RSS

Thomas Sowell: if we care about poverty and crime, then we should encourage marriage

05 May

This is one reason why, rather than getting out of the marriage business, governments should be encouraging real, proper, Marriage 1.0. (Which would of course necessitate getting rid of Marriage 2.0, by getting rid of no-fault divorce, alimony, and so on.)

WINTERY KNIGHT

Economist Thomas Sowell Economist Thomas Sowell

My favorite economist Thomas Sowell writes about poverty and crime in National Review.

Excerpt:

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across…

View original post 397 more words

Advertisements
 

19 responses to “Thomas Sowell: if we care about poverty and crime, then we should encourage marriage

  1. infowarrior1

    May 5, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    More specifically encourage patriarchy. Its not monogamous marriage by itself that produces greatness but the patriarchal nature of that marriage.

     
  2. Will S.

    May 5, 2015 at 10:45 pm

    True.

    But the mere presence of a father promotes patriarchy to a far greater degree than his absence, of course. And this is frequently the problem with the ghetto: no fathers, = rule by mothers…

     
  3. infowarrior1

    May 5, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    @Will S.

    ”But the mere presence of a father promotes patriarchy to a far greater degree than his absence, of course. And this is frequently the problem with the ghetto: no fathers, = rule by mothers…”

    I disagree. It also depends on what kind of personality the mother and father has(as well as the impacts of the laws of the land as well as the fact if the father has male friends to keep him masculine). For example many current households have a mother ruling the roost instead of the father in the monogamous marriage.

    Like I saw a woman motioning with her head and directing her stroller pushing husband where to go at the train station.

     
  4. Will S.

    May 5, 2015 at 11:08 pm

    “It also depends on what kind of personality the mother and father has(as well as the impacts of the laws of the land as well as the fact if the father has male friends to keep him masculine). For example many current households have a mother ruling the roost instead of the father in the monogamous marriage.”

    True enough. After all, white Americans (and Canadians) all too often have the father there, but he is ruled by his wife (wrongly following the ‘logic’ of that saying, “Happy wife, happy life”. As if a woman will be happy when she rules, when in fact we patriarchists know the opposite is true.).

    “I saw a woman motioning with her head and directing her stroller pushing husband where to go at the train station.”

    Ugh.

     
  5. feeriker

    May 6, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Guys, guys, guys …

    The reestablishment of patriarchy and stable families, which includes restoration of respect for and authority of fathers, is the LAST thing that TPTB want to see. Remember: stable families headed by fathers (i.e., patriarchy) represents a direct threat to the power of the State. Ghettos full of violent, irresponsible, terminally dependent men are the State’s primarily goal, as such people are easy to control. Patriarchy is anathema to this. Sowell certainly knows this (even if his State-worshiping fellow conservatives don’t or won’t admit it), so it’s a shame that he doesn’t spend more time hammering that point home. Pundits who urge the State to encourage the right/godly thing are either terminally naive or have an ulterior motive.

     
  6. Mark Citadel

    May 6, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Something I’ve been mulling over for a while.

    It appears one of the key arguments in favor of Patriarchal Marriage Structure is that is convinces men to get married.

    On the plane of virility, man does not necessarily need marriage, as the manifestations of his true virility are in heroism and asceticism, which are indicative of a self-contained independence, they don’t require a wife. The woman meanwhile has her two manifestations of true virility (as lover and mother) dependent on a man. With this equation in mind, women will be more spiritually predisposed to marriage.

    On the plane of biology and the goal of procreation, man has less need for marriage than woman, because his sexual potency rarely declines with age whereas a woman’s does, and while he can impregnate as many women as he wishes, the woman can only be pregnant once at a time. Again, a woman seems to need the support structure of marriage far more than the man.

    How is this overcome via societal mechanisms to ensure stability and a healthy sexual economy? By creating a high incentive to marriage for men.This includes not only having high status accorded to men who create grounded, stable families (rather than say traveling bachelors), but also awarding men power and responsibility within such units (legal and social benefits) when they get married. A man who has no power or responsibility may gain these highly sought after things for men, by securing a wife for himself.

    What has really destroyed marriage is making it totally unappealing to men, legally and socially. Thus, the men will continue to have sex of course, but will not create stable family homes to nurture children into good citizens. Black men in particular (owing to a nature that is already out of step with their rather cushioned environment in America) have real trouble with this. Hardly any stick around once the ‘business’ has been done.

