TheAgitator.com
Deadbeat Courts
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004If you own a penis, or care about someone who does, you should read this piece in Reason by Matt Welch.
I was floored when I read it in the magazine, and have been waiting for it to come online so I can pass it along to you.
It ought to inspire “write your elected officials” anger in you.
I work daily with the Texas Attorney General office’s blizzard of child support mail. It is supposed to go to Texas school districts so they can get in contact with the parents. But due to a nearly decade-long glitch in the Texas Workforce Commission’s data, almost all of that child support mail comes to my company and to my desk.
For the three-plus years I’ve worked here I’ve sent letters, made phone calls, and attempted to get this corrected. It took them thousands of returned mailings (each batch with an increasingly agitated letter enclosed) to finally respond and set up a meeting to correct the problem.
That was in December.
Now, instead of getting these damn Medical Support Compliance Forms from the Austin office…I’m getting them from a Texas AG office in Massachusetts.
Unreal.
I have been seeing this stuff on Montel Williams for years. There is a lot of abuse in the child support system. I mean, a wife can cheat on her husband and have 4 or 5 kids with another man and lie to her husband for years, yet he is forced to pay child support for another man’s children after the divorce.
Senator Kuehl, mentioned in the article, is an evil dyke from hell. And you can quote me on that.
This is like some Stalinist nightmare and you still find people defending the current state of affairs (yeah, bad pun…)
There’s a deeper problem here, even the biological fathers ought not be held responsible. If it’s entirely a woamn’s choice as to wheter she gives birth to a child then it’s entirely her responsibility.
“There’s a deeper problem here, even the biological fathers ought not be held responsible. If it’s entirely a woamn’s choice as to wheter she gives birth to a child then it’s entirely her responsibility.”
I can’t wait to bust out that quote on a proponent for abortion.
If a lot more of us could keep our penises in our pants and our legs closed then this wouldn’t be as large of a problem as it is (in terms of the rediculous sheer numbers). This has its roots in sexual promiscuity.
This is ridiculous. Throw in getting ‘accused’ of rape to the mix and it’s like a 1 - 2 punch of ‘how to screw up a man’s life without him doing anything wrong’. I agree with Radley, this needs to get out there and anger everyone.
“If a lot more of us could keep our penises in our pants and our legs closed then this wouldn’t be as large of a problem as it is (in terms of the rediculous sheer numbers). This has its roots in sexual promiscuity.”
All that’s needed is to let the costs of promiscuity remain where nature has bestowed them - with the woman. The situation will not improve until individual women bear the full costs of their choices.
Seems in the age of DNA testing this should be a moot point, easy to determine responsible party.
“Seems in the age of DNA testing this should be a moot point, easy to determine responsible party.”
Who needs DNA? The responsible party can be easily identified at birth. It’s the mother.
John’s trying really really hard to get the women out there riled up…any takers?!?
John: I have one thing to say to you!
Dana
As long as I keep my own legs closed I have nothing to worry about. All women should take such an attitude.
Of course, I know, this world is not perfect, a woman can be raped, other things can happen out of her control and all that stuff, but in life, you get dealt a hand of cards and you play it. You can either fold or you can look for the next card.
“As long as I keep my own legs closed I have nothing to worry about. All women should take such an attitude.”
Yes, but many won’t until they must bear the full costs of their choices. Any attempt to push the cost off onto someone else only exaccerbates the problem.
seems to me that the intent of the law was just, but the implementation sucks. it’s hardly a matter of “just keeping your legs crossed.” there are various reasons why a child may not be getting the financial support needed.
but if we’re voting here, i’m in favor of changing whatever law we have so that the wrong guy doesn’t take the fall for someone else.
John T. Kennedy: “If it’s entirely a woman’s choice as to whether she gives birth to a child then it’s entirely her responsibility.”
and
“All that’s needed is to let the costs of promiscuity remain where nature has bestowed them - with the woman. The situation will not improve until individual women bear the full costs of their choices.”
and
“Who needs DNA? The responsible party can be easily identified at birth. It’s the mother.”
