> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, universal care for children frees women to sleep with
> > with someone for his desirability, unconcerned with regard
> > to his resource base.
> >
> > You could be poor but if you can come up with cute, funny, strong,
> > a good "rating" by the independent panel (:-)) ... you would have
> > more women after your buns.
>
> Really. Well, why hasn't it happened with 35 years of welfare society?
> Its the same thing.
No, no no! There is a distinct difference between "universal *care*" and "caring" to hide the problem. In some tribal societies, the children are viewed as "cherished resources" (in contrast to the average politician's view of the average welfare child...). There is a big difference to putting a band-aid on a wound to stop the bleeding and treating a serious infection.
There is also a big difference in a culture structured to support children and one where children are viewed as a parent's responsibility or a culture where the system is designed to promote having children as a method for supporting the parent!
If you can find a "welfare child" who considers that he was universally cared for and cherished by the elders of his community, then I'll eat this letter. Children aren't stupid, the recognize when they are being swept under the rug or pushed into the background (or treated as commodities). When that happens, the result is low self-esteem. Can you honestly claim that our "welfare society" served to promote the self-esteem of the individuals who were "helped" by it?
[Which is not to say that I know how to design or operate a program that would be designed to promte self-esteem!]
Robert