    Some traditions and legal changes required in the Reactionary State to solve this problem (as a general rule, obviously altered dependent on the religious basis of a given nation or its racial characteristics)

    – Dowry payments to husbands from bridal families
    – Return men to higher status in court
    – Divorce rendered illegal
    – All marriages officiated by religious authorities
    – Higher focus on the sanctity of the marriage union by said religious authorities
    – Return women to domestic roles
    – Revive the value of sons to their fathers
    – Criminalize adultery for both sexes
    – Create a stigma surrounding unmarried professionals above a certain income
    – Re-mystify sexual activity

     
  7. Will S.

    May 6, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    @ feeriker: Agreed.

    @ Mark: Yes, it will take changes of that kind, by a committed reactionary regime, to restore patriarchy.

     
  8. infowarrior1

    May 6, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    @feeriker

    Didn’t the code of Hammarubi state that patriarchy is the basis of state power?

     
  9. ray

    May 7, 2015 at 9:50 pm

    Seen some of Thomas’ vids. Very sensible. Good thread too.

    The State has no business with marriage. Marry before the Lord with sincere, simple vows, male to love and cherish female, female to obey and cherish male. Both promise to serve God. Two adult witnesses.

    No divorce, except as scripturally allowed. God will expect lifelong commitment for vows made before him.

    Wives and children live under the authority of the husband, who leads and covers them under the kingship of Christ. Once the State is involved, women (collectively and individually) eventually assume authority over men, and assume ownership of children. Fathers and fatherhood gradually are eradicated under the combined influence of women and government.

    Even ‘patriarchal marriage’ isn’t enough, because almost every person defines that differently, and we end up right back at zero. Gotta have biblical marriage under biblical provisions, elsewise folks
    will just keep changing the rules, and boys will keep going without daddies. Which is exactly what God told us not to do at the end of the OT. Or else.

    Cheers.

     
  10. Will S.

    May 7, 2015 at 9:56 pm

    Hmmm. Something to chew on…

     
  11. Sanne

    May 8, 2015 at 4:28 am

    Ray, if marriage becomes a private business, as you suggests, who is going to enforce the marriage contract in case one of the parties breaks it?

     
  12. Will S.

    May 8, 2015 at 6:04 am

    Aye; there’s the rub…

     
  13. ray

    May 9, 2015 at 2:19 am

    ‘Ray, if marriage becomes a private business, as you suggests, who is going to enforce the marriage contract in case one of the parties breaks it?’

    As mentioned, he takes our oaths to him seriously, including marriage vows, if made before him. He hears every word and thought. He enforces breaches in his own ways and times, sometimes utilizing servants and sometimes alternate methods, e.g., ‘natural’ events, medical events. Christ supervises (or sometimes, merely allows) consequences for breach of vows to Father.

    I’m pro-marriage — just not civil marriage, especially wedding-ganzas. Marriage indeed has become a business, and a yoke on the nation’s men. But I’m not suggesting it become ‘private’. I’m advocating biblical marriage under biblical authority.

    We aren’t expected to be perfect, he already knows we aren’t, and can’t be without him. But we are expected do our best here, and to adhere to agreements made before his holiness.

    Cheers.

     
  14. Sanne

    May 9, 2015 at 4:08 am

    Ray, i see your point, it’s just that in life various situations arise, some of them unpleasant. Suppose a man comes home only to find that his wife had emptied his bank account, took his child and left. If there in no civil authority to enforce the marriage contract, what is he to do? The only thing possible for him will be to take law into his own hands, which doesn’t always work the way people think it will since his wife presumably has a family of her own to defend her, or her new husband may be more proficient with weapons than her previous one. The society you describe will inevitably be a society with a lot of family feuds going on.

     
  15. Sanne

    May 9, 2015 at 4:10 am

    Also biblical authority is great but it will need civil authorities to enforce it.

     
  16. infowarrior1

    May 9, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    @Sanne

    The law of coverture was great for enforcing the Authority of the husband. Unfortunately it was quickly abolished due to pressure from women’s groups in the 1800’s.

     
  17. Sanne

    May 10, 2015 at 4:47 am

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s