Simple. Easy to remember. Never mentioned in polite company.
Call me impolite.
The voters have always known this. But the voters have been guilt-manipulated by liberals. The voters have chosen not to pay attention to economic cause and effect.
Now a new generation of voters is coming of age. They will vote.
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to presence again.
Whether or not parents are married is irrelevant. Whether or not both parents are present as positive role models for the children is critical.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
I thought you didn't think there was such thing as an unwed mother?
Welfare is a major problem. But one glaring issue that isn't often talked about is the way the marriage contract has been perverted in the modern world. These days marriage is a raw deal for men, but for women it's like winning the lottery. Things are no longer in balance, they have been pushed so far towards the benefit of a single party that the institution is starting to topple over on itself.
As a man looking at the prospect of marriage from a rational, unbiased point of view, you would have to be ludicrously stupid or a raving lunatic to accept such terms. The only way marriage makes any sort of sense is with the addition of a prenuptial agreement, but even then it's still wildly out of balance in terms of enforcement.
You are basically signing a contract that states that at any time, for any reason, the woman can leave with your kids, half your money, possibly your house and car, and a large portion of your paycheck for the next 18 years or so.
Yes, rationally it doesn't make sense. That said, falling in love can make one want to do something that's irrational. There is the "trust" aspect as well, which may or may not exist in a given situation.Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate
That's due to no-fault divorce. I think that's the key issue here.
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
Not to mention, today women give themselves for free, so it compounds the situation because why should a man marry when he gets what he wants without the contract?
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
I think I may have something to do with that graph.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
Women of all ages/times 'gave themselves' for free. Sex isn't a new thing, and neither is pregnancy or children outside of wedlock. And I really hate that wording - do men not give anything away when they decide to tango? And if they are not free to give up something in their own personal lives - then who gives it away for them... ?
By the way - believe it or not - in the majority of places in America sex is always free; paying for it would be illegal.
Last edited by Nirvikalpa; 09-09-2014 at 10:07 PM.
What do you want me to do, to do for you to see you through?
A box of rain will ease the pain, and love will see you through.
Box of Rain, Grateful Dead
निर्विकल्पा
aka Wicked Heathen
I was a nasty woman before Trump made it cool.
In community property states, this is not really true. Property owned by the man before the marriage remains his. Property earned by either party during the marriage is divided evenly. Children are another matter, and I think preference is often given to the mother but typically not as a matter of law. Alimony varies by state and how long you were married but also can cut both ways. By the way, I have experience with divorce so I have some knowledge of this. Marrying the wrong person is an expensive mistake in many ways but it is not as unfair to men as many seem to think.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
"Family courts" vary by state, hell they vary by county and even judge..
Avoidance is the best advice.
If two people can have sex, and one person can give the other money, why in the world is it illegal to give someone money for sex?Women of all ages/times 'gave themselves' for free. Sex isn't a new thing, and neither is pregnancy or children outside of wedlock. And I really hate that wording - do men not give anything away when they decide to tango? And if they are not free to give up something in their own personal lives - then who gives it away for them... ?
By the way - believe it or not - in the majority of places in America sex is always free; paying for it would be illegal.
The "winning the lottery" meme is largely hogwash, sorry. It's a very slim minority of people that would commit themselves to raising at least one child for the next 19 years or so just to get the promise of a monthly check. If you dissected the numbers, how many of those unwed mothers are living large off of the steady checks after a divorce? How many were never married to begin with, instead?
See, here's the underlying issue some of you were touching upon before it became about how women are gold diggers. If, hypothetically, I am there on the left side of the graph where 5% or so of babies are born out of wedlock --- maybe I bought that whole "I'm shipping out to war tomorrow and I don't know if I'll ever come home I'm so scared and if only you'd give it up I'd have the will to make it through!" speech --- and I kept the baby, that would be pretty tough stuff. My family might help me out a little. I might find secretarial work, or work as a teacher as long as no one knew my "past." I wouldn't really entertain the idea of finding a new father for this baby. Hell "dating" would be out of the question as I would be really busy just trying to survive. We'll gloss over the number of ladies pressured to have quiet little abortions on that side of the graph, too, before a baby could ruin their figure, reputation, and prospects. As ladies succumb to dementia the world is learning a lot of things.
Maybe towards the uptick in the graph, I feel I am liberated and I don't need a marriage ceremony to give me permission to make use of my uterus. It's still not conducive to me having a lot of children, though, because they are not cheap to raise.
Towards the right side of the graph, I might be raising a family just fine with a man I'm not married to. I might also be raising several by several different fathers. See, I don't have to work. After my first pregnancy, I had a moment of panic when I thought of how expensive it would be to raise a baby, but then realized it would be just about free. If I WORKED it would be expensive. Having the Government foot the bill would not give me a lavish lifestyle, but it would give me roughly the one I grew up in. With not much to do all day --- after a bit the Government even chipped in for day care, after all --- I found myself doing what people have been doing since the dawn of time. Wouldn't you know it? Another baby. And another. Why stop? There are health issues, but in the moment those seem distant, as they tend to seem for most people. I don't know many who think of the image of months of discomfort ultimately leading to painful tearing and twisting and stretching culminating with a miniature human being emerging from their privates, during sex.
It's that last group that is the danger here, just like in nearly every other issue. When you are not required to take responsibility (father or mother) for your child, then there is no reason to do so unless you are pressured societally to do so, and the temptation to take the way out is omnipresent. It's a cliché, but it's what's broken here.
Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.
Surely you are not suggesting that not only do we need government permission to break up with our lovers but that the government should also set the permissible criteria for such break ups?
It is hard for me to think of a more ridiculous over-extension of state power.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
I'm sure there must be an explicit point here... somewhere. I just cannot pinpoint it.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
MGTOW is the ONLY rational choice a Man can make.
cohabitation is the same thing as marriage - so that too is NOT an option.
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 05-13-2016 at 08:49 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 05-13-2016 at 08:49 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 05-13-2016 at 08:49 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
I think sex education is not going in the right direction regarding the "responsibility" of having sex and are taught that having an abortion and using birth control is a form of taking responsibility for having sex and also in the mix is getting on welfare to help you take responsibility and raise the children after birth control is not used or has failed and abortion is declined. I am pretty sure statically speaking most unwed mothers are young and under-educated.
I know women who put their 14 year old daughters on birth control because they "expect" them to have sex. To me that is insanely irresponsible parenting.
I am not sure what it means but, has anyone noticed that since abortion is legal and with the wide spread availability of birth control that the population number has exploded? To me this is a puzzle that I never hear anyone address.
Do you mean in the US? Because I'm pretty sure the population "exploding" isn't due to births. People are having less children and having them later in life. Lifespans continue to increase though which would have such an effect.
Last edited by specsaregood; 10-26-2014 at 01:41 PM.
Not sure what led you to conclude that, but you're wrong.
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
Pssh, women have to earn this man, I dunno what pity sex you been giving out to hobos.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
% of mothers who have decided marriage is a loser on a cost/benefit basis.
Individuals are really intelligent when it comes to economics that affect them directly.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
xxxxx
Last edited by Voluntarist; 05-13-2016 at 08:50 AM.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us