Tag Archives: society

The family and the state

Recently, a friend of mine posted a link to an article which details how Sweden views corporal punishment.

KARLSTAD, Sweden, November 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Swedish district court has sentenced a couple to nine months each in prison and fined them the equivalent of US $10,650 after they admitted to spanking three of their four children as a normal part of their parenting methods. Corporal punishment of children by parents was made illegal in Sweden in 1979, an early step in what a U.S. parental rights lawyer called the nearly total take-over of parenting by the state in Sweden. Court documents, quoted by Sveriges Television, said that the parents, who have not been named in the press, “explained that they had used, what they themselves described as spanking, physical punishment as part of their methods for raising the children.” There is no indication of abuse by the parents in the released documents, with the court noting that the parents “had a loving and caring relationship with their children.”

Families are the building blocks of society, and so it logically follows that parents are sovereign over their (plural possessive) children. Now some might object that this sounds like slavery and that they “don’t think anyone has sovereignty over anyone, whatever the status of any given institution in society. Responsibility, yes, and certainly parents have authority over their children, within the constraints of what is morally and socially acceptable.” However this poses a couple of problems.

Parental sovereignty

Humans are contingent beings. As such we cannot be our own sovereigns. Children in particular are dependent. The question is “dependent on whom?” Naturally, I would argue, they are dependent on their parents, the beings responsible for their existence. So when I say that parents are sovereign over their children I am simply pointing out their unique relationship with their offspring.

Social acceptability

As I’ve written elsewhere, a standard of morality based on societal norms is, by definition, not a standard. The reality is that the sovereign gets to make the rules. That means God as our ultimate sovereign, parents as their childrens’ sovereign and government as the sovereign of free men1.

Government serves families, not the other way around

Here in the US, during our “wild west” days, a constraint was placed on lawmakers and courts to honor that unique relationship above all else. Consequently state intervention in family matters was rare and required a great deal of justification on the state’s part. And even then it was seen as a failing all around if the state had to intervene because that meant violating the societal flow of families being the building blocks of society and consequently government. So when we look at cases like the article above we can confidently say that Sweden is a bad place to live because it has a wrong view of how societies are built. It is not the government’s job to raise children, it is the job of their parents. At best the government can and should encourage and equip parents to form healthy and stable families, but under no circumstances should governments or voters be tempted to think that it is anyone other than the parents who get to decide what is best for their children. Signed, A father of three and a husband of one.

  1. It may shock some people to think about children as not being free, but that’s life. In fact, I would argue that a human child’s extended dependent status provides a clear rebuttal against Darwinian evolution. []
Share

The dangers of diversity

We’ve been trained to react to certain words, like Pavlov’s dog. So we hear “diversity” and we are supposed to automatically think it is a universal good.

So says Thomas Sowell in this interview where he also outlines the other problems with the popular stance on diversity.

In a longer interview from the Fixed Point Foundation, we are given a more detailed presentation of How Cultural Diversity is Destroying America.

Here are the combined highlights from both Thomas Sowell and the Fixed Point podcast.

  • Diversity by its very nature is divisive
  • Far from being a universal good, diversity by itself is destructive without social cohesion (ie. multiculturalism is a deadly poison for any society that dares to drink it)
  • Humans from various races are not interchangeable. That is actually demeaning to the people involved.
  • It is often claimed that a population is not diverse through poor or deceptive sampling techniques. For example, diversity statistics often do not count

Diversity advocates are fond of creating and passing around posters like this one which are intended to show that America is still very divided racially. However what these advocates often fail to account for, as Thomas Sowell is fond of pointing out, is that the simplistic solution of “we just need to mix people up more” is not only not a suitable answer (never has been historically) but that it actually makes things worse. Without a central culture for people to adhere to, forced diversity only produces strife and animosity.

The chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, has made news recently for saying that Germany’s multiculturalism strategy has failed because it did not emphasized cultural integration. Rather, they accepted immigrants and foreign workers without expecting them to cohere to a set of centralized cultural values and customs.

In short, when Germans stop practicing German customs, then Germany stops being Germany.

I only hope America wakes up and learns this lesson before our mad dash towards diversity at all costs ends up destroying our once great nation.

Oh, and to my liberal friends: When people like Sarah Palin (whose very name manages to evoke an almost comical albiet visceral reaction from her opponents) talk about “real America”, they are likely referring to the set of ideals around which our society cohered for a very long time.

Share