Help me understand your position. Are you saying that as long as abortion is legal, women who become pregnant and decide to keep the baby should bear the sole financial responsibility because they could have simply aborted it?
It seems that if you are really saying this, then you are not only a proponent of abortion rights, you are a proponent of abortions. It’s like saying “well, you’re stupid for not getting an abortion, so you have to pay for it now.”
If that’s not what you mean, what are the “choices” for which the woman should bear responsibility? The choice to have unprotected sex in the first place? Well, it can’t be that, because both parties made that choice (oftentimes with the man asserting pressure or making promises to induce the woman to agree)(and, for that matter, oftentimes the woman’s choice isn’t freely made).
If you are trying to argue that it is a woman’s sole responsibility to care abd provide for a child she became pregnant in the first place, well that’s pretty misogynistic, isn’t it?
>>I have been seeing this stuff on Montel Williams for years. There is a lot of abuse in the child support system. I mean, a wife can cheat on her husband and have 4 or 5 kids with another man and lie to her husband for years, yet he is forced to pay child support for another man’s children after the divorce.
“Of course, I know, this world is not perfect, a woman can be raped, other things can happen out of her control and all that stuff, but in life, you get dealt a hand of cards and you play it. You can either fold or you can look for the next card.”
I agree, and that is why some compassionate programs must be in place to hand those cases. But in our current welfare state, abuse of a noble idea is rampant. A lot of people don’t want to fold and wait for new cards, they just want to bitch about why the don’t have a good hand to begin with. Which is why, in the end, the libertarian view of no government intervention at all may be the only solution. Can we overcome the abusers? I used to think so absolutely; I grow less sure everyday.
maybe i read a different article than everyone else, but the main problem didn’t seem to lie with abusers to the system…but the system itself, which seems to have no checks. cited were cases where the woman had stopped seeking money, but the “system” kept harassing these men.
I think the real problem is that the legal and social deck was stacked against women before the women’s lib movement. When feminism forced these inequities to be confronted, the new legislations that went into effect began to swing too far the other way, with the intention of protecting women and children. This particular issue is symptomatic of where the social pendulum has swung. It’s like sexual harassment laws; I think most people would agree that if a boss blackmails sex out of a subordinate, or a co-worker is constantly grabbing a woman’s ass, there should be repercussions. The problem is that the way the laws are written and interpreted, people can get sued/fired for telling a dirty joke. When laws are written, they should have the most narrow range possible, specifically addressing a behavior and laying down guidelines for proof of wrong doing.
the system sucks - change it. and while i understand that the majority of the cases aren’t this way, regarding full responsibility of the mother, what about women whose husbands leave them and discontinue support? that falls outside of the promiscuity assumptions being made here. tangential thought, i know.
Who’s Yo Daddy?
The Agitator links to ReasonOnline about the horrors of men who are wrongly forced to pay child support for children they didn’t father. What Pierce didnââ¬â¢t realize, and what nearly 10 million American men have discovered to their chagrin since
God I love this site
eric - I’ll drink to that!
Valerie Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto will soon become a constitutional amendment.
Charlie,
“Help me understand your position. Are you saying that as long as abortion is legal, women who become pregnant and decide to keep the baby should bear the sole financial responsibility because they could have simply aborted it?”
No, I’m saying that except in the case of rape women should bear that responsibility, period.
“what are the “choices” for which the woman should bear responsibility? The choice to have unprotected sex in the first place? Well, it can’t be that, because both parties made that choice”
And both parties ought to bear the natural costs to themselves. Women get pregnant and men don’t Men and women know this. If a woman voluntarily has sex with a man with a disease knowing full well she could contract that she cannot hold him responsible when she does.
” (oftentimes with the man asserting pressure or making promises to induce the woman to agree)”
It’s serious matter; she should get a contract with him first if that’s what she needs. And she’ll have great incentive to do so when she is not protected from the natural costs to herself.
“(and, for that matter, oftentimes the woman’s choice isn’t freely made).”
Obviously she is not responsible for the consequences of rape, the rapist is.
“If you are trying to argue that it is a woman’s sole responsibility to care abd provide for a child she became pregnant in the first place, well that’s pretty misogynistic, isn’t it?”
