Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Monday, December 1, 2014

Income Inequality – a Moral Imperative

By Tom Rhodes, 12/1/2014

Income inequality is said to be a massive problem, I've noted in the past if you compare volume of government regulations to income inequality there is a direct proportionality. More Regulations = More Income Inequality. But correlation doesn't equal causation. There is probably a better determiner of income inequality - family structure.

A couple studies have come out that compare economic status and family status. The results are interesting. The hard fact, without any moral condemnation, is there is an income and wealth premium for people raised in two-parent homes.

Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.

One of the reports declares, "The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality." In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. The data from the National Survey of Children's Health, indicates only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. While in families consisting of a never-married single mothers with kids, the comparable figure is 46 percent.

Obama declared that income inequality is "the defining challenge of our time." OK then let's stop doing what we know doesn't work. The "War on Poverty" coincides with two phenomenon that dramatically correspond with increased income inequality. The destruction of the two-parent household, and the increase in State intrusion in the lives of everybody, with the State, not the people, determining winners and losers in the market, education, everything.

The reports were careful not to be judgmental, but I'm not politically correct, so I will be. The problem is moral. People who have children out of wedlock should be ashamed of themselves. People who have multiple children out of wedlock should be shunned, ostracized, and publically condemned for their immoral actions. Having one child might be a mistake, oops, lapse in judgment, accident, or whatever, and is rationally forgivable. It is not good but people are not perfect. That said it's still a tough situation that does not bode well for the child both now and in his future (for you SJW’s, when the sex of the subject is not identified the proper pronoun to use when referring to that subject is the male form; he, him, his, chairman, etc. In this case it is not sexist to use his for a generic child which may be male or female, it’s just proper grammar, get over yourselves).

Having children outside of a two-parent family, is morally bankrupt, not because the mother or father shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, but because it is more than just irresponsible to bring children into an environment that is we know is unhealthy for the child. Don’t take my word, take the word of President Obama who clearly and unequivocally said, "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol." People who have multiple children outside of a married two-parent household, have no excuses. They, not the “selfish” public, carry the sole responsibility for putting their children into a position that will in all likelihood result in privation, and bear the sole responsibility for providing for those children until they are adults.

Because currently the State provides for the children of a man who has more multiple children from different women, if he is single and not paying FULL child support for all his children; he should be forcibly castrated, and have his wages garnished to poverty levels until those kids are fully supported and adults. Such a man has proven to be of low moral character, has proven not to take full responsibility for his actions, and is a cad. Society should condemn him and his actions. Conversely, because currently the State provides for children of any woman who has children, if she is not married and is on any kind of government income assistance, she should be forced to have a tubal ligation. She has proven herself to be of low moral character, and unwilling to take full responsibility for her actions. Society should condemn her and her actions.

Being poor isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with poverty. Being rich isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with wealth. However, purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty, and make creating wealth more difficult is immoral. Promoting, encouraging, condoning, even merely accepting without condemnation, single parents with multiple children is immoral. It is purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty and that make generating wealth more difficult.

The most significant driver of income inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach. Having children outside of a two-parent household has overwhelmingly proven to be bad for children, and is proven to be a drain on society. It is immoral by any rational standard.

The libertarian solution to this moral problem is far more humane, would be more just, more effective, and more palatable than forced sterilization. End the government intrusion into the family that created the increase in single parent families. The current system rewards immoral behavior and punishes moral behavior. It’s backwards. The above idea of forcing sterilization on those who behave immorally, is tyrannical and draconian. However it is no more tyrannical and draconian than forcing those who are responsible, who created environments where they and their children prosper, to have their prosperity confiscated and redistributed to those who choose to be irresponsible. Let those who live irresponsible lives and their children suffer the consequences of their actions. Let’s be clear, I’m saying that women who have multiple children outside of marriage, and are dependent on the government to support them and their children, are unequivocally immoral and irresponsible. They are not hero’s, they should not be praised for being single mothers, they are examples of moral rot. They should not be given any government support. They and their children’s privation will be examples to what happens if you choose to live an immoral lifestyle.

Current government assistant programs let a woman substitute the government as provider for her and her children instead of their father. The government is a poor substitute for a husband and father. As Obama noted, when the government not the father, is the protector and provider of children, they are more likely to be poor, to be dropouts, to be addicts, and more likely to be criminals. Because the government will and does act as protector and provider the sacrifices necessary by women to stay with fathers, and not have babies without a father no longer exists. The feminist idea that women don’t need men to be complete ignores reality. The evidence is clear, the data doesn’t lie, it doesn’t make moral judgments, the fact is women and children need a husband and father, without one they are far more likely to live and remain in poverty.

In the USA income inequality isn’t a sign of an unjust system that holds some people back, it is the direct result of people who choose to live immoral lives and abandon the traditions and morality that created the wealthiest most prosperous society the world ever saw. Our society cannot survive the moral rot that has created laws that punish moral behavior and reward immorality.

Many economists, like Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. have said for years, the path to success and living in relative prosperity is simple. 1) Finish high school, 2) Get a job, 3) Get married, 4) Have children, and do those things in that order. What that reflects is traditional family morals. Condoning, empowering, helping, or in any way promoting people who choose to live outside of that simple plan isn’t just wrong, it’s immoral.

No comments:

Post a Comment