We seem to be shifting away from family values and responsibility and into a society that depends heavily on the government. — Athena

The usual conservative canard.

Anything good for poor people or working people = handouts, dependence, entitlement, a failure of entrepreneurship. Big government is the problem. People should be responsible for themselves and not rely on big daddy government to solve their problems. Nothing is free.

Etc.

Meanwhile wealth inequality is at a point that rivals the time of the pyramids, wages have stagnated while productivity has increased, and power becomes more and more concentrated into fewer hands. All with the help of government — but that’s OK. The real issue is providing free public college, free child care, and free healthcare — that’s socialism!!

What a bunch of bullshit. The rich know their propaganda, I have to say.

You know, like Athens and Sparta. When Persia began invading and Athens imitated Sparta to some degree. Athens expecting all men to defend the country and in return giving them a say in government, but it did not start taking care of everyone's needs as Sparta did. — Athena

Apparently it was a difficult life for children in Sparta. Among other harsh child care practices, it is reported that "unfit" children were killed soon after birth. I think your idea of good child raising is different from mine.

I have some really crazy ideas — Athena

Yes.

Living somewhere where there is not exactly a great deal of help handed out to people I can see your point. That said I don't think things are much different now than before. Reading articles by persons such as George Orwell from the late 40's I could easily have mistaken them for a modern piece. I think times change but some conflicts in society are necessarily eternal. I am curious to see how/if our current means of mis/communication impacts upon the common repeating trends of so-called left or right political stances.

As ever (no apologies for repeating myself) the issue seems more about mass global media and the advent of the internet age we've just started coming into. I put a lot of the current sociopolitical turmoil/upheaval down to greater awareness and exchanges between peoples/cultures than in any period in human history.

I think this account for a seemingly growing polarity between different political attributes, but the reality is more or less that we just have more contrast (and extremist views) thrown around in social media circles leading to the appearance of (and perhaps creation of due to belief in?) a greater problem than the reality of the situation has to offer.

I think there is too much emphasis on the extremes of both ends of the argument and that hyperbole doesn't help much. I would like to see free healthcare and education on a global scale. When I saw a woman on UK news interview complaining about funding to help with her children out of school I laughed! It is people like her that are the main problem and usually the most vocal too (note: She did her interview with fine bone china clearly on display in her cabinet behind her and she wasn't particularly concerned about how others were struggling and just wanted her piece of the payout).

I would prefer to see people at the LOWEST end of the spectrum receive a larger chunk and cut out people who simply feel that they 'deserve' something because they 'work so hard'.

Neither conservatism nor socialism are dirty words. They are both perfectly legitimate policies but either as a stand alone scheme to fix all problems are pretty terrible.

Have we made this social change with much thought? — Athena

No. We never will because we cannot see what happens until it happens. Conservatism will hold us back from finding a 'better' way or making a terrible make, and Liberalism will open us up to more more mistakes yet allow us to search beyond the norm for a 'better' way.

Too much thought will lead to stagnation, and too little will just lead us back to where we begun with no step forwards. We have to learn (in group thought and/or individually) through our mistakes. Sometimes the cost will be brutal but there is always tomorrow - until there isn't! :D

My 1940 Family Law book holding family responsible for family, no longer applies. Have we made this social change with much thought? — Athena

Economics, I think.

For a number of economically motivated reasons, women began to move into the work force in the 1960s (well before then, like during WWII, then back out). As women began working outside the home more, the need for childcare services increased. Eventually, women were far more IN the workforce than not, and the availability of childcare became a national issue.

Over time, families found they needed more than one income to support their desired lifestyle. (Essentially they needed 2 incomes to pay for what most working class people wanted.). They could have done without stuff they wanted, been poorer, and women could have remained home and in charge of child care. That's the sort of home I grew up in. Most people wanted the stuff.

Further... wages have lagged behind inflation for decades, reinforcing the need for two (or more) incomes to maintain a certain lifestyle. Then, there are women who have decided to have children without partners who have set themselves up for a much higher likelihood of poverty.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else.

It is all economics, but it's the economics of capitalist oligarchies that are destroying families.

Consume, consume...trash the Earth and your neighbor and you trash yourself and you trash the soul of your family.

You can't have it both ways. This life is archaic. This is not order.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else. — Bitter Crank

Replace 'rich' for 'financially stable' and I think that sums it up fairly well. Except I think the ignorance of the middling population are not intentionally 'screwing' everyone else, they're just too busy trying to be super rich or believe they deserve a little reward for floating above the rest.

I think it might be reasonable to consider that middling incomes are more likely to look down on poor people than rich people because they are one step away from them and think why can't they do what I did? Why should they get help and I not? It is petty and childish, but humanity isn't exactly paragon of its possible self just yet.

