Which factor is greater for crime?

[Diogenes]

Which factor is greater for crime? The War on Drugs, or the "War on Poverty?"




I argue that creating millions of households of fatherless children dramatically increases the probability that these children will grow up to be criminals. By making fathers unnecessary to the welfare of women with children, we incetivize people to engage in reckless sex because we have divorced them from the natural consequences of such behavior.


Fathers lay down the law, and make everyone understand that a certain quality of behavior is not only expected, but insisted upon. By conditioning children to accept familial rules of social interaction, it permits them to apply these disciplines to the larger social community.


Some women are capable of doing this as well, but many, if not most, are not. Children raised exclusively by women often lack discipline and have no concept of the rules necessary to live at peace with others in a community.


I argue that Government, by trying to "help" has made things far worse than if they had done nothing. Our Prisons are full of people who were raised without fathers, because they never learned to behave when they were young enough to be taught proper behavior.


They have bad firm ware.

[DeltaV]

An army in waiting.

[ladajo]

You may want to consider the balancing educational effect that having a mother and a father provides, combined with a stable home environment as the basic argument. Men solve problems differently from women. Children learn from both, but are genetically wired to approach solution based on gender.

The stable home environment embeds a sense of security, commitment, contribution and eventually self worth and self esteem.
Starting a child from the get-go in a single parent home where the primary care giver is probably much less available, and more often than not unable to equal standards provided to child peers in a two parent home, helps create a lifetime perception of inadequacy on the part of the child. This in turn can breed a sense of selfishness and need to fullfill wants (vice needs), which in turn eventually can become a pathological sense of entitlement at the expense of others.
Add on top of this the concept of society provided free stuff, and you have the makings of a healthy and robust viscious cycle that not only self-sustains, but also retains resource reserves to grow and expand.

In simple terms, I borrow some words from a Doctor I know, "Why do we create conditions to protect, support and reward further breeding and growth of a defective gene pool?" His terminology may be harsh and enjoin visions of past freakish endeavors, but his intended point is actually salient. We, as a society, are encouraging the furthering of stupid lazy people at the expense of smart industrious people. We are not seeking to promote them from stupid and lazy resource absorbers to become contributers and resource generators. We are happy, it seems, to provide a perfect breeding environment for the virus that is making us ill.
Unless we fundamentally change the way we as a people look at this, the zombies are going to eat us all.
It has little to nothing to do with the "War of Drugs".
These people need something better to do. We are not finding it for them, nor are we giving them any incentive to do it if we did.
They exist in a state where they have no desire to find anything better to do. And those of us who are net contributors, are paying for it. And the net consumers are happy when asked to further the lot of those that protect and nurture the transfer of resources to them.
There are people in our country that have no idea for their entire lives what paying taxes is, nor do they have any idea of where the government gets money. They have no reason to care. They are so used to getting free stuff, that when they think it is not enough, they develop ideas that they have every right to just take it from others. That is where the crime comes from.
War on Poverty is my vote.

[Skipjack]

Which factor is greater for crime? The War on Drugs, or the "War on Poverty?"




I argue that creating millions of households of fatherless children dramatically increases the probability that these children will grow up to be criminals. By making fathers unnecessary to the welfare of women with children, we incetivize people to engage in reckless sex because we have divorced them from the natural consequences of such behavior.


Fathers lay down the law, and make everyone understand that a certain quality of behavior is not only expected, but insisted upon. By conditioning children to accept familial rules of social interaction, it permits them to apply these disciplines to the larger social community.


Some women are capable of doing this as well, but many, if not most, are not. Children raised exclusively by women often lack discipline and have no concept of the rules necessary to live at peace with others in a community.


I argue that Government, by trying to "help" has made things far worse than if they had done nothing. Our Prisons are full of people who were raised without fathers, because they never learned to behave when they were young enough to be taught proper behavior.


They have bad firm ware.

By your logic, post WW2 Germany and Austria would have been filled with criminals... So many children growing up without fathers.
That said, I do agree with the general notion that a functional family is beneficial for the development of a child (not just in regards to criminal behaviour).

[Diogenes]

Which factor is greater for crime? The War on Drugs, or the "War on Poverty?"




I argue that creating millions of households of fatherless children dramatically increases the probability that these children will grow up to be criminals. By making fathers unnecessary to the welfare of women with children, we incetivize people to engage in reckless sex because we have divorced them from the natural consequences of such behavior.


Fathers lay down the law, and make everyone understand that a certain quality of behavior is not only expected, but insisted upon. By conditioning children to accept familial rules of social interaction, it permits them to apply these disciplines to the larger social community.


Some women are capable of doing this as well, but many, if not most, are not. Children raised exclusively by women often lack discipline and have no concept of the rules necessary to live at peace with others in a community.


I argue that Government, by trying to "help" has made things far worse than if they had done nothing. Our Prisons are full of people who were raised without fathers, because they never learned to behave when they were young enough to be taught proper behavior.


They have bad firm ware.

By your logic, post WW2 Germany and Austria would have been filled with criminals... So many children growing up without fathers.
That said, I do agree with the general notion that a functional family is beneficial for the development of a child (not just in regards to criminal behaviour).

