TheDutchLibertarian Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 It is about a fragment which can be heard from 26min to 29min. In this fragment Stefan is constructing a basis for his following argument that: “The women <In General> are to be blamed for the de-railed, uncontrollable children that Stefan would later label as “Prisoners of War” (25:20min)” Stefan’s exact words: “I put 100% responsibility in general on the women. The woman either chooses to have sex with the man or she doesn’t. “ Stefan goes on arguing his case until he starts to speak about the following hypothetical case / scenario / circumstance (choose which you prefer). I cite his exact words again: “So, if she had unprotected sex, and is not ready <to be a mother> and the guy is not right <to be a father>, or the mom is not in a position to take care for the child, then again, she should, I hesitate to say, have an abortion. Because am still swinging widely like a pendulum on that issue but certainly give the child up for abortion. That is what used to happen before the welfare state.” Following this, Stefan basically makes this comparison (His “Bottom-line”): Before the welfare state, mothers (liked described above) did not have the means to keep the child and therefor gave them up for adoption. Because the child was given up for adoption it now had a “second-chance” on a better life, therefor increasing its probability to grow-up like a rational-decision maker (Ayn Rands version). Because in our current day and age we have a welfare state which supply’s the mothers (like described above) with some sort of “Safety-Net”, the mothers are choosing to keep the child to get some (potential) financial gain.” Now here is my problem: Stefan’s hypothetical case / scenario / circumstance (choose which you prefer) that: “Women in our current day and age choose to keep the child for some sort of financial gain.” Is to narrow sided in my opinion.What about an argument based on intelligence? Maybe these mothers are just too stupid and short-sighted. Only thinking in the short-term? What about religion? Maybe their communities norms and values dictate that one is loyal to their husband no matter what? What about anti-abortion?What about television? Programs like Teen Moms on MTV. Making teen moms in some sort of celebrity or role model?? Some primal need to reproduce? And this is basically what I am trying to say: Could these mothers be just so unaware that they literally roll in to circumstances? Living a day at a time? Pure emotion and impulsive behavior? What kind of human being could be so reckless about the future of their own (to-be)child? That’s it. I hope the English was readable. I am an 24 years old and I am currently finishing my master’s degree in industrial engineering and renewable energy. Long time watcher and first time poster! I Am from The Netherlands and in my student community Stefan is getting a lot of ground. Keep up the good work! Great Stuff guys!
Wiltin Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 All those other considerations you listed; stupidity, short-sightedness, religion, television, primal urge for motherhood, would be irrelevant without the financial support of the state. The state enables bad patents.
dsayers Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 The state enables bad patents. While this is true, it's more like the middle chapter of a story. To regress a bit further, the State is an extension of the family. Alison Gopnik's work has revealed that we are born empathetic and reasonable. We only speak the language of coercion because coercion was inflicted upon or modeled for us.
Recommended Posts