Of course nobody wishes for their marriage to fail, to experience a fatal or debilitating incident, or to fall into severe addiction or substance abuse, but these things happen, and more often than you might think. So where do we go from there. Somewhere is better than nowhere in this case.

I'll be the first to agree with the notion we want safety nets for the genuinely downtrodden and severely ill-fortuned to avoid becoming a fluffy mattress for the lazy and willfully inept, simply for the sake of those who actually need or deserve it and basic decency as a whole, but that doesn't mean we just throw the baby out with the bathwater all willy nilly like. No system is perfect, there will be faults and flat out abuses, especially as safeguards and the like are fine-tuned.. and threats properly assessed, which takes time. After all, you won't know how to fix something you didn't build until it reaches a less than ideal state. Stress test, throwing a wrench into the works to see what happens, burning the village to save it, sometimes these are all things that must be done. Not always. But for fledgling creations such as American democracy, and even most other things, if you don't do it, somebody else will.

The news show I watch keeps announcing we have a child care crisis and the government should fix it. — Athena

The feminist solution was "wages for housework". My mother was extremely smart, but as soon as she married, she had to give up her job in the bank, and become a housewife - bank rules and social pressure was that married women did not work (except fishwives of course, but being married to a fisherman was a bit part-time and likely temporary, and thus easily despicable).

As I have mentioned elsewhere, patriarchal society depends on the control of women's sexuality. The childcare crisis is part of the way the patriarchy pressurises women, (alongside restricted abortion of course) Traditionally, unpaid domestic service kept women dependent. (Fishwives were proverbially foul-mouthed, because they had some financial independence.)

But the root of the modern problem is that children are a glut in the market. Men can produce robots more efficiently than women can produce babies, and they are cheaper to run. And of course the sex is better too. So. we look forward to a world without work, without women and without children. And that will solve the climate problem too, as well as the childcare crisis; a win, win.

We’re all to blame. State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power. We’ve given up on educating and rearing our children, passing that responsibility to the state, then wonder why people seek statist solutions. It’s all they’ve ever known.

:up:

:up:

Well then somebody ought to hurry up and tell the Scandanavian / Nordic countries that they've been doing their brand of welfare-state capitalism wrong for almost a century. :shade:

Funny how people can dress up paying over $1000 per month for formal child care as "Family Rights"

↪Athena
Well then somebody ought to hurry up and tell the Scandanavian / Nordic countries that they've been doing their brand of welfare-state capitalism wrong for almost a century. — 180 Proof

Is There a State Crises in Sweden?

Food for thought. Balancing a welcome carpet for immigrants with social welfare movements. Law and order issues. And more. Sweden's wealth distribution figures are similar to those of the US.

Food for thought. Balancing a welcome carpet for immigrants with social welfare movements. Law and order issues. And more. Sweden's wealth distribution figures are similar to those of the US. — jgill

That is an excellent explanation of Sweden's problem. The disparity between who feel like they are on the inside of Sweden's social order and those who don't is evidently a serious problem. A speaker at the 1917 National Education Association explained our schools were Americanizing immigrant children and it was expected their parents who did not understand the US democratic institutions would learn from their children. This was necessary to stop the bombings and other acts of violence. That is so easy to understand. People on the outside fighting for what they want because they do not know how to get it any other way. Every country should take this problem seriously and stop thinking in terms of criminals as naturally immoral people and enemies of the state, and address the reality of those who are on the inside and those who are not.

Family values are important to social order because they support morality emotionally and intellectually. This was the main focus for Confucius, but it is also important to democracies. Strong families mean strong nations. And gays are not destroying family values but are often better models of family values than straight families. Family values can be promoted by education and the media. At this point in time, the US education and media score very low when it comes to family values, and this concerns me.

The natural family support system of immigrants is broken by the fact of separation. Others in the forum have mentioned how war and poverty also break down the family support system. When the family support system is broken down, there is a greater need for the government to become a strong parent enforcing discipline and providing assistance. In the US, the family support system is very weak because family values are very weak. Ignoring this is like ignoring cancer. The problem will get worse.

We’re all to blame. State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power. We’ve given up on educating and rearing our children, passing that responsibility to the state, then wonder why people seek statist solutions. It’s all they’ve ever known. — NOS4A2

Thank you.

When the US entered the first world war, Industry attempted to close the schools claiming the war caused a labor shortage and they were not getting their money's worth from education because education was not preparing the young for jobs and they still had to train new employees. That is when we began VOCATIONAL TRAINING. it was not just industry that needed trained workers but our lack of vocational training was a national defense crisis! In times of war the government is the biggest employer and we were not ready for war! We needed typists, engineers, machanics, etc now!

