Cool internet post No. 1
Hi again, after a long delay, again!
This semester the amount of teaching I will be doing at university has doubled! In addition to the seminars I ran on moral philosophy last year, I will be running seminars on feminist philosophy. Hence the relevance of this post. Some guy made a post to Liberty Forum, so I thought I would respond to him:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young women no longer know how to sacrifice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." Ayn Rand
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistics for children born-out-of-wedlock are devastating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is wedlock? Wedlock is what binds people in a marriage. What is marriage? Marriage is whatever the government calls a marriage, and anything that is not what the government calls a marriage shall not be treated as such. And what is a family? Family is whatever the government calls a family and anything that is not what the government calls family shall not be treated as such.
When conservatives call for the government to encourage marriage as a basis for family life, and to encourage the traditional family as the proper environment for raising children, actually policy practice necessarily requires the government to define what counts as a marriage, and what counts as a family. This is, then, a nationalisation of marriage and a nationalisation of family - it is to restrict the terms to state approved marriages, and state approved families.
I say: Boycott the state. Have children out of wedlock.
This semester the amount of teaching I will be doing at university has doubled! In addition to the seminars I ran on moral philosophy last year, I will be running seminars on feminist philosophy. Hence the relevance of this post. Some guy made a post to Liberty Forum, so I thought I would respond to him:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young women no longer know how to sacrifice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." Ayn Rand
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistics for children born-out-of-wedlock are devastating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is wedlock? Wedlock is what binds people in a marriage. What is marriage? Marriage is whatever the government calls a marriage, and anything that is not what the government calls a marriage shall not be treated as such. And what is a family? Family is whatever the government calls a family and anything that is not what the government calls family shall not be treated as such.
When conservatives call for the government to encourage marriage as a basis for family life, and to encourage the traditional family as the proper environment for raising children, actually policy practice necessarily requires the government to define what counts as a marriage, and what counts as a family. This is, then, a nationalisation of marriage and a nationalisation of family - it is to restrict the terms to state approved marriages, and state approved families.
I say: Boycott the state. Have children out of wedlock.
posted by Richard at 3:25 PM
5 Comments:
Nice line but wrong. Kids with married parents do better than those without, after allowing for variables. The solution to the nationalisation of marriage is to denationalise it, not to abolish it.
Julius, perhaps. But the question is, what to do until then. If we are to withdraw co-operation with the state, then that means avoiding state controled marriages too, right?
No. The state licenses and regulates medicines. Of course it should not. But until that happens ....
Hm. Interesting analogy. We would not, of course, normally try to "ignore the state" when it controls medicine or the roads, so why marriage? An answer may, of course, be that the consequences of not getting married may be far less disasterous than the consequences of not getting medical treatment.
No doubt, but there are still adverse consequences (I conjecture). Of course, like the socialists who send their children to sink-comprehensives out of "principle", we too might decide to make a point by avoiding marriage with its statist taint. But I have never been in favour of harming one's children for the sake of one's principles.
Post a Comment
<< Home