Monday, December 16, 2013

Government & Family Values -- What A Scam

By, Chris Rossini

I'm not a big fan of the term "family values". Only individuals have independent scales of values that are chosen and acted upon. I understand what is meant when a person uses the term. They usually mean a set of high moral standards. That's all fine and good. But it's important to keep in mind that "groups" don't value and act. Only individuals do.

In the political world, the powers that be like to collectivize everything. For example, we're very familiar with something like "The U.S. invaded Iraq." That's actually false. The truth is more like "Bob, John, Bill, and thousands of other individual troops invaded Iraq, on orders from their individual superiors, who take orders from The President". Each individual involved makes his/her own decision on what to believe and value.

I don't believe Bob, John, and Bill should be over in Iraq. I didn't choose their values for them. I didn't tell them who to believe or who to take orders from. I don't believe the people that they take orders from, but instead think no one should aggress against any other person. Finally, they are not in Iraq on my behalf either. How could they be?

The bottom line? People who live in a gigantic land mass (known as a country) cannot possibly all share the same values. That's pretty obvious.

Let's take the same principle a step further. People who live in a much smaller area (known as a home) don't necessarily have to share the same values either. Chances are you will have common values as do other people in your family, but you don't necessarily have to.

Finally, what individuals in one family share as a common value can be the polar opposite of what is valued by the individuals in the family next door, or down the street. Hence, there's no such thing as "family values".

With all that being said, let's look at how the political class operates when they use the blanket term.

E.J. Dionne writes an article titled "Family Values Hypocrisy" in The Washington Post. He says:
Politicians talk about family values but do almost nothing to help families. They talk about parental responsibility but do almost nothing to help parents. They talk about self-sufficiency but do precious little to make self-sufficiency a reality for those who must struggle hardest to achieve it.

How often can we hear that government should be more responsive to the problems Americans face now? But the vogue for simply assuming that government cannot — or should not — do much of anything about those problems leads to paralysis. This, in turn, further increases disaffection from government.
Boy, do I wish Dionne were right in his ridiculous statement, that it's "vogue" to assume the government cannot solve these problems.

Is Dionne living in the America of 2013, or has he warped back to the pre-1900's?

Does Dionne realize that government, over the last 100 years, has shoved itself into every single facet of our lives? Is he aware that the government has an over $3 TRILLION budget, and that they spend even more than that?

Dionne is trying to sell us the idea that people don't believe in government. Ha! I'd never hire him to sell anything for me.

Let's now get to how Dionne believes government should solve these "family values" issues:
For all these reasons, it was exciting last week to see Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut introduce the FAMILY Act, the acronym standing for their Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. The bill would provide partial income for up to 12 weeks of leave for new parents and for other family demands, such as care for a sick family member, including a domestic partner.

"Family Values" means not letting people form their own contracts with their employers. Or better yet, breaking any contracts that may have been made. "Family Values" means forcing people to get paid for 12 weeks of work, while not actually doing any work, because the government says so!

I get it now.

But perhaps 12 weeks is a bit much, don't you think? After all, when the Pilgrims entered the American forests, after stepping off the Mayflower, they demanded 11 weeks pay for no work. How can we demand more than the Pilgrims?

That's just greedy.

Beware when you hear "Family Values" from anyone in politics, whether it be a Democrat like Dionne, or from the other wing on the bird of prey, known as the Republicans. It's merely a feel-good term used to ratchet up the size and reach of The State.

Follow @ChrisRossini on Twitter


  1. The problem is that for far too many Americans, FedGov IS their family.
    The typical Repug relies on Uncle Sam to protect them from mooooslims and marijuana cigarettes and the typical Demo relies on their Sugar daddy Sam for food and birth control pills and abortions.
    Us voluntary orphans don't stand a chance.

    1. Demand deletion of the militia clauses in Article I and Article II of the great Constitution. Insist also upon deletion of militia clauses in the provinces' constitutions. The 2nd amendment can remain, and should remain, as it is.

      Leftists, many centrists, cops, and the military will howl in reactionary protest, but many rightwingers might be convinced of the wisdom of limiting governmental militia power. Afterwards, the 2nd am will take on a whole new appearance.

      In the meantime, disdain Bob Murphy's pacifist libertarianism, which reinforces the stereotype of libertarians as naive doormats.

  2. "Family values" has always been this BS theocon/warvangelical loaded term that justifies their use of the government gun in someone else's face. One could say that its their equivalent to the left's "wanting to help people" arguments.

  3. "They talk about parental responsibility but do almost nothing to help parents."

    How can they take responsibility when they get help to do their duties as parents, doofus?

    "They talk about self-sufficiency but do precious little to make self-sufficiency a reality for those who must struggle hardest to achieve it."

    How are people self-sufficient if government has to help them achieve it, doofus? It means you achieve things on your own. How can you learn to achieve things on your own when the very act of getting there requires help from big brother? If you depend on help, you are not self-sufficient. Duh.

    "How often can we hear that government should be more responsive to the problems Americans face now? "

    Good question. So instead of looking for more responsiveness, you should tell people to be more "self-sufficient". The thing that is the opposite of looking for government help.

    P.S. The more disaffection with government, the better.