Teachers argued an institution for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens, and everything they did to support the war effort was awesome! Education was the most important civil institution for mobilizing us for war until 1958, when military technology made it possible to mobilize for war in 4 hours, instead of a year. We no longer need patriotic citizens as we once did, and we dropped education for good citizenship and family values.

Today it is the parents who can argue they are not getting their money's worth from education because our young are being prepared to be products for Industry. That was something we stood against. I want to highlight what you said. "State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power." There is a huge difference between educating for family values and good citizenship, and educating the young to be products for Industry. Hail Hitler. To whom are you loyal, your family or the state? If you go in for counseling, the mental health professional will turn you away from family values in favor of being self-centered and will help you see your family as toxic and your need to become independent. In the past, this was a need to grow up, and education helped the young do that. If you can not depend on your family, who can you depend on? The state of course.

Apparently it was a difficult life for children in Sparta. Among other harsh child care practices, it is reported that "unfit" children were killed soon after birth. I think your idea of good child raising is different from mine. — T Clark

Please, explain what you think I said, and how you think your idea of good child-rearing is different from mine.

My point was, Sparta had on family values. As soon as males came of age they lived in the barracks with other men and everything, including sexual intimacy, was focused on those male relationships. This was extreme loyalty to the state and a lack of family values.

Economics, I think.

For a number of economically motivated reasons, women began to move into the work force in the 1960s (well before then, like during WWII, then back out). As women began working outside the home more, the need for childcare services increased. Eventually, women were far more IN the workforce than not, and the availability of childcare became a national issue.

Over time, families found they needed more than one income to support their desired lifestyle. (Essentially they needed 2 incomes to pay for what most working class people wanted.). They could have done without stuff they wanted, been poorer, and women could have remained home and in charge of child care. That's the sort of home I grew up in. Most people wanted the stuff.

Further... wages have lagged behind inflation for decades, reinforcing the need for two (or more) incomes to maintain a certain lifestyle. Then, there are women who have decided to have children without partners who have set themselves up for a much higher likelihood of poverty.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else. — Bitter Crank

I want to address both of you on this understanding of economics. When the USSR "liberated women" they said the full-time homemaker was a none productive member of society and the state intentionally created social pressure to get women to join the workforce. The effect was economic improvement because of doubling the workforce. Wages could stay low and productivity went up.

The rate of abortions and divorces went up, and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. It didn't take long to realize state-paid child care was essential to this economy. John Dewey an American education expert was dismissed as the USSR education advisor, in favor of education for communism and loyalty to the state.

In 1958 we radically changed public education and replaced our "domestic education for good citizenship (strong family values and independent thinking) with education for a technological society with unknown values. (end of family values and "group think). This resulted in radical social changes that were an improvement, but also an increasing abortion and divorce rate and growing poverty, and finally, we recognize the government must pay for child support. We can add to this, the number of women and children involved in violence and crime has increased both as victims and offenders.

NO ONE WANTS TO BE JUST A HOUSEWIFE! How well I remember the "New Woman" magazine and the destruction of the value of a full-time homemaker. Loyalty to the family has gone to hell and dependence on the state has increased.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N9K7eoVtm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GYLwgVxQs

Changing the image of a woman was very popular and this came before the cost of living required two paychecks Let us be aware of this, Our economy is based on supply and demand. As women entered the workforce, not only did wages drop with the increased supply of labor but more and more families could apply for housing loans, and as the banks got richer, the cost of housing went up, and we are trapped in an economic system that is in serious trouble, while our children are institutionalized because no one wants to be "just a housewife" and only the disgusting poor women stay home to raise their children.

NO ONE WANTS TO BE JUST A HOUSEWIFE! — Athena

Just a housewife? Oh.. oh wow. My dear lady, with all due respect have you gone mad? What greater role is there in human development than the role of a constantly present and nurturing mother? Not more than I can think of- save for oxygen perhaps. Oh my dear, you have it all wrong. The woman is not confined but enshrined in the most important role a man has in his life, the future of his offspring and legacy. My dear, please. Have a cup of tea, and relax.

I am not sure if you are trying to make a point by being sarcastic or if you are being sincere? I suspect what you said is based on misogyny and that you were not being sincere. Am I right?

Personally, I believe family is more important than individuals. Love of state over love of family is reminiscent of Hitler's fascism.

I'd like to know what "family values" are. It's often thrown around as a warning, but its meaning is quite elusive.

Or, it could simply be a phrase used as an excuse for sensible policy.