Not at all, it’s recognizing that a woman is both soveregn over herself and responsible for what she allows to happen to herself, responsible for the exercise of her sovereignty over herself.
“what about women whose husbands leave them and discontinue support?”
If she has contract with him then he should be liable for breach of that contract. If she has no contract then there is no valid claim against him.
“that falls outside of the promiscuity assumptions being made here. tangential thought, i know. ”
Not far outside - she made a bad choice.
I Think John pretty much has this covered.
Are vows made durring a ceremony adequate for a legal contract in the case of shared responsibility? After all their are witnesses.
I doubt it… The elements of a valid contract are usually stated to be: Offer and Acceptance; Consideration given, or under Seal, and; Intention to bind.
In considering those elements, one must also ensure: Capacity to contract; Genuine consent by all parties; Legal purpose, and; Capability of Performance.
It could be argued that, at face value, wedding vows would satisfy the elements of a valid contract, but the terms the parties are agreeing to (i.e. “Love, honor and cherish from this day forward,” et cetera) make it nearly impossible to satisfy the letter of the contract “till death do us part.” Also, unless you’re dealing with a dowry, prenup or something of value in exchange for the adherence of the wedding vows, there’s no consideration given. Doing it all for love will more likely put you in front of a family court judge than a civil court judge when the marriage breaks down.
Of course, that’s just this one non-lawyer’s opinion…
“Are vows made durring a ceremony adequate for a legal contract in the case of shared responsibility? After all their are witnesses.”
For what? For any damned thing one of the parties wants to claim was the substance of the contract? No.
By John’s reasoning, it seems equally true that since whoever the father was, knowingly had sex with the woman in question, and knew that children were a possible outcome, he should be… just as responsible?
If the woman made a “bad choice” by having sex, why does that not apply identically and equally to the man involved?
How did we get from the injustice of making men who are not fathers be legally responsible for children who are not theirs, to the absurd position that men cannot be at all responsible for children they do father?
“By John’s reasoning, it seems equally true that since whoever the father was, knowingly had sex with the woman in question, and knew that children were a possible outcome, he should be… just as responsible?”
No. because pregnancy is not a consequence to *him*. If a man gives a woman a car they bothe know that that she may injure herself with it but they are not both responsible if she does so - she is responsible.
“If the woman made a “bad choice” by having sex, why does that not apply identically and equally to the man involved?”
Obviously not equally and identically, he can’t get pregnant.
“How did we get from the injustice of making men who are not fathers be legally responsible for children who are not theirs, to the absurd position that men cannot be at all responsible for children they do father?”
I don’t blame Welch for pointing out an apalling symptom of socialism, that’s fine. What’s far more apalling though is that hardly any of the commenters on a libertarian blog address the disease. The state has no business going after anyone here and it has no business extorting money to pay the welfare benefits in the first place. Is the libertarian position now that we need to fix welfare?
Welch’s piece should point out the futility of trying to patch a corrupt system, this is welfare reform after all. I bet Cato favored the reform that resulted in this. No doubt they will favor further reform with similar results.
I think we had a debate on the position JTK is defending in the old days of the Free-Market.net forums. One problem with that approach is that, conta JTK, “nature” does not place the responsibility for supporting a child anywhere. Nature leaves women with the burden of bearing the child. But “nature” doesn’t prevent her from leaving it on a street corner, human law does. So the question is: when a joint activity has the risk of creating costs like this, how do you divvy it up?
While the “nature” aspect of the argument is silly, the real force of it is supposed to come from this “last clear chance” argument–the woman has the final opportunity to avoid the cost.
But reliance on a “last clear chance” rule is more common for stuff like traffic accidents–torts between strangers. Without the spurious “natture” prop, the question is what the tacit understanding about the division of the burden should be. Is it that the woman should be willing to bear the full cost or get an abortion, or that they’ll split it? As long as the default rule can be contracted around, either should be OK, but since there are transaction costs to a case-by-case negotiation on this, the default does matter. So we should ask: what would the prevalent outcome be if we actually had to work out a contract whenever we had sex? My guess–and its admittedly a guess–is that enough men would agree to split the burden, and enough women reluctant to risk either having to either subject themselves to a procedure lots of folks have serious objections to or bear the whole burden that a burden-sharing norm would be pretty widespread. So it’s as plausible a default as placing the burden on the “last clear chance” avoider. As abortion technology improves and people become less squeamish about it, of course, that could change.
