in which sabrina might almost be mistaken for a libertarian

[sophiaserpentia]

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

... Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.

... The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are "to identify groups ... most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range." Previous guidelines didn't mention targeting of an age group.

"We wanted to remind states they could use these funds not only to target adolescents," Horn said. "It's a reminder."

from Abstinence message goes beyond teens

Let that sink in for a moment. The government is paying people to tell adults they shouldn't have sex out of wedlock. Anyone want to guess who is going to be particularly targeted here? Here's a hint: have you ever been to a government assistance office?

The government does not exist to tell you how to live your life. The government exists to facilitate the decisions you, as a free person, make.

The government does not exist to tell you what language you may or may not speak, the government does not exist to tell you what religion you may or may not practice, the government does not exist to tell you what chemicals to put in your body or not put in your body, the government does not exist to tell you to have children or not have children, and the government sure as hell does not exist to tell you who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.

Some of these choices might not be as economically efficient as others, but economic efficiency is not the end-all-be-all of human existence, not even close.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

government welfare programs don't seem to be the answer.

Ultimately they are not. Ultimately the answer is for the human race to decide collectively that poverty is not acceptable. And when i say this, i am not speaking about "political solutions" (by which i mean the state or a meta-state like the UN implementing a policy) i mean a more fundamental transformation in human society and human nature.


And government has every right, IMO, like a parent, to say "If I support you then you'll live the way I think is right".

Hmm, you oppose government on the basis that it is force, but think that their use of coersion is right in this case?

The way i see it is, if we must have government at all, it is to facilitate our goals and make our lives easier. The government does not have the resources to do this without limit, and so a "bottomless entitlement" of any kind is not practical.

It does not help the situation for the government to impose conditions on assistance that they offer. These conditions are imposed ostensibly to "educate" welfare recipients, but the only thing recipients learn is how to be powerless and hopeless in the face of "the system." Very few come out of this system with the ability to successfully play our economic games.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Very few come out of this system with the ability to successfully play our economic games.

And beyond that, it is worth questioning the economic games we play. The primary function of our public school system is to prepare people for a life as wage serfs, to soften us up for a daily clockwork grind in a humiliating authoritarian machine that bases our "worth" on numerous criteria, many of which have little to do with the betterment of human life.