I'd like to know what "family values" are. It's often thrown around as a warning, but its meaning is quite elusive.

Or, it could simply be a phrase used as an excuse for sensible policy. — Manuel

Okay, let us compare fascism with democracy. Where does one's loyalty lie? With the state or
with the family?

What are the values that are best for social order and why?

Some define "family" in the conservative capitalist way of a "nuclear" family. In the old days, and especially among indigenous people, family was more communal. One had many brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Blood was not determinative.

Some would divide and conquer this traditional notion in order to better utilize the individual human resource. Nuclearize him and he becomes less dependent upon the group and more dependent upon his employer.

Socialism is just the family writ large. If we were to make a virtue of necessity, and exalt the giver instead of the taker, then positions of authority would be filled by the provider that no one would be required to follow, suffering only ostracization if they upset the family apple cart.

Listen to the givers. Pay attention to how they got what they give. Realize you and your spouse aren't much good at raising well-rounded humans all by yourself. It takes a village. Look around at how fucked up the world is right now. Not enough mothers, brothers, etc. Too many who think they are an island.

Yep, in fascist societies one indeed has to tow the party line or you're in trouble.

What does loyalty to democracy mean? Belief that it should be the way that a nation is governed? If it means that, OK, I don't see a problem. But the word "loyalty" has connotations of subservience.

I still don't know what family values are supposed to mean.

I am not sure if you are trying to make a point by being sarcastic or if you are being sincere? I suspect what you said is based on misogyny and that you were not being sincere. Am I right? — Athena

I'm being superfluously expressive.

Are you really going to sit there and call a man admitting a woman is the most important part of the household if not humanity altogether misogynistic? Are you serious? Now I'm being angry if not concerned, or morbidly amused. How is that OK with you? Can you not see the larger picture?

Living somewhere where there is not exactly a great deal of help handed out to people I can see your point. That said I don't think things are much different now than before. Reading articles by persons such as George Orwell from the late 40's I could easily have mistaken them for a modern piece. I think times change but some conflicts in society are necessarily eternal. I am curious to see how/if our current means of mis/communication impacts upon the common repeating trends of so-called left or right political stances.

As ever (no apologies for repeating myself) the issue seems more about mass global media and the advent of the internet age we've just started coming into. I put a lot of the current sociopolitical turmoil/upheaval down to greater awareness and exchanges between peoples/cultures than in any period in human history.

I think this account for a seemingly growing polarity between different political attributes, but the reality is more or less that we just have more contrast (and extremist views) thrown around in social media circles leading to the appearance of (and perhaps creation of due to belief in?) a greater problem than the reality of the situation has to offer.

I think there is too much emphasis on the extremes of both ends of the argument and that hyperbole doesn't help much. I would like to see free healthcare and education on a global scale. When I saw a woman on UK news interview complaining about funding to help with her children out of school I laughed! It is people like her that are the main problem and usually the most vocal too (note: She did her interview with fine bone china clearly on display in her cabinet behind her and she wasn't particularly concerned about how others were struggling and just wanted her piece of the payout).

I would prefer to see people at the LOWEST end of the spectrum receive a larger chunk and cut out people who simply feel that they 'deserve' something because they 'work so hard'.

Neither conservatism nor socialism are dirty words. They are both perfectly legitimate policies but either as a stand alone scheme to fix all problems are pretty terrible.

Have we made this social change with much thought?
— Athena

No. We never will because we cannot see what happens until it happens. Conservatism will hold us back from finding a 'better' way or making a terrible make, and Liberalism will open us up to more more mistakes yet allow us to search beyond the norm for a 'better' way.

Too much thought will lead to stagnation, and too little will just lead us back to where we begun with no step forwards. We have to learn (in group thought and/or individually) through our mistakes. Sometimes the cost will be brutal but there is always tomorrow - until there isn't! :D — I like sushi

There are so many excellent posts!

We can see what will happen by learning how different sets of values, played out in different nations. The US has adopted the bureaucracy and education of fascist Germany and the destruction of family values of the USSR.

George Orwell from the late 40's could observe fascism. While many in the US thought fascism was the solution to economic crashes, George Orwell saw the danger of centralizing power and authority. Democracy in the US was far from efficient and the federally controlled social programs we have today would not possible without adopting the German (Prussian) model for bureaucracy. Social Security would not be possible without the change in bureaucratic order.

The change in bureaucratic order was made for good reasons. The problem is we lack of awareness of that change. Because we have no understanding of it, we have no control of our government, and this loose of control is leading to concerns of civil war.

