osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,867
I actually understand the heart of the issue, where Huckabee is coming from in his criticisms of libertarianism. I agree that social issues affect economic issues in society, and as he pointed out, when individuals are unable to govern themselves, it justifies the civil authority to act in order to govern them into the right behavior (i.e. for murderers, rapists, child molestors, arsonists, thieves, etc.). The government is justified in punishing non-self-governing individuals in society, for that is the purpose for which it was designed in preserving God-given rights of the innocent.
Nonsense. I know of nobody I might term even loosely "libertarian" who disagees with holding criminals accountable for their deeds. This is pure baloney.
Also, when people act immorally in society (like having a baby out of marriage, getting dumped, and becoming a single mom), it does bear an economic burden for the rest of us.
More nonsense. Your notions of "immorality" do not necessarily agree with those of others. I certainly see nothing wrong with having children out of wedlock. Marriage is fine for those who want it and not fine for those who do not. Neither you nor any other person have even the first thing to say about it. It is none of your business.
And what are those costs to which you refer?
That is because it gives the single parent an incentive to rely on "free" governmental services to take care of herself and her child (i.e. Medicaid, food stamps, low single-parent housing, etc.).
That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of "morality" at hand. It has everything to do with governmental theft of my earnings, the redistribution of which is IMMORAL in a far more readily demonstrable way than that of which you speak. If you want to talk morality, then at least do so credibly. Theft is demonstrably immoral. Having a child is not.
Those have to be funded by tax dollars
No, they do not.
Yes, I know that, ideally, we should have none of those services from the government, but in our present condition, they are available and highly relied upon from mainly women who "make mistakes" and need help from the public.
More nonsense. If such theft-based safety nets were unavailable, young women would be far and away more mindful about keeping their legs closed. As for those who persist in doing the wrong things - tough shit. You tossed the dice and came up snake-eyes. Them's the breaks. Put your child up for adoption if you cannot take care of him. Hell if I will pay your free ride.
Essentially, the government becomes the "husband" of the single mom, and it subsidizes irresponsible behavior.
And the point is?
...we need to give private incentives to places like churches in allowing them to take care of those burdens and ministering to the needs of those whose private sins have public effects upon us all.
And when that avenue comes up short - what then?