“I think we had a debate on the position JTK is defending in the old days of the Free-Market.net forums. One problem with that approach is that, conta JTK, “nature” does not place the responsibility for supporting a child anywhere.”
I said she was responsible for the consequnces to her, which means there is no basis to expect anyone else to pay for here choice. I could also argue that she’s morally obliged to support the child but that’s not necessary to this argument so I won’t. In any case I have no interest in compelling her to support her children.
“Nature leaves women with the burden of bearing the child. But “nature” doesn’t prevent her from leaving it on a street corner, human law does. So the question is: when a joint activity has the risk of creating costs like this, how do you divvy it up? ”
Cost to whom? What cost do you see here that needs to be divided up?
Julian,
As to arbitrary rules, consider this - right now we roughly have these default rules after conception:
A. The mother may abort or carry a child to term at her discretion.
Consider these alternative rule sets:
B. The father is entitled to require the woman to abort the child or carry it to term at his discretion.
C. The consent of both mother and father is required for abortion.
D. The consent of both mother and father is required to carry the child to term.
In all cases parties are free to contract around these default rules before conception. Do you see any reason to prefer one set of these rules to the others?
(I’m not endorsing abortion here, just comparing rules.)
How about this take:
WOMEN
(1) Choose whether or not to have sex;
(2) Choose whether or not to abort;
(3) Choose whether or not to give up the child for adoption;
Each choice allows the woman a complete out … that is, if she chooses to not have sex, to abort, or to give up for adoption, her obligation is finished - she just walks away.
MEN
(1) Choose whether or not to have sex;
That’s it. Men don’t get any other choices.
Now for the fun part: women’s choices (2) and (3) are paid for (in part) by the man, who doesn’t get any voice in making them.
mp3
music downloads
music
linkin park
ipod
free music downloads
kazaa
http://Mymusic1.pedronetwork.com
divorce
divorce advice
cheating spouse
infidelity
surviving infidelity
http://drreena.pedronetwork.com
bmg music
buy cds
bmg music service
bmg music club
cheap cds
free cds
cd clubs
buy rare cds
cd club
cd music club
free music cds
http://bmg-music.sweetbuyz.com
cat health
cat
cat care
cat diseases
cat health questions
http://chantalw.pedronetwork.com
weight loss
lose weight fast
fast weight loss
weight loss supplements
weight loss programs
http://4idiots.pedronetwork.com
golf
golf clubs
golf equipment
golf carts
golfing
golf tips
http://golf.sweetbuyz.com
rv
RV
rv trader
rv sales
motorhomes
rv rental
http://rv-publications.sweetbuyz.com
weight loss
obesity
nutrition
fitness
diets
fat
health
muscle
bodybuilding
exercise
vitamins
metabolism
supplements
steroids
muscle
http://burnthefat.pedronetwork.com
hair loss
hair loss treatment
hair restoration
thinning hair
hair loss solutions
http://hair-loss.crpublish.com
education
college
department of education
http://finishcollege.sweetbuyz.com
people finder
people search
background checks
search people
people finder free
http://people-finder.crpublish.com
pregnant
become pregnant
infertility
fertility
ivf
ovulation
getting pregnant
get pregnant
get pregnant trying
getting pregnant tip
getting pregnant tips
how to get pregnant
infertility
fertility
pregnant getting
to get pregnant
http://fertility.ocsparkle.com
allergies
allergy relief
allergy control products
allergy relief product
natural remedies
http://noallergy1.pedronetwork.com
people search
people finder
free people search
free people finder
http://people-search.crpublish.com
day care
child daycare
daycare center
starting a day care
home day care
http://daycare-business-guide.bargainfront.com
I’m love this great website. Many thanks guy
looking for information and found it at this great site.
Nice site. Thank to work…
Very Very nice information here… Thanks
Perfect pages… tnx