We strongly stood against the federal government controlling education until the 1958 National Defense Education Act replaced our democratic model built on Athens' model of education for well-rounded individual growth. The huge difference in these education models is preparing everyone to be generalist or specialist and preparing everyone to be independent thinkers or reliant on authority. We can see in Perciles' funeral speech that democracy requires generalists, not specialists, and we can see in Eisenhower's warning of the Industrial Military Complex there is a danger in depending too much on specialists. We have experienced a huge shift of power and authority and in general, have no understanding of what happened. All we know is we are pitted against each other. If we do not resolve this problem before my generation dies, the memory of the democracy the US once had will be as forgotten as the memory of Athens, and we return to a dark age.

but it did not start taking care of everyone's needs as Sparta did. — Athena

Sparta had a subject population, the Helots, to take care of the needs of the Spartans. There were far more Helots than Spartans. Hardly socialism. But it does seem familiar, doesn't it?

Some define "family" in the conservative capitalist way of a "nuclear" family. In the old days, and especially among indigenous people, family was more communal. One had many brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Blood was not determinative.

Some would divide and conquer this traditional notion in order to better utilize the individual human resource. Nuclearize him and he becomes less dependent upon the group and more dependent upon his employer.

Socialism is just the family writ large. If we were to make a virtue of necessity, and exalt the giver instead of the taker, then positions of authority would be filled by the provider that no one would be required to follow, suffering only ostracization if they upset the family apple cart.

Listen to the givers. Pay attention to how they got what they give. Realize you and your spouse aren't much good at raising well-rounded humans all by yourself. It takes a village. Look around at how fucked up the world is right now. Not enough mothers, brothers, etc. Too many who think they are an island. — James Riley

Nicely said.

Before 1958 we had education that promoted families and being cooperative. In 1958 we began education for Military-Industrial Complex and completed the shift from dependence on family to dependency on the state. We replaced the classical Greek and Roman philosophers with Germany's philosophers, the very ones who lead to Nazism. We now worship the power of the state and instead of family acceptance and values, we want to be absorbed by the state and identify with a social unite bigger than the individual, bigger than the family, even though this means being like the Borg, with no individual power of authority. Groupthink, dependency, the end of family.

Someone mentioned robots and that is cheaper to make robots than prepare children for Industry. Sorry, I can not find that post but I want to acknowledge the importance of that thought. And to say, effectively we do have robots and a computer-controlled society. This is the result of adopting the German/Prussian model of bureaucracy and the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which prepares the young to be products for a society controlled by Industry.

Arguing about capitalism or socialism is being pretty clueless.

Sparta had a subject population, the Helots, to take care of the needs of the Spartans. There were far more Helots than Spartans. Hardly socialism. But it does seem familiar, doesn't it? — Ciceronianus

Wait a minute you lost me. Enslaved humans are the machines a society uses, they are not part of that society. Only Spartan men and women were part of that society and it was totally socialist. The state had complete control over individuals and Athens stood against that.

Enslaved humans are the machines a society uses, they are not part of that society. — Athena

Spoken like a true Spartan!

Yep, in fascist societies one indeed has to tow the party line or you're in trouble.

What does loyalty to democracy mean? Belief that it should be the way that a nation is governed? If it means that, OK, I don't see a problem. But the word "loyalty" has connotations of subservience.

I still don't know what family values are supposed to mean. — Manuel

Thank you. And I must mention Trump. What is up with that? I am absolutely blown away by the power so many have given Trump, and as Hitler and Neitzche, the cry is to be superior and crush the weak. That is not the best thing for the international reputation of the US. That is not what made America great.

This change in the opinion of being great comes with the change in bureaucratic order that makes individuals weak unless they are party members.

The truth is hidden by paradox and confusion.

What does democracy mean? To be as the gods. However, the gods did not have absolute power as they had divided power. They argued with each other until there was a consensus on the best reason, making democracy rule by reason, not rule by a king, and making the Christian kingdom of God, unfit for democracy. Democracy is not authority over the people but the people empowered to rule themselves by reason. I do not think Trump is a ruler for democracy, any more than Hitler and the power of fascism.

So we have a definition of "democracy", which is good, it works for me.

I also agree that large portions of the population are confused by ideological propaganda. Of course, I am not free myself of my own ideology, but I try to look at the evidence and arrive at conclusions on this merit alone. But I could be wrong.

People who, for example, believe in the Q conspiracy theory or think vaccines are modes in which we will be controlled by microchips have a distorted apprehension of the evidence. Likewise with people who think Trump is amazing. This is a big problem in political discourse.

We can quibble about the causes of bureaucratic problems, no problem. But I've yet to understand what is meant by family values. I won't be a nuisance and ask again, I'm curious by what you mean here.