From what I have seen of them, I would argue that many German mothers are amongst the category of Women more likely to be able to raise children in a single parent household. Discipline is a well known tenet of German culture, and the German women I have known do not put up with bullsh*t.


I think I would use the term "Mean."

[ladajo]

I would also aruge that in post WWII Europe that everyone had something better to do. Like, rebuild. The other choice was to die off, or become Russian. Which more or less would have equaled the die off choice.

[hanelyp]

The welfare state doesn't just dispense with a financial need for a father, it dispenses with a financial need for any family. I expect many a war widow had brothers, their own fathers, and other men in their extended family who could step in as needed to serve as a father figure to her children.

[ladajo]

Not to mention the jobs dynamic was totally different.
The really interesting point to considering when thinking on Post WWII reconstruction is that is was the largest and most successful Social Welfare Project ever accomplished. But it was excuted in an entirely different manner than what we see today. Its purpose was to create something better for poeple to do. Then intent was to provide means and incentive to participate and succeed. it was not simply to float them along at the expense of others.
A similar approach was taken in Japan. Also very successful. But also to be fair a different culture as well that was an assist in itself.

One may also consider and argue that these post war efforts lead by the US augmented a belief among the Social Welfare minded that Big Government can Provide for the Masses. Which in my analysis is a fallacy as the re-construction efforts were really Temporary Big Government can provide the impetus for the Masses to Provide for Themselves when all has been lost.

But of course, now-a-days, it is about Providing for the Masses. And those Masses are more addicted to it the longer it runs. It is a form of narcotic. With similar effect in stimulating The Happy in the brain, and a powerful re-enforcement with the negative impacts on The Happy when you reduce it or take it away.

[Skipjack]

Which factor is greater for crime? The War on Drugs, or the "War on Poverty?"




I argue that creating millions of households of fatherless children dramatically increases the probability that these children will grow up to be criminals. By making fathers unnecessary to the welfare of women with children, we incetivize people to engage in reckless sex because we have divorced them from the natural consequences of such behavior.


Fathers lay down the law, and make everyone understand that a certain quality of behavior is not only expected, but insisted upon. By conditioning children to accept familial rules of social interaction, it permits them to apply these disciplines to the larger social community.


Some women are capable of doing this as well, but many, if not most, are not. Children raised exclusively by women often lack discipline and have no concept of the rules necessary to live at peace with others in a community.


I argue that Government, by trying to "help" has made things far worse than if they had done nothing. Our Prisons are full of people who were raised without fathers, because they never learned to behave when they were young enough to be taught proper behavior.


They have bad firm ware.

By your logic, post WW2 Germany and Austria would have been filled with criminals... So many children growing up without fathers.
That said, I do agree with the general notion that a functional family is beneficial for the development of a child (not just in regards to criminal behaviour).

From what I have seen of them, I would argue that many German mothers are amongst the category of Women more likely to be able to raise children in a single parent household. Discipline is a well known tenet of German culture, and the German women I have known do not put up with bullsh*t.


I think I would use the term "Mean."

Uhmm, German women are no less loving and affectionate to their children than American women are.

[Diogenes]

I think I would use the term "Mean."

Uhmm, German women are no less loving and affectionate to their children than American women are.

Didn't say they weren't loving. Just that when it comes to deciding an a$$whipping is needed, they do it.

[MSimon]

I think I would use the term "Mean."

:)

Uhmm, German women are no less loving and affectionate to their children than American women are.

Didn't say they weren't loving. Just that when it comes to deciding an a$$whipping is needed, they do it.

That is one way to get a lot of kids with PTSD. Hitler being a classic case. He had all the symptoms (filled with rage - among others) and regularly got his A$$ whipped by his old man. But he did get his revenge.

BTW in your fight against the government dopers would be your natural allies. If you hadn't put them in the enemy category. You have been divided. Can conquered be far behind?

[williatw]

Uhmm, German women are no less loving and affectionate to their children than American women are.

Didn't say they weren't loving. Just that when it comes to deciding an a$$whipping is needed, they do it.

That is one way to get a lot of kids with PTSD. Hitler being a classic case. He had all the symptoms (filled with rage - among others) and regularly got his A$$ whipped by his old man. But he did get his revenge.

BTW in your fight against the government dopers would be your natural allies. If you hadn't put them in the enemy category. You have been divided. Can conquered be far behind?

His father did yes...along with all his other kids, his dad was nuts. His mother on the other hand doted on him like crazy.

[Diogenes]

Uhmm, German women are no less loving and affectionate to their children than American women are.

Didn't say they weren't loving. Just that when it comes to deciding an a$$whipping is needed, they do it.

That is one way to get a lot of kids with PTSD. Hitler being a classic case. He had all the symptoms (filled with rage - among others) and regularly got his A$$ whipped by his old man. But he did get his revenge.

Kids do not need to get beaten, but many of them do need to get spanked. Not all. Some are manageable with other techniques.

BTW in your fight against the government dopers would be your natural allies. If you hadn't put them in the enemy category. You have been divided. Can conquered be far behind?

As giving the doppers what they want will eventually result in a catastrophe as bad or worse than what is already occurring, why should we prefer the fire to the frying pan?